Tavo linko wikipedija:

EBU has performed tests that show that the bandwidth savings of 
interlaced video over progressive video is minimal, even with twice the 
frame rate. I.e., 1080p50 signal produces roughly the same bit rate as 
1080i50 (aka 1080i/25) signal,[3] and 1080p50 actually requires less 
bandwidth to be perceived as subjectively better than its 1080i/25 
(1080i50) equivalent when encoding a "sports-type" scene.[8]


marijonas used his keyboard to write :
> vienas lygino 25i su 50p, kitas dabar lygina 50i su 50p.
>
> tam kad lyginti vienodas salygas, prie vienodo duomenu kiekio, lyginti reikia 
> 25p su 50i.
>
> is ten pat:
> Given a fixed bandwidth and high refresh rate, interlaced video can also 
> provide a higher spatial resolution than progressive scan
>
> "RolF2"  wrote in message news:m9ooku$ocs$1@trimpas.omnitel.net...
>
> privalumu ten lygiai nulis, nebent tik bandwichius
>
> are working with the industry to introduce 1080p50 as a future-proof
> production standard. 1080p 50 offers higher vertical resolution, better
> quality at lower bitrates, and easier conversion to other formats, such as
> 720p50 and 1080i50.[2][3] The main argument is that no matter how complex
> the deinterlacing algorithm may be, the artifacts in the interlaced signal
> cannot be completely eliminated because some information is lost between
> frames.

-- 
Deivis [persona], Vilnius
'08Passat 2.0FSI / A4 1.8 tq (4SALE)