<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Willy Boyd wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid4b2c56b00711060616p54fc8616rbb703e4ba1d60042@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Nov 2, 2007 5:23 PM, David Brodbeck <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gull@gull.us"><gull@gull.us></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Boy, never thought of that before. Are you saying it is more CPU
intensive to create an interlace signal that an full 1080p signal?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Not really, but a lot of video drivers don't support interlaced video
well. So it can be hard to configure.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
But this would be going by the assumption that the alternative (to a
1080p set), would be an interlaced, 1080i set, no? IOW if you have a
more common 720p set, this doesn't quite apply right? Well, aside
from the scaling that would be going on, but again there the distance
rule would apply. Just bringing it up because I myself couldn't
afford a 1080p set, but plugging up my 720p over HDMI was a snap.</pre>
</blockquote>
Willy, <br>
You are correct, my problem with interlaced goes away at 720p as
well. <br>
I guess I've got the Tim Taylor disease<br>
<br>
bigger, faster, more power - OH OH OH <br>
<br>
- Richard<br>
</body>
</html>