Path: utzoo!dciem!king
From: king@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Stephen King)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Frame rate (was: Re: HDTV and ATV Glossary (TN32))
Message-ID: <2434@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca>
Date: 22 Aug 89 17:00:53 GMT
References: <13130@well.UUCP> <17400006@hpfcdj.HP.COM>
Reply-To: king@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Stephen King)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 16

In article <17400006@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
> [...]     <flicker> is MUCH  worse in an
>interlaced display over a non-interlaced display of the same size and
>brightness at the same *frame* rate.  [...]
                         ^^^^^
This is a new one on me, Bob; how can 30Hz (frame rate) non-interlaced be
any better than 30Hz (frame rate) interlaced video, such as NTSC? Surely
both will have the same horizontal scan rate and will refresh lines at the
same rate, so why is there this difference? I think you have the relationship
backwards: the interlaced display will flicker LESS than the non-interlaced
one AT THE SAME FRAME RATE. (all other things being equal) If what you
state were true, there would be no need for interlace, n'est-ce pas? 

-- 
                       Se non e` vero, e` ben trovato 
     ...{utzoo|mnetor}!dciem!dretor!king        king@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca