On Oct 6, 2005, at 6:11 PM, sb wrote: > Interlacing doesn't scale, the pixels do. The line size doesn't change. Hold on just a sec. How do you think a frame of digital video is interlaced? Each row of pixels is a different field. Example: Here's your interlaced video signal at 100% scale (1 is field 1, 2 is field 2): 11111111111111111111111111111 22222222222222222222222222222 11111111111111111111111111111 22222222222222222222222222222 11111111111111111111111111111 22222222222222222222222222222 11111111111111111111111111111 22222222222222222222222222222 If you blow that up 200%, the video will look like this in the same viewable area: 11111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111 22222222222222222222222222222 22222222222222222222222222222 11111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111 22222222222222222222222222222 22222222222222222222222222222 So, that's how the interlacing scales. Interlacing isn't magic -- it's just pixels, so if you scale the pixels, the interlacing is scaled as well, and you will see the lines prominently, especially in areas of motion. On the other hand, if you *de-interlace* the fields first and THEN scale it, it might look better, but de-interlacing involves duplication or interpolation of the interlaced lines of pixels, so it's not going to look perfect. On the other other hand, if you shoot progressive-scan video, there is no interlacing and the scaling will look much cleaner. Way more than 2 cents. - Mark