# Progressive vs. Interlaced?



## ODog4523 (Jan 6, 2009)

So I see that when watching TV on my cable box via HDMI, the resolution is at 1080i. When watching a movie or playing a game through my PS3 (also through HDMI), the displayed resolution is 1080 (no i or p after). After a quick scolding in which a Geek Squad guy said I shouldn't be running the PS3 through a reciever when they came by to check on my new plasma (unrelated issue), I started thinking about progressive/interlaced.

Does it still make that big a difference now that we're dealing with all digital media and connections? I could see how the "i" or "p" would matter back when we were using analog TV's, magnetic VHS tape, and copper or gold cables and such, but now?

Am I really missing out on much by seeing 1080 and not 1080p when running the PS3?


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

ODog4523 said:


> So I see that when watching TV on my cable box via HDMI, the resolution is at 1080i. When watching a movie or playing a game through my PS3 (also through HDMI), the displayed resolution is 1080 (no i or p after). After a quick scolding in which a Geek Squad guy said I shouldn't be running the PS3 through a reciever when they came by to check on my new plasma (unrelated issue), I started thinking about progressive/interlaced.
> 
> Does it still make that big a difference now that we're dealing with all digital media and connections? I could see how the "i" or "p" would matter back when we were using analog TV's, magnetic VHS tape, and copper or gold cables and such, but now?
> 
> Am I really missing out on much by seeing 1080 and not 1080p when running the PS3?


interlaced is every other line while progressive is every line. Whether you can tell the difference is up to you not us. My wife can't tell the difference between 4:3 and 16:9


----------



## chadnliz (Feb 12, 2010)

ODog4523 said:


> So I see that when watching TV on my cable box via HDMI, the resolution is at 1080i. When watching a movie or playing a game through my PS3 (also through HDMI), the displayed resolution is 1080 (no i or p after). After a quick scolding in which a Geek Squad guy said I shouldn't be running the PS3 through a reciever when they came by to check on my new plasma (unrelated issue), I started thinking about progressive/interlaced.
> 
> Does it still make that big a difference now that we're dealing with all digital media and connections? I could see how the "i" or "p" would matter back when we were using analog TV's, magnetic VHS tape, and copper or gold cables and such, but now?
> 
> Am I really missing out on much by seeing 1080 and not 1080p when running the PS3?


First as far as older sets they could not do anything above 480P via component video cable and otherwise did 480I, cable doesnt go higher than 1080i so thats why you see that on cable but for your games and movies it is 1080p (the display just doesnt do a "p" in its text).
Interlaced means for 1080I you have 540 lines vertical and 540 horizontal so where they meet they "interlace" with Progressive signal all 1080 lines are pure horizontal. I prefer a pure horizontal signal as I feel it has less artifacts but thats just my opinion, I actually prefer 720P over 1080I on smaller screens. Bottom line is if you can go 1080P you should, its the best there is right now.
As far as going with PS3 through reciver some units have better video scalers than the ones in your monitor and some will just let the signal pass thru but I will say while a direct path for video is most always best over another link in the chain I doubt it will degrade signal to the point you would notice, having the switching done via reciever is way more convenient so run it that way if you wish. I will only add that Geek Squad is like the Mcdonalds of AV service so dont always take their word as truth or end all be all................they dont always know what they are talking about.


----------



## Mike P. (Apr 6, 2007)

> Interlaced means for 1080I you have 540 lines vertical and 540 horizontal so where they meet they "interlace"


That is incorrect. Interlaced means images are painted in a two-pass process. The first pass fills in the odd numbered horizontal lines, leaving the even numbered horizontal lines blank, which are filled in by the second pass. Progressive paints all the lines in one pass.


> Am I really missing out on much by seeing 1080 and not 1080p when running the PS3?


 All TV's display an image in the native resolution of the TV. If the TV is 1080p then technically the best input would be 1080p from the PS3. Feeding a 1080i signal to a 1080p TV means the TV has to deinterlace the image so it can be displayed in 1080p. With either 1080i or p feeding a 1080p TV, I don't think you'll notice a difference.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

The Bigger the screen the more you will notice the quality of the source and also the scaling, so say you are using a PJ then 1080p is the best viewing experience, but it does depend on the quality of the video chip set doing the scaling or de-interlacing to the progressive film/video output.

On a normal HDTV say a 46" LCD Panel you would probably not notice it as compared to a 92" Projected image.


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

In this case, we're not talking scaling, but de-interlacing, which when done poorly, produces artifacts that are much easier to see even on small screens if one knows what one is looking at. 
If the source is BD in a PS3, chances are it's native 1080p, so feeding 1080p to a 1080p TV results in no interlacing/deinterlacing processes, so no artifacts (theoretically, at least). If the source is DVD in a PS3, well, then it has to be at least scaled, so bets are off, experiment with which device seems to do the better conversion.


----------

