Same resolution and frame rate. 1920 x 1080 at 25 frames/second.

Interlaced delivers one frame in two halves, in the UK in the first 1/50 second you get lines 1,3, 5 etc, the next 1/50 second you get the rest 2,4, 6 etc. The system is a hangover(and retains compatibility) with CRT TV’s.

It’s designed to reduce flicker on CRT displays which rely on screen phosphors which decay over time, and the picture is built on the screen in real time.

Progressive simply sends the same data but in 1/25 second in line order.

The source data on satellite is always interlaced, on Freeview it’s a mixture of progressive and interlaced. Freeview-HD was designed to work with progressive content (but only at 25 fps).

If you send a HD TV interlaced it is converted into progressive before it’s sent to the TV ( LCD/PLasma displays are essentially progressive). These sort of TV’s do not simply send the data to the screen, it’s processed first into a full frame which is sent to the display near instantly.

Which is best depends entirely on how well your box de-interlaces to progressive compared to your TV. In practice you are unlikely to see much if any difference.

Short answer is try both, and use whichever looks best. If you have a TV that does not de-interlace well the box may give superior pictures.

TBH with my Panasonic TV there is no discernible difference when using an interlaced source.

When people say 1080p is best, they omit to say that this refers to progressive content at 50 or 60 frames/second or derived from a blu-ray at 24 fps but with much less lossy compression that has to be used on broadcast content (much higher bitrates).

Welcome to our forum.

graham uk – 1 hour ago  » 

grahamlthompson.

May I ask another question ?.

graham uk

Certainly