'Apple brengt eigen tv in 32"- en 37"-versie uit'

Jammer eigenlijk van die 24 frames per seconde. De priemontbinding van 30 is veel gevarieerder dan die van 24. Daarnaast is 30 beeldjes per seconde ook gewoon wat vloeiender. Als ik later volwassen ben en ik start mijn eigen politieke partij dan zijn dit m'n speerpunten

- verbieden beeldmateriaal waarvan de refreshrate niet gedeeld wordt door 30
- afschaffen hypotheekrenteaftrek
- legaliseren wietteelt
- terugdringen staatschuld naar 0 euro

Aan mijn ogen mankeert niets, ik prefereer 720p op mijn Samsung plasma. Dat heeft niets met het aantal pixels te maken maar alles met dit:
http://www.hdtvnieuws.nl/...s-720-soms-meer-dan-1080/

Interlacen doet wel iets met de framerate, wel iets met de resolutie, want je hebt meer pixels met 1080i tov 720p. Nadeel ervan zie je echter goed bij de link die ik je geef; bewegingen zijn onscherper.

Hier nog een prachtig document:
http://www.poederbach.com/PDF's/MInder_is_mooier.pdf

Interlaced beter dan progessive ? > Myth Busted !

Nog nooit zoveel onzin gelezen. Interlaced brengt nadelen met zich mee, nadelen, die ervoor zorgen dat interlaced in vrijwel alle gevallen slechter beeld geeft dan progessive.

Interlaced kan het beeld alleen maar slechter weergeven en in het beste geval progessive benaderen.

[Reactie gewijzigd door Madrox op woensdag 28 december 2011 09:55]

Even je geheugen opfrissen:

To summarize why interlacing is a sin today.

1.Interlacing throws away half the spatial resolution and interpolates the missing fields to yield a progressive frame during playback. This is data and computationally inefficient and hurts spatial quality. Modern codecs perform much better on progressive video. The addition of interlacing alone makes the total code length unnecessary long. Take X264′s recent development for example. Revision R1956 – R1991 alone was entirely dedicated to make MBAFF interlacing possible in X264. As a free encoder it was already very good in feature set. With the addition, X264 is even more complete now. However X264 developers at their core don’t want anything to do with interlacing for the obvious reasons.

2.Interlacing is not fool proof. Uneducated engineers or consumers easily make fundamental mistakes when processing interlaced video. Common mistakes are encoding interlaced video as progressive video and thus not deinterlacing beforehand, or resizing interlaced video, which is even worse.

3.Interlaced video needs to be lowpassed in order to avoid typical side effects like flickering, twitter, etc. This softens the picture in most cases and therefore you lose details. These side effects are typical for interlacing and don’t occur with progressive video.

4.Interlaced video must be deinterlaced in order to view it on a progressive scan display. Deinterlacing, however, is never perfect and becomes computationally expensive when resolution increases. It’s not linear to resolution, more exponentially. The equipment we use today to view videos are progressive scan. Deinterlacing is a horrible process that’s mandatory if we want to watch videos today. As I said earlier: Interlacing is easy. Deinterlacing is a pain.

5.For post processing your videos it is often better for filters and effects to be applied on progressive video. If not you need to deinterlace and then re-interlace (if needed). Inefficient.

6.Interlacing is the foundation of all kinds of unnecessary difficult methods like telecine, 2:3 or 2:2 pulldown and “cheap” NTSC/PAL standards conversions and vice versa. Bad reversal methods before editing ultimately destroy the video to an irreversible state after going through several video editing companies.