On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:02:28 -0700, "kicksomeassess"
wrote:

>> No. If you are hoping to frame-grab action shots from the
>> video without interlacing artifacts, it might be difficult
>> with this camera (except, maybe, at "peak moments" with
>> little or no motion

>I'm more interested in general video quality for my works: I noticed
>progressive video DVDs look much better than interlaced ones. Apart from
>quality, to my eyes progressive scan footage seems to have many good
>qualities film footage has. It's impossible to get these results in a timely
>fashion with software deinterlacing, not to consider the loss of detail. But
>geez...who would do without the vx2000 low light perfs?...

I like DMs response! ;-) Shoot a set of 8"x10" chromes and
make them into a "flip" set for motion... (talk about high
quality!!!;-). But, back to your comment: some people
mysteriously disagree with this, BUT, TV, as an interlaced
medium, WILL show the best possible results WITH interlaced
originals... As for DVDs, remember that film is a "PS-mode"
medium...;-) And, some people actually seem to prefer
the inferior motion-rendering of original PS-mode video on
interlaced TV - but I really fail to understand why...!;-)
This is a non-issue for me - interlaced video will have
the smoother and sharper motion-rendering (all else being
equal) when viewed on a normal TV. Period. PS-mode original
material (all else being equal) will be inferior. Period.
People may prefer inferior quality (not an unknown
occurence ;-), but that does not make the inferior superior...;-)
And, BTW, from what I gather, all things may not be
equal - shooting PS-mode actually can result in the loss
of some vertical resolution (but I suppose some people
prefer this, too...;-). Bottom line: if you are shooting
for TV-viewing, shoot it interlaced unless there is a
real reason for not doing it (and a preference can be
a real reason...;-).