Cote289 wrote: > Shooting a good clean progressive image generally looks better than > shooting interlaced and deinterlacing. >
Most definitely, in most circumstances, a progressive camera is going to provide more pleasing web video (and broadcast video for that matter). You can argue there's better motion capture of 60i over 30p or 24p, but bring 60p into the picture and the whole argument becomes moot. As an aside, for those of you who use the DVX100, it produces a very good progressive video image in 24p or 30p, just make sure you set the "Vertical Detail Frequency" to the "Thin" setting, otherwise the camera is doing vertical blur to avoid flicker on an interlaced monitor, which is not an issue for web video. Why reduce the resolution when the destination is the web. I could go on and on in terms of interlace vs. progressive, but I'll point out one flaw of interlaced video (which made sense in ancient times in order to squeeze television into a narrow channel of radio frequency spectrum) and that is "comb artifacts," you see in pans, slow motion, and still frames due to the relative movement between the two fields (odd and even lines temporally displaced by 1/60th second) that make up each single frame. I'm no fan of interlace, go progressive! David. David Tames | http://Kino-Eye.com | 617 216 1096
