I'm getting confused with all the recent talk about progressive and interlaced Video.I'm assuming that the average mini DV camera records progressive video while the new Sony Z1 records interlaced ? If I want to produce a regular DVD in Pal using footage shot on a interlaced ZI,and then edited on Premier Pro, what effect will this have on the final DVD.That's if its even possible.Someone said the footage will revert to standard min DV when downloaded to the editing suite.Whats the good oil on this subject?

All current camcorders shoot interlaced. A very, very tiny minority can shoot progressive, the two most notable are the DVX100 and the XL2.

Shooting interlaced for DVD is very common, and Premiere can handle the whole process just fine. Shooting in progressive is almost the same. It mainly just gives you a different look,

Re: Sony FX1/Z1
Sony's new camcorders shoot interlaced ONLY, using the old DV and newer HDV format. You'll have to setup Premiere to handle the new HDV format.

Check out the High Definition forums for more info (click here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=61))

Thanks for the good information Michael,now I can start filming my documentary with one less technical problem to worry about. Joe

would you deinterlace something if your final output is DVD?
would it make no difference at all or would it give it a different look?

sorry, just trying to understand the whole interlace/progressive thing :)

Shooting PAL, so 50fields or 25frames per second and watching on an interlaced display (eg standard tv):

Shooting interlaced one field will be captured every 1/50th of a second.
It will be displayed at one frame every 1/50th of a second = smoother motion

Shooting progressive (or deinterlacing interlaced footage) you will have 25 full frames per second. On an interlaced display they will be shown one half frame (field) per second. The difference here is that while it is displayed at 50 fields/sec each two adjacent fields are from the same instant in time (recorded at the same time)

so if you were to deinterlace something and then watch it on dvd, it is basically taking away every second field and then replacing it with a copy of the adjacent field, so the effect would be less smoothness

so I guess then this comes back into the whole dv looking like film thing where it's done because sometimes that look is desired.

am I catching on?

Keep your footage interlaced if you're going to DVD. The footage will look much better on standard interlaced TVs.

De-interlace the video, if, it's going to film or it's going to be watched on computer monitors, or other progressive displays.

De-interlacing lessens the combing effect that occurs when interlaced footage is shown in a progressive format. But, the cost of de-interlacing is a softer video image and/or jerky movement.

Yep, exactly.
Field doubling is one way of deinterlacing but you lose half your vertical resolution. There are 'smart' deinterlacers around which interpolate the other field using motion detection and prediction and other such magic to retain as much resolution as possible, particular when there is no motion.

ah ok - I understand
thankyou :)