AuggieBenDoggie said:
Thats not a vary fair approach to prove your point. Your using 1080p jpg's that have been modified to actually show the difference.
They have not been modified at all - cherry-picked to prove a point, perhaps. I chose a reasonable amount of compression for the jpeg and they are an accurate depiction of those two sections of an HDTV frame and a BD frame.
All media is interlaced on TV
"In the United States, 720p is the preferred format for the broadcast and cable networks of Fox/FX/Fox Sports Net, ABC/Disney Channel/ESPN, A&E Television Networks, Ion Television, MLB Network, and DirecTV's Audience Network."
Progressing scanning will give you a better picture.
That's a massive generalisation, and not relevant to already frame-based material.
I have a line conditioner hooked up to my cable box, and the picture looks fantastic, very clean looking compared to how it looks without one.
This is only relevant if the HDTV rips were made from an analogue cable broadcast, which seems extremely unlikely. If you're on digital cable and you can see a difference in picture quality with or without a line conditioner... well, I'll stop there, because you just can't, but I have some Monster cables you can buy off me.
(edited to add: actually this is probably not quite right. Line hum can cause waves and other distortions to get through to the TV via earth, but if you're capturing digitally, it won't make any difference)
Most people don't know this but the 1080i signal is actually a 1920x540 resolution signal where every other frame (actually called a field) is interlaced with the frame after it, giving you a perceived total resolution of 1920x1080
No, it gives you a perceived resolution of about 1920x756, if you're talking about truly interlaced material. For progressive material you get a perceived and actual resolution of 1920x1080 (barring some minor differences in how colour is processed).
DE