On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 18:57:15 -0800, Ron Hare wrote:

>Re: my post about progressive not being any better than still capture:
>
>There is obviously an consensus that progressive produces notably better
>stills. I'm not absolutely certain (just pretty sure) that I had
>"progressive" mode selectedm when I tested the difference. There
>was absolutely no difference, so there's a good chance I screwed up.
>
>I'll try it again.

(At the tail end of the flu [I hope...!], so I trust the
following isn't feverish nonsense...;-)
Two issues for still quality: progressive-scan vs.
interlaced; and still-mode vs. grabbing frames from
motion video... Progressive-scan mode should produce
noticeably sharper stills than interlaced mode (at
appropriate shutter speeds for the particular camcorder);
and it shouldn't matter much for quality whether or not
the still image is made with the still-mode or with a
frame grabbed from motion video (though I have been able
to get pretty decent frame grabs [both fields] using an
editing program, when there is little motion between the
fields).