If your display will handle 720p input, then choose 720p. It's lower resolution than 1080i, but you get a full 60fps refresh rate in 720p; 1080i only gets you 30fps. Also, if you have a CRT HDTV (or CRT based rear projection), 1080i can display interlacing artifacts during fast motion scenes.
If your display will handle 720p input, then choose 720p. It's lower resolution than 1080i, but you get a full 60fps refresh rate in 720p; 1080i only gets you 30fps. Also, if you have a CRT HDTV (or CRT based rear projection), 1080i can display interlacing artifacts during fast motion scenes. OldFart1968
Yeah, actually all X360 games are 720p right now. The 360's hardware has the ability to upconvert it to 1080i/p. 1080i looks a little less jaggy with still images but with motion images you can see more bluring of the image. I'd stick with 720p or if you have a 1080p display that can support the 360's outputs you can use that. 1080i is really for movies. Also, most display are 720p. Even though they support displaying 1080i images you will still only get a 720p image which will be deinterlaced to 30fps. If you set the 360 to use 720p you will get the full 60fps.
It's lower resolution than 1080i, but you get a full 60fps refresh rate in 720p; 1080i only gets you 30fps.OldFart1968
This statement isn't really correct. 1080i displays can produce 60fps, its not a hardwired rule that 1080i produces only 30fps and 720p is 60fps.Â
To answer the original poster's question... http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/1544/The-Facts-and-Fiction-of-1080p/p1/
This article gives a good explaination of the differences and the benefits of displaying in 720p. For games, 720 is definitely a better "mode" to be in since there is a lot of fast action and progressive is inherently better than interlaced.
that's not true either. 1080i IS 60fps every half frame. So every other image is only 540 lines of resolution. This saves bandwidth but also, because the frame change happens so fast, gives the eye the illusion that it is seeing an actual 1080 line of res. image. 1080i is considered by many to be only 30fps even though it runs at 60fps. You only receive a full image after seeing 2 frames. 60 divided by 2 is 30. There, nuff said.
[QUOTE="OldFart1968"] It's lower resolution than 1080i, but you get a full 60fps refresh rate in 720p; 1080i only gets you 30fps.Boostd4
This statement isn't really correct. 1080i displays can produce 60fps, its not a hardwired rule that 1080i produces only 30fps and 720p is 60fps.Â
To answer the original poster's question... http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/1544/The-Facts-and-Fiction-of-1080p/p1/
This article gives a good explaination of the differences and the benefits of displaying in 720p. For games, 720 is definitely a better "mode" to be in since there is a lot of fast action and progressive is inherently better than interlaced.
Plat Panel displays are progressive native, meaning 720p will look better than 1080i on it. CRT Tube TVs are interlaced native. meaning it can handle 1080i without seeing artifacts while being a higher resolution. I have a 1080i Sony widescreen HDTV and I have used both 720p and 1080i on it and 1080i is the hands down winner.
alot of these posters unfortunately don't know what they are talking about BECAUSE 720p IN NO WAY LOOKS BETTER THAN 1080i, u just get the full frames with 720p, why and how in the hell do u guys think a lower res will look better than a higher res do u really think 720p (1280x720) looks better than 1080i (1920x1080) uh hell no if u think so ur vision might be impaired, the best thing do with HD is to set the res as close to ur TV's navtive res as possible to get the best HD pic it just depends on the scaler from then on whether it be ur TV,360,player etc. and to answer the original poster's question 1080i looks better trust me but it won't matter if ur TV's native res is 720p just set it as close to the native res I just bought a 40"inch Samsung LCD HDTV (1366x768 native res) but HD-DVD's still look much better on my 4 year old 32" inch Zenith CRT HDTV 1080i
Set it to yuor tvs native resolution. God not one of you were correct this is depressing.trickmyster13
even though u need a spell check lol, u beat me to it I feel ya man it make u not wanna ask anyone for help here because noone seems to know what the heck they are talking about LOL
that's not true either. 1080i IS 60fps every half frame. So every other image is only 540 lines of resolution. This saves bandwidth but also, because the frame change happens so fast, gives the eye the illusion that it is seeing an actual 1080 line of res. image. 1080i is considered by many to be only 30fps even though it runs at 60fps. You only receive a full image after seeing 2 frames. 60 divided by 2 is 30. There, nuff said.cspiffo
Well, I guess it depends on your interpretation then...
[QUOTE="cspiffo"]that's not true either. 1080i IS 60fps every half frame. So every other image is only 540 lines of resolution. This saves bandwidth but also, because the frame change happens so fast, gives the eye the illusion that it is seeing an actual 1080 line of res. image. 1080i is considered by many to be only 30fps even though it runs at 60fps. You only receive a full image after seeing 2 frames. 60 divided by 2 is 30. There, nuff said.Boostd4
Well, I guess it depends on your interpretation then... It's not really an interpretation. If you consider what is really going on with the resolutions in interlaced and progressive formats. at 1080i you are actually getting 1920X540 60fps, At 720p you are getting 1280X720 60fps. If you also take the screens refresh rate into account, especially on lcd tv's, you will see a much clearer image at 720p than 1080i!
alot of these posters unfortunately don't know what they are talking about BECAUSE 720p IN NO WAY LOOKS BETTER THAN 1080i, u just get the full frames with 720p, why and how in the hell do u guys think a lower res will look better than a higher res do u really think 720p (1280x720) looks better than 1080i (1920x1080) uh hell no if u think so ur vision might be impaired, the best thing do with HD is to set the res as close to ur TV's navtive res as possible to get the best HD pic it just depends on the scaler from then on whether it be ur TV,360,player etc. and to answer the original poster's question 1080i looks better trust me but it won't matter if ur TV's native res is 720p just set it as close to the native resProjectPat187
Excerpt from the article I posted... "Conclusion: 720p is better than 1080i in HDTV because the highest 1080 line formats (1080i60 and 1080p30) as defined in the ATSC standard, deliver only a few more pixels per second than the highest 720p variant (720p60). 1080i delivers a higher quality visual when static images are broadcasted. As soon as you have fast changes in the visuals, 720p look as good or better than 1080i. " Now...I'm sure that this guy isn't "the" expert on the subject of HD displays...but I doubt you are either (as I am not). But based on the facts presented it makes sense, especially on the subject of moving pictures (i.e. video games). But as stated before, it comes down to how you personally interpret the pictures you're seeing.
CRT Tubes are not natively interlaced. If that were true all old CRT Computer monitors would be interlaced but they are not.Â
To those of you compare LCD display tech to old CRT tech; You really can't compare the two! CRT will always win regardless.
ProjectPat187
there is no comparison to anything, CRT's give the best pic to anything period, CRT's bulk is its only downfall Yup, That's the way it is. Personally though. From a pure asthetic point of view I would go with any flat panel over a CRT. They Just look nicer and they don't take up 2-4 feet of space. I miss the picture quality though.
[QUOTE="ProjectPat187"]alot of these posters unfortunately don't know what they are talking about BECAUSE 720p IN NO WAY LOOKS BETTER THAN 1080i, u just get the full frames with 720p, why and how in the hell do u guys think a lower res will look better than a higher res do u really think 720p (1280x720) looks better than 1080i (1920x1080) uh hell no if u think so ur vision might be impaired, the best thing do with HD is to set the res as close to ur TV's navtive res as possible to get the best HD pic it just depends on the scaler from then on whether it be ur TV,360,player etc. and to answer the original poster's question 1080i looks better trust me but it won't matter if ur TV's native res is 720p just set it as close to the native resBoostd4
Excerpt from the article I posted... "Conclusion: 720p is better than 1080i in HDTV because the highest 1080 line formats (1080i60 and 1080p30) as defined in the ATSC standard, deliver only a few more pixels per second than the highest 720p variant (720p60). 1080i delivers a higher quality visual when static images are broadcasted. As soon as you have fast changes in the visuals, 720p look as good or better than 1080i. " Now...I'm sure that this guy isn't "the" expert on the subject of HD displays...but I doubt you are either (as I am not). But based on the facts presented it makes sense, especially on the subject of moving pictures (i.e. video games). But as stated before, it comes down to how you personally interpret the pictures you're seeing. I have never experience any blurriness or issues with fast moving images at 1080i thats why I prefer more pixels than full frames
CRT Tubes are not natively interlaced. If that were true all old CRT Computer monitors would be interlaced but they are not.Â
To those of you compare LCD display tech to old CRT tech; You really can't compare the two! CRT will always win regardless.
cspiffo
there is no comparison to anything, CRT's give the best pic to anything period, CRT's bulk is its only downfall Yup, That's the way it is. Personally though. From a pure asthetic point of view I would go with any flat panel over a CRT. They Just look nicer and they don't take up 2-4 feet of space. I miss the picture quality though.
Yup, I have my 360 hooked up to my good ol Samsung 30" CRT HDTV. Much sharper than the 42" projection in the living room and about tied with the Sharp 42" LCD...although I haven't tried it on the Sharp since the 1080p update..hummmmm.
[QUOTE="Boostd4"][QUOTE="ProjectPat187"]alot of these posters unfortunately don't know what they are talking about BECAUSE 720p IN NO WAY LOOKS BETTER THAN 1080i, u just get the full frames with 720p, why and how in the hell do u guys think a lower res will look better than a higher res do u really think 720p (1280x720) looks better than 1080i (1920x1080) uh hell no if u think so ur vision might be impaired, the best thing do with HD is to set the res as close to ur TV's navtive res as possible to get the best HD pic it just depends on the scaler from then on whether it be ur TV,360,player etc. and to answer the original poster's question 1080i looks better trust me but it won't matter if ur TV's native res is 720p just set it as close to the native resProjectPat187
Excerpt from the article I posted... "Conclusion: 720p is better than 1080i in HDTV because the highest 1080 line formats (1080i60 and 1080p30) as defined in the ATSC standard, deliver only a few more pixels per second than the highest 720p variant (720p60). 1080i delivers a higher quality visual when static images are broadcasted. As soon as you have fast changes in the visuals, 720p look as good or better than 1080i. " Now...I'm sure that this guy isn't "the" expert on the subject of HD displays...but I doubt you are either (as I am not). But based on the facts presented it makes sense, especially on the subject of moving pictures (i.e. video games). But as stated before, it comes down to how you personally interpret the pictures you're seeing. I have never experience any blurriness or issues with fast moving images at 1080i thats why I prefer more pixels than full frames
I think it also comes down to what type of display you're using. As you mentioned...CRTs just have a bit of an edge. Although, my new LCD may trump it....gotta try that 1080p update tonight.
CRT Tubes are not natively interlaced. If that were true all old CRT Computer monitors would be interlaced but they are not.Â
To those of you compare LCD display tech to old CRT tech; You really can't compare the two! CRT will always win regardless.
Boostd4
there is no comparison to anything, CRT's give the best pic to anything period, CRT's bulk is its only downfall Yup, That's the way it is. Personally though. From a pure asthetic point of view I would go with any flat panel over a CRT. They Just look nicer and they don't take up 2-4 feet of space. I miss the picture quality though.
Yup, I have my 360 hooked up to my good ol Samsung 30" CRT HDTV. Much sharper than the 42" projection in the living room and about tied with the Sharp 42" LCD...although I haven't tried it on the Sharp since the 1080p update..hummmmm.
Trust me that CRT is not tied what that LCD maybe to u, I have a Samsung 40"inch LCD HDTV which by the way makes the best picture quality LCD's on the planet, but like i said in my previous post my 4 year old Zenith 32"inch CRT HDTV crushes it in the picture quality department
CRT Tubes are not natively interlaced. If that were true all old CRT Computer monitors would be interlaced but they are not.Â
To those of you compare LCD display tech to old CRT tech; You really can't compare the two! CRT will always win regardless.
Boostd4
there is no comparison to anything, CRT's give the best pic to anything period, CRT's bulk is its only downfall Yup, That's the way it is. Personally though. From a pure asthetic point of view I would go with any flat panel over a CRT. They Just look nicer and they don't take up 2-4 feet of space. I miss the picture quality though.
Yup, I have my 360 hooked up to my good ol Samsung 30" CRT HDTV. Much sharper than the 42" projection in the living room and about tied with the Sharp 42" LCD...although I haven't tried it on the Sharp since the 1080p update..hummmmm.
Oh God! Projection TV's are the worst of all TV's. I seriously don't know how people can watch those, especially the CRT ones (The viewing angle is atrocious)! You Should really try that 1080p thing out. Let us all know what It looks like. How's the contrast on that Sharp? That's my biggest beef on LCDs
Well I have a 56" Samsung DLP and 1080i looks alot worse than 720p, my tv is 1080p but doesnt support it through component and I dont want the VGA cause the image gets that washed out look. But yeah, setting it to your tv's native resolution will help, but in the end progressive images will look better to most people.
They are both equal if i had to of the same tv next to each other and had one on 720p and one on 1080i you couldn't tell the difference. Litterally it is impossible with the naked eye. 720 proggresive lines of are equal 1080 interlaced lines.
I agree that most people probably cannot really differentiate between 720p and 1080i. I play on my Sony 30" widescreen CRT HDTV on 720p and the picture is awesome. I think you have to play with the color, temperature and brightness settings to see what works best. I never rely on what I see in the stores as they set each TV to settings that make movies look good. You have to tinker with the settings to see which picture is best. I couldn't say for sure if the CRT pictures are better than an LCD's. I just got a Panasonic 32" LCD and have only turned it on once. I think they are making good strides on the contrast ratios as well as the refresh rates on LCDs, so if they haven't surpassed CRTs in picture quality it won't be long. Either way, my Sony is making Oblivion, GoW and my other games look freakin' cool, so I will not complain!
CRT Tubes are not natively interlaced. If that were true all old CRT Computer monitors would be interlaced but they are not.Â
To those of you compare LCD display tech to old CRT tech; You really can't compare the two! CRT will always win regardless.
cspiffo
there is no comparison to anything, CRT's give the best pic to anything period, CRT's bulk is its only downfall Yup, That's the way it is. Personally though. From a pure asthetic point of view I would go with any flat panel over a CRT. They Just look nicer and they don't take up 2-4 feet of space. I miss the picture quality though.
Yup, I have my 360 hooked up to my good ol Samsung 30" CRT HDTV. Much sharper than the 42" projection in the living room and about tied with the Sharp 42" LCD...although I haven't tried it on the Sharp since the 1080p update..hummmmm.
Oh God! Projection TV's are the worst of all TV's. I seriously don't know how people can watch those, especially the CRT ones (The viewing angle is atrocious)! You Should really try that 1080p thing out. Let us all know what It looks like. How's the contrast on that Sharp? That's my biggest beef on LCDs
Haha, yeah well the projection was a $700 after Thanksgiving special during the "poor" days. The contrast on the Sharp Aquos series is pretty amazing, especially when hooked up to an HDDVD or BluRay player. There is no noticeable ghosting that a lot of LCDs fall prey to. The refresh rate is in the neighborhood of 4ms, or so Sharp says anyway. Super dark blacks and the colors pop extremely well.
CRT Tubes are not natively interlaced. If that were true all old CRT Computer monitors would be interlaced but they are not.Â
To those of you compare LCD display tech to old CRT tech; You really can't compare the two! CRT will always win regardless.
ProjectPat187
there is no comparison to anything, CRT's give the best pic to anything period, CRT's bulk is its only downfall Yup, That's the way it is. Personally though. From a pure asthetic point of view I would go with any flat panel over a CRT. They Just look nicer and they don't take up 2-4 feet of space. I miss the picture quality though.
Yup, I have my 360 hooked up to my good ol Samsung 30" CRT HDTV. Much sharper than the 42" projection in the living room and about tied with the Sharp 42" LCD...although I haven't tried it on the Sharp since the 1080p update..hummmmm.
Trust me that CRT is not tied what that LCD maybe to u, I have a Samsung 40"inch LCD HDTV which by the way makes the best picture quality LCD's on the planet, but like i said in my previous post my 4 year old Zenith 32"inch CRT HDTV crushes it in the picture quality department
I literally did a side by side comparo between the two, carried the 30" downstairs with the help of a friend and had 2 360s going (I'll never do that again btw). It was impossible to see a clear winner, the Sharp was simply larger. I did look at the Samsungs when shopping for an LCD...but honestly the Sharp seemed to have better blacks and richer colors. There was also noticiable ghosting on the Samsung (the model is escaping my memory at the moment), very minimal, but enough to sway me towards the Sharp. I'm not knocking the Samsung at all...just my preference.
Well I have a 56" Samsung DLP and 1080i looks alot worse than 720p, my tv is 1080p but doesnt support it through component and I dont want the VGA cause the image gets that washed out look. But yeah, setting it to your tv's native resolution will help, but in the end progressive images will look better to most people. OneLessFinger
I have the same TV and I prefer it in 1080i. Consider the fact that any 2005 and earlier Samsung DLP 1080p will not accept a true 1080p signal but its native resolution is in fact 1080p. It upconverts all signals to its native resolution so if you give it 720p it is still upconverting to 1080p so you really should see a better picture by giving it the full resolution and having the TV just project both images together to prodece the 1080p, much less converting and thus a better picture. I have tried both settings and the 1080i setting produces a way better picture IMO with no artifacts or blurring what so ever. Also for the geniuses who consider CRT to be the end all be all of HDTV, try expanding that 32" TV to a 56" or 60" screen and see if you still think it prodeuces the best image, sorry but it is apples and oranges.
[QUOTE="OneLessFinger"]Well I have a 56" Samsung DLP and 1080i looks alot worse than 720p, my tv is 1080p but doesnt support it through component and I dont want the VGA cause the image gets that washed out look. But yeah, setting it to your tv's native resolution will help, but in the end progressive images will look better to most people. rwoot
I have the same TV and I prefer it in 1080i. Consider the fact that any 2005 and earlier Samsung DLP 1080p will not accept a true 1080p signal but its native resolution is in fact 1080p. It upconverts all signals to its native resolution so if you give it 720p it is still upconverting to 1080p so you really should see a better picture by giving it the full resolution and having the TV just project both images together to prodece the 1080p, much less converting and thus a better picture. I have tried both settings and the 1080i setting produces a way better picture IMO with no artifacts or blurring what so ever. Also for the geniuses who consider CRT to be the end all be all of HDTV, try expanding that 32" TV to a 56" or 60" screen and see if you still think it prodeuces the best image, sorry but it is apples and oranges. Dude you shouldn't be so harsh on CRT technology. The only reason Manufacturers are moving away from it is due to bulk and cost. LCD's are cheaper to manufacture. CRT have always had the better picture. Cannon is actually producing a tv that uses micro CRTs to produce a picture much like how LCD's produce an image. The only diference is that you get none of the drawbacks of response time (refresh rate) or contrast. The only prohibitive factor of these TVs, I think they're called SED-TVs, is the price right now. Just imagine the picture Quality of a CRT at the screen sizes of LCD and Plasma! Those TVs are going to be AWSOME! Go CRT tech!
CRT Tubes are not natively interlaced. If that were true all old CRT Computer monitors would be interlaced but they are not.Â
To those of you compare LCD display tech to old CRT tech; You really can't compare the two! CRT will always win regardless.
cspiffo
there is no comparison to anything, CRT's give the best pic to anything period, CRT's bulk is its only downfall Yup, That's the way it is. Personally though. From a pure asthetic point of view I would go with any flat panel over a CRT. They Just look nicer and they don't take up 2-4 feet of space. I miss the picture quality though.
Yup, I have my 360 hooked up to my good ol Samsung 30" CRT HDTV. Much sharper than the 42" projection in the living room and about tied with the Sharp 42" LCD...although I haven't tried it on the Sharp since the 1080p update..hummmmm.
Oh God! Projection TV's are the worst of all TV's. I seriously don't know how people can watch those, especially the CRT ones (The viewing angle is atrocious)! You Should really try that 1080p thing out. Let us all know what It looks like. How's the contrast on that Sharp? That's my biggest beef on LCDs
CRT Projection HDTV's can have a great picture if you set it up properly. I have the 51" Hitachi 51F59A and love everybit of it. The only downside to it it that you can have screen-burn and is bulkier than micro displays (DLP/LCD projection), but it is much cheaper (mine was $900) and have better black levels, and don't have to have bulbs replaced.Â
I also have a 32" LCD in my computer room and have a 28" CRT HDTV in my bedroom
CRT Tubes are not natively interlaced. If that were true all old CRT Computer monitors would be interlaced but they are not.Â
To those of you compare LCD display tech to old CRT tech; You really can't compare the two! CRT will always win regardless.
BadAndy642
there is no comparison to anything, CRT's give the best pic to anything period, CRT's bulk is its only downfall Yup, That's the way it is. Personally though. From a pure asthetic point of view I would go with any flat panel over a CRT. They Just look nicer and they don't take up 2-4 feet of space. I miss the picture quality though.
Yup, I have my 360 hooked up to my good ol Samsung 30" CRT HDTV. Much sharper than the 42" projection in the living room and about tied with the Sharp 42" LCD...although I haven't tried it on the Sharp since the 1080p update..hummmmm.
Oh God! Projection TV's are the worst of all TV's. I seriously don't know how people can watch those, especially the CRT ones (The viewing angle is atrocious)! You Should really try that 1080p thing out. Let us all know what It looks like. How's the contrast on that Sharp? That's my biggest beef on LCDs
CRT Projection HDTV's can have a great picture if you set it up properly. I have the 51" Hitachi 51F59A and love everybit of it. The only downside to it it that you can have screen-burn and is bulkier than micro displays (DLP/LCD projection), but it is much cheaper (mine was $900) and have better black levels, and don't have to have bulbs replaced.Â
I also have a 32" LCD in my computer room and have a 28" CRT HDTV in my bedroom
They still will never beat direct view screens though. There are too many better choices for a large screen picture; they are damn cheap though...I still don't like 'em. My brother-in-law has a 50" Sony (don't know the model #) CRT HD projection TV. I always find myself having to adjust my position just to see a clear screen. That's not very fun having to adjust your lounging habits to your TV.
that's not true either. 1080i IS 60fps every half frame. So every other image is only 540 lines of resolution. This saves bandwidth but also, because the frame change happens so fast, gives the eye the illusion that it is seeing an actual 1080 line of res. image. 1080i is considered by many to be only 30fps even though it runs at 60fps. You only receive a full image after seeing 2 frames. 60 divided by 2 is 30. There, nuff said.cspiffo
RIGHT you are. The previous poster also ignores the fact that standard de-interlacing for all non-CRT displays combine both interlaced frames into a single progressive frame that is then updated 30 times a second. This is because no display device but CRTs can utilize phosphorous' persistence of photon emission upon electron excitation (not even plasma, as that uses UV to excite phosphorous). Every other display technology (LCD, Plasma, DLP, LCoS, etc) cannot display a real interlaced image without significant interlacing artifacts.
CRT Tubes are not natively interlaced. If that were true all old CRT Computer monitors would be interlaced but they are not.Â
To those of you compare LCD display tech to old CRT tech; You really can't compare the two! CRT will always win regardless.
Boostd4
there is no comparison to anything, CRT's give the best pic to anything period, CRT's bulk is its only downfall Yup, That's the way it is. Personally though. From a pure asthetic point of view I would go with any flat panel over a CRT. They Just look nicer and they don't take up 2-4 feet of space. I miss the picture quality though.
Yup, I have my 360 hooked up to my good ol Samsung 30" CRT HDTV. Much sharper than the 42" projection in the living room and about tied with the Sharp 42" LCD...although I haven't tried it on the Sharp since the 1080p update..hummmmm.
Trust me that CRT is not tied what that LCD maybe to u, I have a Samsung 40"inch LCD HDTV which by the way makes the best picture quality LCD's on the planet, but like i said in my previous post my 4 year old Zenith 32"inch CRT HDTV crushes it in the picture quality department
I literally did a side by side comparo between the two, carried the 30" downstairs with the help of a friend and had 2 360s going (I'll never do that again btw). It was impossible to see a clear winner, the Sharp was simply larger. I did look at the Samsungs when shopping for an LCD...but honestly the Sharp seemed to have better blacks and richer colors. There was also noticiable ghosting on the Samsung (the model is escaping my memory at the moment), very minimal, but enough to sway me towards the Sharp. I'm not knocking the Samsung at all...just my preference.
its just the model of ur CRT because I bet ya if u did that same comparo with my Zenith CRT HDTV it would be a different story because TV I compared it to was my Samsung LCD HDTV and trust me the pic on my Samsung looks much better than the Sharp u have (let alone its known Samsung and Sony makes some of the best LCD screens on the planet) because I was gonna get one of those before I bought my Sammy.
CRT Tubes are not natively interlaced. If that were true all old CRT Computer monitors would be interlaced but they are not.
To those of you compare LCD display tech to old CRT tech; You really can't compare the two! CRT will always win regardless.
cspiffo
This is true; all SDTV televisions utilize interlacing due to ATSC standards set in the early 1960s. But since the 1980s (and in broadcast earlier), CRT monitors with RGB input have supported progressive scanning. However, CRTs are the only type which can natively display interlaced signals. The trick to understanding interlacing is that the phosphorus backing on a CRT will continue outputting photons for several milliseconds after having been excited by an electron beam. Thus, the electron gun on a CRT can scan an entire interlaced frame across the screen and have it persist as an image (like an afterimage) while it paints the second interlaced frame. So, it's true that each half frame gets painted once every 60 seconds, but it takes two half frames to draw a full image on screen.
This is why for every other display type, an interlaced image must be de-interlaced, recombined in a secondary framebuffer, and then sent back out to the display in progressive mode. Every other type of digital display doesn't have (the very analog aspect of) phosphor's persistence and thus will flicker very badly if displaying a true interlaced signal.
i have had mine set to 720P since i had it and i love it on 720P GEARS OF WAR looks great but we shall see come 04/29/2007 when i get my elite ans finally get to use my 1080p on something other then this piece of crap PS3 i waisted $600 on.
Log in to comment