A high frame rate produces smooth motion videos while a low frame rate shows blurs and flickers, especially for fast-paced action scenes. This element refers to the frequency of frames shown on the screen every second.

In learning about progressive vs interlaced video, check out the possible benefits you can get from both. Here are some of the advantages of the progressive video standards:

Analogvideo

Note that this type of application operates on a table top scale, all of the illuminated areas will be between 1 inch and 3 feet or so.

Shenzhen LED World Co., LTD also known as SZLEDWORLD, is a one-stop manufacturer and integrated solution supplier in the LED display field, established in Shenzhen, China in 2009. After years of continuous efforts, the company has grown to be a leading supplier of LED display services, and OEM & ODM services.

I'll leave the practicalities to the two other great answers (Floris's and boyfarrell's because I want to focus on one of your statements:

When choosing between progressive and interlaced, the type of display plays a crucial role in your decision. Take into account the scanning method that works with the LED screen you’re going to use. Modern screens work well with progressive video. For older display models, interlaced video is preferred.

Interlaced video features content that usually has low-quality vertical resolution images despite having a generally high resolution. This happens because of the interlacing process integrated into the content, making it flicker. With this, interlaced videos will always show low-quality images. In contrast, progressive video guarantees high resolution and video quality, promising vivid and clear images on screen. It’s accomplished through the exact translation of video content, ensuring that details are kept.

For example, when I use typical small diode lasers, even with the as-shipped collimating lens I find the beam tends to be around 1mm to 2mm in diameter, and often very irregular or speckly. I would much rather have a beam that is uniform and more like 0.1 mm, but do not know how to achieve that.

Progressive scanning needs higher processing power to create high-quality images and videos that look vivid and realistic. Interlaced scanning requires significantly lower processing power, much like how it needs low bandwidth to function. This simply means that their compatibility with the screens that can support their scanning is relevant for them to effectively translate and broadcast the video content.

Set the frame rate at the start of the production process. For interlaced video, it is often set at 30 fps. The progressive method carries more flexibility and can use 24, 30, and 60 fps or even higher when needed. You can reduce or increase the rate when needed, which is how this method and modern displays work effectively.

Progressive scan

Delve deeper into progressive vs interlaced videos and check out their differences in terms of the specifications that can affect the final output of the video content. We can easily compare the two based on bandwidth requirements and the number of scan lines they have. Video quality and frame rate may also play a significant role in ensuring you know what you get at the end of the day. Here’s a quick glance at the comparison between progressive and interlaced video scanning methods.

Progressive and interlaced have different numbers of scan lines, which refer to the horizontal lines you’ll see on the display. Today, it’s invisible in modern screens but they were once noticeable in the past because of low pixels and old technology.

Progressiveformatvideo

In this process, you will have to deal with the sending of the content to the device, from the sender to the receiver, in the form of a signal. Once received, the signal is then processed based on what’s encoded in the signal. It’s translated and formatted after thorough processing. This is the part where you will choose the scan type progressive vs interlaced.

Interlaced video is quite incompatible with modern displays. The scanning method is designed to work with simpler screens with older technology. When forced, you get poor results in image quality and visual effects.

On the contrary, there are also several disadvantages you have to be familiar with when you choose progressive vs interlaced video scanning. Some of these drawbacks are the following:

Note that diffraction can play a role to further thwart your efforts at making a collimated beam. As the pinhole becomes smaller, the diffraction effect becomes more significant. You typically try to balance the geometrical and diffraction effects for the smallest over-all divergence - meaning that you roughly want to make $\frac{\lambda}{d}=\frac{d}{f}$ where $f$ is the focal length of the secondary lens and $d$ is the size of the pinhole. There might be a factor 1.22 in there somewhere...

Obviously it is possible to tightly focus a laser because DVD players make a tiny spot microns in size, but this I assume is only at one particular focal length, not along the length of a beam. For my application (machining metrology) I need to have a beam that does not need to be focused, yet is as narrow as possible.

In comparing progressive vs interlaced videos, Interlaced has 480 scan lines while progressive has 576. In the former, the lines are arranged alternately, producing a blur effect. You will see the letter “i” placed after the number of scan lines. The latter has its scan lines arranged sequentially, which has significantly improved the video quality and shows clearer and more vivid images. Modern screens process the content in a way that it won’t show the lines, ensuring its quality. You will identify a letter “p” placed after the progressive’s number of scan lines.

Assessing the comparison of progressive vs interlaced video requires a more thorough discussion of how one is different from the other.

Progressive scanning, on the other hand, requires high processing power and so a higher bandwidth for its operation. If you want to show high-resolution videos, modern displays would be the best avenue to display them. And the most compatible method for modern displays is progressive scanning.

Strictly speaking, a collimated beam is always a focus! Just one with extremely low numerical aperture and beam divergence. But there will always be beam divergence, albeit very small.

It is for this reason, for example, that lasers are still the only practical source for coupling light efficiently into single mode optical fibres. Only they output large quantites of light with low entropy (étendue - look the Wikipedia article on this word up). Of course, you can pass an aberrated high power LED beam through a subresolvable pinhole and output aberration free light, but most of the power doesn't make it through the pinhole

What type of video content are you planning to broadcast? Choose between progressive vs interlaced video by considering the type of content that needs transmission. Some content are processed only in either interlaced or progressive format, depending on the requirement.

If you’re checking out progressive scan vs interlaced scan, look at the advantages you can get from the latter too. When considering interlaced video standards, here are some of the advantages you can benefit from it:

Progressive video scanning uses a high frame rate, which guarantees flicker-free video content. Interlaced video has a lower rate, which is caused by dividing the scan line into odd and even groups. It comes with a low refresh rate and flickers on screen.

Before choosing the scanning method, think about the application of the video content first. Where do you plan to use it?

Understanding progressive vs interlaced video scanning requires taking into account different aspects that make each method better than the other. While it’s clear that progressive scanning is more advanced and compatible with the latest display technologies, you can’t also disregard interlaced scanning, considering its basic requirements for operation.

In terms of video scanning’s compatibility with displays, progressive fits perfectly with today’s modern screens. Powerful processors are perfect for this progressive scanning method and deliver high-quality images and videos. It’s one of the reasons why it is gaining traction from the public and the interlaced is starting to be replaced.

Progressiveinterlaced

For a laser beam to be narrow and stay narrow, you need parallel beams. The usual approach is to focus the beam onto a very small pinhole (say 10-20 µm or so), then focus a second lens on the pinhole (expander). The fact that all rays have to pass through the very small point means that any diverging components of the beam will be intercepted by the pinhole; the second lens expands the beam into a series of "almost parallel" rays. The ratio of focal lengths of the primary and secondary lens determines the degree of compression along the diameter of the beam that you can achieve: but the tighter the beam, the more divergent it will be (because the size of the pinhole will be magnified by a short focal length lens).

Interlaced video scanning creates its iconic flickering, where it got its name “interlacing” in the first place. This method is popular for older devices like analog displays. It still exists today to accommodate those who prefer older and less advanced technology.

The video production industry offers a massive opportunity for anyone who wants to get their hands on a career that involves videos and display. One relevant requirement is that you learn the technical aspects and concepts applied to the industry. It’s also why it’s important to know the difference between progressive vs interlaced video.

When learning about progressive vs interlaced video, it is necessary to also look deeper into the second method. The interlaced video has scanning lines that are grouped into odd and even numbers and then come in one after the other in an alternating sequence.

I am looking for a summary of practical methods of focusing and collimating laser light, which I guess are contradictory objectives, or are they?

For commercials to be used on massive LED screens, the progressive method is the best choice. Using interlaced methods will simply make the content look bad and in the process affect the company’s brand that’s using it.

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Absolutely not. In a weird kind of way they are the same thing: or kind of dual concepts. They are if you like two extreme ends of or "canonical" versions of zero entropy light and can freely and losslessly be transformed into one another. The key property is low wavefront aberration: a beam can be focussed tightly (without aberration compensation) if and only if it can be well collimated. Otherwise, the focus will be blurred, or there will be strong divergence.

Diode beams are usually rectangular when collimated because the have a fast and slow axis. You can expand the slow axis such that the beam shape is much more rectangular.

Both the progressive and interlaced transmission methods have different minimum bandwidth requirements. Interlaced video requires a lower bandwidth with its alternating transmission, which is what makes it compatible with old-model displays.

Interlaced

High quality, monochromatic laser beams are governed by diffraction instead of geometrical optics. Talking about rays doesn't really tell the full story. The parameter of a laser beam which expresses how well collimated it is is called the Rayleigh range, $z_R$. The units of $z_R$ are units of distance, and you can think of it roughly as 'the beam will not start to diverge significantly within $z_R$ of the smallest spot.' Interestingly, it turns out that this parameter is directly related to the smallest spot size of the laser beam, $\omega_0$. This parameter is known as the beam waist. The relationship between them is $$ z_r=\frac{\pi\omega_0^2}{\lambda}. $$ The point is; the smaller you want to make the beam, the less collimated it will be. This only gets more true if the beam is of poor quality. Just to put some numbers to it, a red laser pointer focused to a spot size of $1\,\text{mm}$ is collimated over a range of $5\,\text{m}$, but if you focus it down to a spot size of $10\,\mu\text{m}$ it will only be collimated over a range of $0.5\,\text{mm}$.

Progressive video and interlaced video are often confused with each other primarily since they are both video standards you may see on your display. While some may think they look alike, there’s a clear difference between the two that you can point out. Before doing that though, let’s start with the basic definitions first.

Progressive and interlaced are two methods you can consider when you’re working on video playback. This refers to the process of transferring the video content and then broadcasting it to the device it’s supposed to go to.

In the progressive scan, the entire frame is shown and the scan lines are organized sequentially. This ensures that there is uniformity in whatever is displayed. Since the entire frame is shown all at once, it delivers sharp and vivid images. It also offers a smooth transition in terms of the motions and gets rid of pesky flickers in the process too.

You need a second lens at the location where the "Gaussian Profile" is shown in order to get a parallel beam again. For a 1 cm lens and a 10 µm pinhole your beam will have a divergence of 0.001 rad - at a distance of 1 m it will diverge by 1 mm.