Blu-ray Forum - View Single Post - The march from Analogue to Digital: Why Interlace vs. Progressive Anyway?

geoperknis · 06-26-2007, 04:34 AM

As I ponder digital display technology, the whole concept of interlacing and progressive scanning seems inappropriate. I understand the original need for this process - an electron gun, aimed using analog amplifiers to scan back and forth across a phosphor coated tube - but now with discretely addressable digital emitters, there is no "scanning" and the concept of interlacing or progressive makes no sense what-so-ever. Every display pixel (all 2 billion of them) can be virtually instantly and simultaneously controlled to be on or off. There is no longer a need for marching orders from top-to-bottom, left-to-right and to fire in sequence... or is there? If so, why?

Looking for the digital elite out there to respond to this one.

06-26-2007, 04:34 AM	#1
geoperknis Junior Member Member since:Jun 2007	The march from Analogue to Digital: Why Interlace vs. Progressive Anyway? As I ponder digital display technology, the whole concept of interlacing and progressive scanning seems inappropriate. I understand the original need for this process - an electron gun, aimed using analog amplifiers to scan back and forth across a phosphor coated tube - but now with discretely addressable digital emitters, there is no "scanning" and the concept of interlacing or progressive makes no sense what-so-ever. Every display pixel (all 2 billion of them) can be virtually instantly and simultaneously controlled to be on or off. There is no longer a need for marching orders from top-to-bottom, left-to-right and to fire in sequence... or is there? If so, why? Looking for the digital elite out there to respond to this one.