Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcso!hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers
From: myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Frame rate (was: Re: HDTV and ATV Glossary (TN32))
Message-ID: <17400008@hpfcdj.HP.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 89 20:27:43 GMT
References: <13130@well.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard -- Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 18

>> [...]     <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


Looks like the old rule of "open mouth - insert foot" still applies.  You are,
of course, correct; what I was *trying* to say - and stumbling over my tongue
badly in the process - was that there's a distinct difference between a
"60Hz non-interlaced" display, and a "60Hz interlaced" display.  In one
case, we're talking frame rate; in the other, the "60Hz" is, of course, the
*field* rate.  I should've said "vertical sweep frequency", but was trying to
make the distinction for those who only see the specs "interlaced/non-int."
both attached to the same "60Hz" number.

Bob "Gotta keep remembering to READ it before I send it off..." M.