|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Interline twitter explanation
The explanation is bogus and does not make sense, please correct it or insert citation that explains it in the current way.
The deffect explained here sounds like TV's strobing
Leon Theremin a inventor of television and the inventor of 'interlaced' technique?
"The concept of breaking a single video frame into interlaced 'fields' was first demonstrated by Russian inventor Léon Theremin in 1927" (Albert Glinsky: Theramin, University of Illinois Press, 2000)
First of all, I do not doubt that Theremin invented his electronic instrument "Theramin" and other things in the 1920s. These are proven facts.
But with all respect, I very much doubt this whole Theremin / television inventor / interlaced inventor stuff. This sounds like one of those classic Russian/Soviet falsifications to me.
The whole story is just based on a single source, which is the book mentioned above - published in 2000. The other source would be Theremin's own few lines about this topic in the book "A.F. Joffe - Memories [my own translation], Academy of Sciences Press [again my own translation], Moscow, 1973", offering a phantastic story how he invented television devices with a few lines up to 62 and even 120 lines (incorporating interlaced 'lines' technique) within 2 or 3 (!) years (from 1924 or 1925 to 1927) as part of his academic thesis! Moreover, he was travelling a lot during that period to present his 'Theramin', to negotiate lincence issues for his 'Theramin', etc. His alleged development of television of course had to be temporary halted during his extensive travels in 1925/26. He also claims to have invented in 1927 a portable(!) camera or whole television system with 100 lines, which could operate outdoor and under daylight conditions! (Meaning without any additional light source - in 1927!!!)
Should these claims be true, Theremin would have been ways ahead of all other television pioneers. I think - and 'early television buffs' would agree - about one decade ahead wouldn't be exaggerated in this case. The story of early television would have to be rewritten.
The stupid thing, now, about all of these phantastic 'achievements' regarding television devices is that there is not a single proof for not even one of these claims. No photos, no patent files, no drawings, no working schemes, no technical descriptions, nothing detailed and nothing general, no presentations (he travelled a lot and had his own laboratory in the US during the early 1930s), no contemporary articles. Absolutely nothing. Zero.
However, Theremin himself claims that there had been an article in the magazine Ogonyok [my own translation] in the 1920s. But even if that would be true, it wouldn't change anything about the non-existing proofs: Theremin maybe indeed has written a (theoretic) thesis about television and maybe did some research. But if one remembers the tons of propaganda, which had been put out especially by the early Soviet Union, to show how 'progressive' and 'modern' the largely backwards country was, it is not unlikely that Ogonyok somehow 'sexed up' its article a little bit.
There is some literature about Theremin from (communist) East Germany, a soviet puppet state, which glorified everything Soviet/Russian. Theremin had been a big celebrity in East Germany due to his various achievements. But in none of this literature, if at all, I could discover anything new about his alleged achievements in the field of television. It's always the same few statements, which I tried to give above in my own words.
So I have good reason to assume that this whole 'Theremin-television story' is nothing more than a huge fake!
I can only hope that it's only Russian chauvinists that spread such allegations via the 'University of Illinois Press' and all over corresponding Wikipedia articles.
I for my part will erase those non-proven statements about Theremin and television.
- The mention of Theremin seems to be back, but I agree with this post from 4 years ago. Glinsky's book on Theremin is sensationalist more than anything, and I do not consider it a reliable source on the history of television technology. I cannot say anything about the Russian literature, but I am dealing quite comprehensively with the history of frame rates and have yet to encounter a credible mention of Theremin. In this respect, Schröter's work with interlaced phototelegraphy around 1928 is much more interesting and properly documented. I will remove the mention of Theremin if there are no objections. K37b8e4fd (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
switching between in interlaced and progressive scan
How can PAL, NTSC, VGA, SCART switch between progressive (like 240p) and interlaced scan. Is it just timing? Just a single sentence with a reference would suffice (and you know the correct section). It would add hard facts to the article and we could remove some of the advantage/disadvantage stuff. -- Arnero (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Text in lede
I am here in response to a request posted on the NPOV noticeboard.
The question was about the sentence, "Interlace is a technique of improving the picture quality of a video signal without consuming extra bandwidth", which currently is the first sentence of the article. It is my opinion that this is not NPOV. It would be better to say something like, "Interlace is a technique of displaying video." Then subsequently, its quality could be compared to other video display techniques (without saying one is improved over the other) and its bandwidth use could likewise be compared. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the original statement is uncontroversially true. Given a fixed analog bandwidth and no digital processing, an interlaced signal would always look better then a progressive one. That is why none of the analog standards are progressive. Once digital compression is involved, that changes the rules because MPEG does a much better job of reducing bandwidth then interlace. Algr (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did not speak clearly so I think you misunderstand. The statement says "improved", but does not say improved with regard to what, and is therefore giving a subjective opinion rather than an objective comparison. What you just wrote sounds much better, if it is not controversial that in all circumstances an interlaced signal always looks better than a progressive one. I know absolutely nothing about this topic; I am just commenting on the pov of the grammar and word choice in the statement. Blue Rasberry 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- MPEG is also often interlaced. Digital encoding changes nothing. Today it is the difference of recorded media: Movies: 25fps progressive, TV: 60fps broadcast as interlaced, either analog or digital. Carewolf (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Digital encoding, (and specifically compression) changes things radically because with a compression, you can no longer assume that two images with the same pixel count and bit depth will have the same picture quality. A video DVD running at 1200 kbps will look much better then one running at 300 kbps for example even though they are both 480/60i. This is why you can't add interlace to 720p and produce 1440i. Algr (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that the original statement is uncontroversially true...
- User:Algr said some interesting things on the WP:NPOVN. Here is a quote from this which I feel summarizes the content. "But video signals can be designed in a wide variety of ways, so there is no obvious choice as to which two signals to compare." Read the rest here.
- The sentence in question is still "Interlace is a technique of improving the picture quality of a video signal without consuming extra bandwidth." I really know nothing about this topic, but if I understand Algr, there was not a point when video was widely used without interlace, and thus there are no established or popular terms for non-interlace video. Could we go another route with this and instead of comparing it to something else, describe the cost of the improvement?
- There must be some drawback, otherwise interlaced video could be further interlaced indefinitely. I think qualifying the improvement would be another way of stating a comparison. The picture improves up to a certain point, then some attribute becomes compromised, and so interlacing is only a technique for improving video with less interlacing than that point, right?
- And we are only talking about the human perception of the presentation of a video signal, right? The video is actually being made a lot worse for preservation of data within any presented frame, right?
- Is it the opinion of anyone here that this line of questioning is meaningful? I do not want to debate the facts, but rather I want to go toward a statement which is less open to interpretation and unlikely to be further questioned on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry 06:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Discretion in adding to projects
Adding tags to talk pages is fun and easy. However, not every article belongs in every project. Adding a very low relevance project to an article's talk page wil have no effect in improving the article and will just annoy people concerned about the project's backlog. This article is pretty important to the subject of "television" but just because they watch interlaced broadcast video in Paraguay doesn't mean it should be added to the Paraguay project. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Theremin and interlace
From the description, he developed a scanning television method. But where does interlace come into it? Did his mirror drum already produce interlaced pictures? -- megA (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)