Hi, Thx for those informations. <div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">A video source running at 1080i @ 30 frames per second (that is, 60 fields per second) uses exactly half the bandwidth as 1080p @ 60 frames per second.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> To the end viewer, they appear equally fluid, because they both *appear* to be running at 60 frames per second. The non-interlaced format will provide twice the vertical detail but will use twice the bandwidth. There are no blank lines when interlaced video is transmitted digitally. Two adjacent fields in a 1080i picture, each measuring 1920x540 pixels, are combined to form a single frame measuring 1920x1080 pixels, where the even-numbered horizontal lines form one field and the odd-numbered horizontal lines form another. The same concept applies to standard-definition 480i video. <div class="Ih2E3d"> > So I do not understand why 1080i still exist because interlacing was > iniatilly used for CRT tv to avoid flickering. > So what are the reasons to use interlace mode in a full numeric chain ? > (source, transport, visual) </div>I think it had to do with the fact that many early HDTVs were CRT-based. Bandwidth requirements may have come into it. <div class="Ih2E3d"> > What's the most usual deinterlacing method used in FULL HD screens ? </div>Probably line doubling. --Brian </blockquote></div>