At 03:42 PM 8/4/2011, Gregg Eshelman wrote:
>The only reason for interlaced video is due to the technological
>limitations of the cameras and televisions in the early years of television.
>
>Interlaced video could have been done away with not too long after
>the introduction of the transistor, but to maintain compatibility
>with the millions of old televisions already in use the interlaced
>format was kept.
I don't think that's really the case. Interlacing is a technique for
effectively doubling the frame rate (using alternating fields instead
of frames) to reduce motion capture problems without doubling the
data stream. That's why it's still used today by cable and satellite
companies striving to keep channel bandwidths down, that's why HDV
uses it, and I suspect it's why Canon includes a 60i option on their
camcorders.
Once we speed up the progressive frame rate past the human eye's
capability of discerning discrete frames (60p, I'd think) and don't
have to worry about the bandwidth, then I suspect interlace can go away.
But when do we ever not have to worry about bandwidth? As soon as our
camcorders bump to up 4K resolution, suddenly bandwidth is an issue again.
I suspect we haven't heard the last of interlacing for some time to come.
Mike Boom
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
