Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!telesoft!dar
From: dar@telesoft.telesoft.com (David Reisner)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Frame rate (was: Re: HDTV and ATV Glossary (TN32))
Summary: field rate is the key
Message-ID: <470@telesoft.telesoft.com>
Date: 30 Aug 89 05:54:15 GMT
References: <13130@well.UUCP> <17400008@hpfcdj.HP.COM>
Organization: David Reisner, Consulting
Lines: 20

In article <17400008@hpfcdj.HP.COM>, myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
> ... 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 agree with the above.  The discussion about interlaced and non-interlaced
systems with the same frame rate may be true, but is largely irrelevent.
A common interlaced computer monitor would have a 60Hz field rate and a 30Hz
frame "rate".  A common non-interlaced monitor would have a 60Hz field and
frame rate (since they are the same).  Given these numbers, the non-interlaced
monitor will demonstrate less flicker and other objectionable artifacts in
almost all cases.

If someone disagrees significantly with my "common frame rate" estimates,
I am of course interested in hearing about it, but please include specific
information about some specific display systems (e.g. VGA).

-David
ucsd!telesoft!dar, dar@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu