Comments

riredale wrote on 10/23/2004, 9:04 PM
I don't know for sure, but would assume that they could be either, depending on the electronics driving them. I assume they are just like DLP of LCD displays in that they are just large collections of pixels. As such, the pixel rows could be fired progressively or interlaced, as dictated by the monitor electronics.
rmack350 wrote on 10/23/2004, 10:43 PM
The screens themselves are progressive. However, they'll display 720p and 1080i. Render to the standard you want.

Rob Mack
Maxter wrote on 10/23/2004, 11:36 PM
well the problem is i did a test render using progressive and the computer graphics were kind of chattery when moving. i was wondering if rendering to lower or upper might help that or have no effect

thanks
B.Verlik wrote on 10/23/2004, 11:53 PM
Take a DVD-RW and render a 5 minute section of each and compare.
Coursedesign wrote on 10/24/2004, 10:50 AM
"Are Plasmas Monitors Progressive? Or should I encode Lower or Upper field first? the footage was shot at 30p but there are alot of computer graphics too."

If the footage was truly shot at 30p, keep the project in progressive all the way.

If you force the project to be interlaced, then create titles and moving graphics etc., then render to progressive, you may get ugly stuff in the output.

jaegersing wrote on 10/24/2004, 5:21 PM
In general, you need to be careful about computer graphics in video. It is all to easy to make features that are just too small to look good in video. The obvious examples are single-pixel lines and serif text. If you move these around and add scaling, the potential for serious flickering is there. In fact, for interlaced video it is very common to get flickering even without scaling, as some features may be missing from alternate fields.

As Coursedesign says, conversion between interlaced and progressive is not a good idea for moving graphics. You should try (where possible) to use chunky graphics with soft edges, non-serif fonts, and true progressive scan.

Richard Hunter