On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 09:03:33 GMT, "David Mullen" wrote:

>>>Now, current progressive scan cameras don't impress me much, not even the
>>>XL-1 which is the best progressive camera until you look at DVCPRO P
>>>cameras. One problem is that with the XL-1 you can't combine 1/30 shutter
>>>and progressive scan. Adding in the motion blur of a slower shutter really
>>>would help smooth out the images you get in progressive.
>
>
>The XL-1 doesn't shoot progressive-scan really -- it has a non-interlaced
>scan format but I'm not sure one can call it true progressive scan, where
>all lines of video are captured at once to create an entire frame.
>
>How many DV cameras shoot true progressive scan (25P or 30P) without
>dropping to half the frame rate? No 3-CCD DV cameras that I can think of.
>The single CCD Canon Optura Pi?
>
>It seems you have to jump up to the DVC-Pro50 60P / 480 lines Panasonic
>AJ-PD900W before you find a 3-CCD DV camera shooting progressive scan.
>
>It seems that a lot of negative reactions to progressive scan video is based
>on the sort of compromised ways that cameras like the Canon XL-1 or the Sony
>DV cameras achieve it, either by creating whole frames out of single fields,
>or by cutting the frame rate in half.

This may be true (and it is worth noting), but
these compromised-PS mode camcorders are what
we have to work with currently - and the
question keeps coming up about whether or not
their (compromised) PS-modes should be used for
shooting motion-video. I think the answer is
clearly no, given their limitations, and the
uses currently widely available for the footage.
Doing otherwise compromises the technical quality
of that footage for viewing on most current
systems without truly realizing the potential
(mostly future) advantages for alternative
future viewing systems. In other words, TV
is an interlaced system; shoot interlaced
video to best fit that system...