[X4U] Have a question and it doesn't belong in this group but I'm going to ask it anyway.

[keith_w]

Stroller wrote:
> 
> On 16 May 2007, at 17:54, keith_w wrote:
> 
>> Crandon David wrote:
>>> No diff. Just different ways of saying the same thing.


>> I'm not entirely sure that's true, David.
>> Doesn't the "i" part of the designation represent an 'interlaced' way 
>> of presenting the screen pixels?
>> Maybe I'm off base here, but, just in case...


> No, you're completely right.
> 
> I would prefer to assume that a product advertised at 1920 x 1080 was 
> capable of utilising that resolution at full frame-rates - i.e. 50+ hz. 
> We wouldn't regard an interlaced display as acceptable for our computer 
> monitors, but to be fair it's quite watchable for TV or movie playback.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080i#1080i_vs_1080p
> 
> Stroller.

Correct.
for most 'average' applications, one would be hard pressed to discern 
the difference between interlaced and not.
It's only when one insists on pushing the capability of viewing that it 
becomes important.
Each has it's place.

keith whaley

P.S. I thought my relatively new 32" Panasonic flat screen TV was 1080 X 
1920, but I find it's 1080i X 1920... Oh well. It was expensive enough 
as it is!
And I must say, the resolution is pretty fine. I can live with it  <big 
grin>