Tweet
Progressive vs Interlaced for monitor viewing
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If a video project was recorded on a progressive frame camera at 30fps (GL10) that video could be played on a computer monitor without deinterlacing and it would show NO interlacing artifacts. Correct?
On the other hand a camera recording 30fps in the interlaced mode (TRV900) would have to be deinterlaced to appear "right" on a computer monitor.
I'm asking because I like to compress projects to MPEG II for computer viewing and distributing on CDR's. Seems like a camera capable of 30fps progressive scan would do much better when being compressed by TMPEnc. I mean the final output would be much clearer.
If a video project was recorded on a progressive frame camera at 30fps (GL10) that video could be played on a computer monitor without deinterlacing and it would show NO interlacing artifacts. Correct?
On the other hand a camera recording 30fps in the interlaced mode (TRV900) would have to be deinterlaced to appear "right" on a computer monitor.
I'm asking because I like to compress projects to MPEG II for computer viewing and distributing on CDR's. Seems like a camera capable of 30fps progressive scan would do much better when being compressed by TMPEnc. I mean the final output would be much clearer.