On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:24:34 -0600, "Doug" wrote:

>Gotta say, I exclusively shoot in progressive scan mode. If you use the
>same techniques for shooting in prog-scan mode that you would in film (i.e.
>keep your wild panning and zooming under control) the final output has a
>quality to it that differentiates it from everyday video. I can't say it
>makes your video look like film as there's more to the differences than
>this...but it just looks different.
>
>It's true you'll lose temporal resolution, but I've always understood that
>this is made up for by frame resolution, even when split into two successive
>fields. If my understanding is wrong I'd love to hear it, but the way I see
>it is this:
>
>Take a prog-scan shot at 30fps and run it through a TV, where it's
>interlaced. Any one frame of that prog-scan shot has twice as much screen
>resolution as an interlaced shot would have. When your TV interlaces the
>image, the first field displays the odd lines of the prog-scan image while
>the second field shows the _even_ lines...not 'nothing', and not the same
>odd lines as in the previous field. So your screen resolution is being
>split apart temporally but all the information is nonetheless there, not
>discarded in some fashion. The result is an equal trade off of temporal vs.
>screen resolution.
>
>Where my explanation fails is if someone can convince me that, when breaking
>apart a prog-scan frame into two fields, the camera/TV will display the same
>odd scanlines twice while discarding the even scanlines. This makes no
>logical sense to me and unless my eyes are being deceived, the proof is in
>the higher detail I can see when watching prog-scan clips on my TV.
>
>Again, just keep the wild camera pans under control and you won't see the
>jitteriness people refer to.

Uh, what about when the *subjects* move...? ;-)
As for the above, methinks you don't understand
interlaced video vs. progressive scan... A frame
of IV (30 fps) has two fields split in time for
1/2 frames (distributed over the screen) every
1/60th second. So one *frame* of IV contains
480 vertical scan lines, as does PS - but unlike
PS, there is more time-res. information, since
the 1/2 frames are each shot at 1/60th second
and distributed evenly in time... In addition,
many camcorders when they shoot PS-mode do not
provide as much vertical resolution in a single
frame as the two IV fields together, so there
can be a loss not only of time-related resolution,
but of just plain frame-resolution...
Again, why would anyone want this...? ;-)