We are shooting about 10 musicals and dance recitals a year. We typically sell 40-50 DVD's pershow.
We are using 3-PD 150 cameras. I am wondering if we need to think about switching to HD cameras soon. But Since PD-150's are 3 chip, we need to look for cameras that will be good quality, with xlr and manual iris controls for under $2000. Do you think we will have a hard time getting more work without switch to HD. We also are thinking of shooting in 16x9 with the PD-150 cameras. Has anyeone tried to shoot 16x9 in SD.

Thanks

Only you know your customers and whether making the switch to HD is warranted. We made the switch in 2008 and to me it's like saying "should I shoot in color?" To me, DV is as antiquated as B&W but many disagree with me on this. I made the switch after seeing how horrible the DV Wide mode was on my VX2000 (same in all VX2000/2100 and PD150/170 series).

There are extensive threads on this in the Sony VX/PD forum. Pretty much everyone agrees the Sony implementation of DV Widescreen is awful, save for one guy who keeps insisting it's fine. But 360 lines are 360 lines, and no amount of crappy interpolation by Sony will make it look good on a large HDTV. It's fine an a standard 4:3 SD screen, though -- the top and bottom are just masked off. If you look at those threads there are links to the technical explanation of how it's done and why it's so poor. DV WIDE mode isn't any wider -- it's just shorter. The horizontal field of view doesn't change. You're better off doing this in post.

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

This is easy enough to test for yourself to see whether you like it. Set up your PD during a rehearsal to shoot the stage so that it fills the screen and the edges of the proscenium are even with the edges of the frame. Switch back and forth between Normal and Wide modes. You'll see that the stage edges are the same and only the top and bottom of your picture gets letterboxed. Now play back directly into a TV. You'll see that in wide mode, on a regular SD 4:3 TV set you just lose the top and bottom. The middle 360 lines are unaffected. On an HDTV, your picture will have both letterboxing and pillarboxing, and when you use zoom mode to fill the TV screen, your picture goes all to hell, particularly on a large display. It looks only slightly better than VHS or Hi8. (On some older displays, instead of letterboxing you may get vertical stretching -- the Watusi effect -- to make people look tall and skinny. But once you stretch it horizontally to regain the correct proportions, the net result is the same.)

Your upgrade budget is tight -- you're not going to get the HD equivalent of the PD for two grand. But you could look at the AX2000 for about double your price range. The NX5 (or Z5 with MRC) would be better choices.

Right now about 10% of our discs are Blu-Rays. But this was like pulling teeth and no one will ask for them -- you have to push them. Even so, half the time the theatres forget to put the BD option on the order form. We're considering going to the Disney model and only making two-disc sets that include both DVD and BD -- no other option available. But no matter what, we shoot and edit in HD and only downconvert when burning to disc.

I switched to HD last year when my VX2000's had too many hot pixels to make the quality of
picture that I want. I sell event videos to an older audience (usually 40+) and I think
maybe 15% have Bluray equipment. Only a handful has expressed interest in the Bluray
version.

I think the main benefit of going to HD, for me, was the file-based workflow and switching
to fresh cameras that didn't have hot pixels or heads that could go bad. The file-based workflow
still takes about as long as capturing tapes but there is less manual labor of switching media.
Also, the HD footage is just plain beautiful. Even if my customers can't see the original HD
stream, it makes my life more enjoyable. The sony EX1 cameras I use are also way more
fun than the VX2000/Z1U I've used in the past.

Since it sounds like a lot of what you do is theater based and in poor-ish lighting, you will
probably want to do some testing. I learned a lot by testing on non-paying gigs for six months
and studying the resulting footage before I replaced the VX2000s.

Note that there are a lot of HD cameras that are way less sensitive than a PD150/VX2000.
You might want to consider renting a variety of cameras (in the sony line: CX700, NX5U, EX1)
and testing them. You might even want to see if NEX-5N still cameras will do what you want.
There are a lot of options if you don't need a servo-zoom lens.

You will also want to use this test footage to see if your computer is up to editing multicamera
HD in whatever format you end up choosing. If you want to be able to playback three streams
with color correction filters on them, this is a lot of work. I upgraded my computer and started
using GPU accelleration and I can only get full-rate playback with one stream on screen but
I find the lower frame rate on the multi-view acceptable.

I'm using EX1s which make easy to edit MPEG2. When I drop in some CX560/CX700 h264
based footage, my frame rates go way down. You might need a faster computer to edit
three CX700 streams than you do three EX1 streams. Another consideration.

You need to test the full pipeline from acquisition to burn before you know if HD is right for you.

The PD150 is a nice camera for the work you're doing -- if you do move to HD, and I think it safe to say that sooner or later you will -- be sure to field test any proposed replacement. You may well find that newer cameras may offer something that is convenient (say file based recording) but sacrifice something you can't live without.

The PD150 widescreen was fine in its day, and delivers exactly as you'd expect. But those expectations should be this: The vertical resolution of SD widescreen when created in post or shot using the PD150 is 720 pixels of image width and 360 of image height. Displayed in a screen capable of showing 1920x1080 you are giving up a lot of pixels ... But the same would be true if you delivered a 4:3 disc with letterboxing and the client played it full screen. So know your clients -- if they have all moved to widescreen sets (and who hasn't) and are going to zoom the display so the image fills the screen (and why wouldn't they) then you are doing all that for them when you produce in widescreen. There are any number of commercial DVD that are delivered with a single letterboxed version, and viewers zoom them -- maybe another way to look at it is that doesn't do it for your clients, it is time to move to HD!

Cheers,
GB

But Since PD-150's are 3 chip, we need to look for cameras that will be good quality, with xlr and manual iris controls for under $2000.
If that's the budget, I think you will have to go secondhand, or compromise on your requirements.
Do you think we will have a hard time getting more work without switch to HD. We also are thinking of shooting in 16x9 with the PD-150 cameras. Has anyeone tried to shoot 16x9 in SD.
It may depend on a lot of things, and how much you charge! But increasingly HD is being seen as the norm. Stay SD and expect to find work harder to come by and/or your not being able to charge as much.

In the US I believe HD, 16:9 and digital broadcasting all came together, in the UK digital broadcasting came much earlier, with 16:9, but HD much later. Hence 16:9 SD was "the norm" for quite a long period, and certainly is the norm for DVDs.

Ask yourself how many 4:3 TVs you now see on sale, and how many you see being scrapped, and it's obvious that 16:9 is the way of the future - SD or HD. Even if you don't want the expense of new HD cameras, 16:9 SD may still be a good idea - but don't use the 16:9 mode on a PD150 (or any similar camera of the era) - it's very poor. Far better is to put an anamorphic lens in front. (Though that brings it's own problems - probably best just to bite the bullet and get HD cameras.)

Anthony............

If this is a business, albeit one with passion, flog (use) the gear you have till it drops or you start losing sales, for whatever reason, but particularly if it's no longer in a format they (the customer) will accept..

It's that simple.

Investigate what's out there by all means, but let the change be a business decision, not a "should we, shouldn't we" one.

If business dictates a move, do it one camera at a time, and get what's appropriate for what you shoot.

That gives you a chance to work out the bugs in your new work flow, without bringing the entire enteprise to its knees for the duration, and decide if you made the right new camera choice.

Only upgrade the rest as and when business/ cash flow/ work flow allows.

Just my take.


CS

its a no brainer for you to move to hd. i shot with a pd and dsr300 for years before i finally jumped to hd and got an ex1r.
if you shooting shows, you could get an nx5 now and use one of the cx cams, say the cx550. its a small camcorder that you can get an xlr adaptor for , but use the nx as your main and the cx as the wide shot. i use mine with my ex and they match beautifully.youll spend more for the nx past your budget for one cam, but you can get a good used cx for around 500.00. i only say to go with the 550 because it has the bigger lcd like the ex. the new cx560 has a smaller lcd and no viewfinder.
it is time to move to hd, plus the fact that you wont miss tape a bit,over time, youll obviously save on that additional cost thats eliminated by shooting on sd cards. good luck

Even if you don't want the expense of new HD cameras, 16:9 SD may still be a good idea - but don't use the 16:9 mode on a PD150 (or any similar camera of the era) - it's very poor.

I think clients paying for a 3-camera shoot would expect widescreen DVD by now. The Panasonic HVX200 and Canon XH-A1, while not quite broadcast HD, shoot reasonable 16:9 standard definition to miniDV tapes. The Panasonic HMC150 is similar to the HVX200 but only shoots 1080 and 720p AVC. In this case you can downsample the video to standard defintion on your computer. Either of these cameras should be available used for around $2000.

Note that downsampling HD to SD in many NLEs results in substandard image quality. The difficulty is that these NLEs don't properly dealias the image when downsampling. While this may help sell blu-ray disks, it won't help with widescreen DVDs. A description of how to properly downsample HD to SD on a computer is

HD to SD DVD – Best Methods | Creating Motion Graphics Blog | Blu-Ray DVD Authoring Menu | Precomposed (http://www.precomposed.com/blog/2009/07/hd-to-sd-dvd-best-methods/)

With a good HD to SD workflow, just about any HD camera can be used to produce reasonable widescreen DVDs. In particular, while costing more, newer cameras like the Sony NX5, EX1R or Panasonic HPX250, AC130/160s would be more future proof.

If business dictates a move, do it one camera at a time, and get what's appropriate for what you shoot.

That gives you a chance to work out the bugs in your new work flow, without bringing the entire enteprise to its knees for the duration, and decide if you made the right new camera choice.

Only upgrade the rest as and when business/ cash flow/ work flow allows.
That I don't agree with. The D150s are tape, DV, and 4:3. Chances are that whatever you get to replace them would be tapeless, different codec, and 16:9. (And there does seem to be a concensus that even if not HD, the expectation now is for 16:9 - even if because nearly all new TVs are that aspect ratio.)

Change cameras one by one and you'll be mixing workflows - much better to change over together. That may be true for a lot of reasons, but especially aspect ratio - it brings up the old chestnut of mixing differing aspect if you change over bit by bit.

Rather than produce in SD, I'd say go for HD and then even if your main market is still (SD) DVD produce it via a downconvert. In that case, think about originating 720p/60 - it doesn't need de-interlacing for downconversion, unlike 1080i/30. (Each SD field is formed from a unique HD frame.)

Originating and editing HD also means you have a HD master - which may be more and more valuable going into the future.

Rather than produce in SD, I'd say go for HD and then even if your main market is still (SD) DVD produce it via a downconvert. In that case, think about originating 720p/60 - it doesn't need de-interlacing for downconversion, unlike 1080i/30. (Each SD field is formed from a unique HD frame.)



But David, isn't DVD a natively interlaced medium, so there's no need to de-interlace - downconverted interlaced material plays perfectly on DVD in my experience?

But David, isn't DVD a natively interlaced medium, so there's no need to de-interlace - downconverted interlaced material plays perfectly on DVD in my experience?

Not really, The problem is field reversal: In some downsized footage, the second field gets played before the first, resulting in noticeable flicker and stutter. Worse, most NLEs by themselves do a poor job of downconverting interlaced material: They use the wrong downsizing alogarithm, resulting in serious (and sometimes severe) artifacts in the downsized footage (which is especially noticeable in banding in red areas of the image).

much better to change over together.

Er, David, sorry, but I have to take exception to this.

The "squat or bust" technology upgrade scenario has been so discredited that I'm amazed anyone would suggest it in this day and age.

Been there, seen it, lived it and seen companies brought to their knees because they attempted it, and had, ultimately, to admit defeat, retreat and start again.

This crew can't do that.

If the original cameras are gone, the computers and software don't work with the new data streams and have to be replaced, at huge expense, with the new work flow and the staff don't know what to do with any of it - just where do they go then, apart from bust?

This is not the BBC, who get freebie anythings, for as long as they want, to test and figure out how to use, this lot will have to pay for their gear and dearly.

And if it doesn't work?

Buy ONE, try it, make it work or figure out why it won't and what it's going to cost to make it work, then decide what budget you have and how far you can go.

Integrating one different camera into an existing workflow may not be everyones cup of tea, but it's better than falling flat on your face by trying the "squat or bust" routine and having it go spectacularly down the toilet.

Just MHO.


CS

But David, isn't DVD a natively interlaced medium, so there's no need to de-interlace - downconverted interlaced material plays perfectly on DVD in my experience?

To down sample interlaced HD to interlaced SD, one must first deinterlace the HD material to 1080p60, then rescale the progressive frames to 480p60 and finally weave the progressive frames back to interlaced 480i30. With reasonable software this all happens automatically and you don't have to think about it. When things aren't working properly the result is a mess and then you have to figure out how to fix it. Note that things are less likely to go wrong if you start with 720p60 footage in the first place.

You obviously can't mix 4:3 material with 16:9 footage and expect it to look right. If you want to experiment with HD footage you could start with a cheap AVCHD camcorder. Lock it down for an unmanned wide shot during the performance. Then pan and crop the HD image to SD with up to 2.5x digital zoom in post while maintaining full SD resolution. With the right compositing, this can make it look there was an additional camera operator running the unmanned camera.

Anthony,

Switching over to HD might or might not be necessary. I recall some recent postings by Don Palomaki -- a longtime DVinfo member and very experienced wedding videographer who has been at it for decades --- where he said, essentially, that he was planning to stick with his PD170s for a couple more years and then retire. The PD170s were good enough for what his customers wanted.

On the other hand, I'm planning to be at this business for a bit longer and my VX2000s started to wear out several years back --- same problems that Dustin mentioned. I switched over to shooting entirely HD several years ago. This last year, I've also been delivering some Blu-rays and also providing other delivery formats (for internet training videos and legal videos on USB drives.) Mostly, I still deliver the mutli-cam projects on DVD. Even so, for me, the HD has been a very big deal because of:

(a) tapeless shooting formats. This is good because:
(i) no dropouts
(ii) Very long recording times (hours and hours)
(iii) , and much less time feeding video to the editing system (a couple of weeks ago, I fed 2½ hours of dance recital from my NX5 to the editing system in around half an hour hour.

(b) noticeably better images even on downconversion/downrezzing to DVD. Yes, there can be some issues for some situations where down-rezzed images can have the kinds of problems that Randall mentioned, but my experience (like Geoffrey's) is that these usually are not very noticeable -- customers don't see most of these unless I specifically make them look at them -- as long as I use higher bit-rate multi-pass encoding. Large red areas are a problem for the reasons Randall points out, but there are workarounds when you see significant problems (some mentioned by Eric in his last post) . And, yes, virtually all of the newer cameras have CMOS rather than CCD sensors and can be subject to the "flash banding" that drives some videographers to distraction (I, personally, am indifferent to it. I only notice it when stepping frame by frame through a patch with flash photos going off.)

(c) When you are mixing to DVD, the extra pixels in an HD frame allow you a lot of flexibility in reframing and zooming images after-the fact. (I find this particularly handy for dance recitals where you can get more nicely framed shots from locked down cams.)

(d) When using smaller consumer cams for locked-down b-cams, their automatic modes are pretty amazing and mitigate the expense of the newer equivalents to your PD170. The small cams can do a very nice job in matching up with, say, and EX1 or NX5. I've also found color matching between cams is much easier with HD than it was for me when using my VX cams.

(e) When recording audio to your cams (why you are probably mentioning that you want XLR inputs), I've found that the current crop of cams -- even my CX cams --- seem to have noticeably cleaner audio preamps than those in my old VX cams.

Having said all those things in praise of HD, I fully realize how expensive the conversion can be. It is not just cameras you buy but computer editing equipment, as well.

If you want to duplicate your PD cams, you will need to at least add another $1k (US$) to your camera budget to get something like the Panny HMC150 or Canon XF100. For $2k, you cannot get HD camera that will go as deep into dim light as the VX/PD cams and that give you equal or better adjustability. BUT, this might not be necessary for your shooting dance productions. While my NX and FX cams will pretty much match my VX cams for shooting in really dim light --- I've had some some wedding receptions so dim that the guests could barely see the bride's white dress -- stage productions are a very different matter. Even the dimmest performance spaces seem to be lit well enough that they did not challenge the low light capabilities of the VX/PD cams and do not challenge my current array of HD cams I have yet to find a concert or dance shoot where the light was too dim for my little CX cams, much less my bigger cams. You are shooting stage performances, not doing wildlife videography at twilight or conducting urban surveillance jobs.

Because I went through the incremental addition of HD cams in upgrading from VX2000s, I'm inclined to agree with Eric that it will be "better" to a do complete refit if your budget can take it. If your budget cannot, then I agree with Chris. I also agree with everybody who recommended renting or borrowing any camera you are considering using. Try to do some real work to see how the new cameras actually handle what you want to do and how well or poorly the new footage fits into your existing workflow. Having done the upgrades from VX2000s, I can also tell you that there are numbers of cameras that can shoot some excellent images but which you might not like using. There is nothing like getting some first hand experience.

Here is what I did not like about incrementally bringing in HD cams for use with my VX2000 cams: the footage mismatch was noticeable even when everything was converted to DVD. Not as bad as mixing old VHS or 8mm with the VX/PD shots, but about as noticeable as what I experienced back when I added a VX2000 to the mix of Hi8 and D8 cams that I had before then.

In widescreen, the VX/PD footage is noticeably less sharp and the colors less clear. My customers were noticing this, too. Mostly because their expectations have changed over the last few years. Their expectations have changed because, even in this rural area, many people have LCD screens, they cable and satellite services are providing a lot more wide-screen higher resolution programs, and a lot of people are watching much of their TV via DVDs.

So, there are some real advantages to moving to HD shooting in one move. The problem is that the expense can be starkly daunting. Buying new cameras is only the first step. If you have been working with familiar, older versions of editing programs, say PPro CS 3 or Vegas 8 or the like and maybe using, say, a Core 2 Duo computer, you are looking at a substantial outlay for new computer hardware and software in order to be able to handle newer video formats, particularly AVCHD. Also, if you've been working with an older system, you may still have IDE hard drives. New computer systems no longer seem to have IDE ports, so you also might need new hard drives, as well. Right now, hard drives are relatively expensive. (Chalk that up to the effects of last year's earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the flooding in Thailand).

You might defer that somewhat by using intermediates like Cineform (now Go Pro Studio). You'll need lots of disk space and there will be a significant time in running the conversions. Doing that ten-times a year for three cameras might or might not be wearing and seriously inconvenient for you. What else are you using the PD170s for? If you are doing much other work, you will find a complete conversion a lot easier.

So, what about cameras? Pretty much everything suggested in the preceding posts is at least $1k above your budget of $2000 per camera. If your budget has to be limited to $2k per camera and you want XLR inputs and an iris ring , I suggest checking out the the Canon XA10. It has the iris controls and XLR inputs that you want and seems to be pretty highly thought of by the folks who use them. When I say "check out" I mean get hold of one and see how it works for you. I've tried out an XA10 and was impressed. It seems to have pretty good capabilities for lower light shooting. Not as good as the PD/VX cams but noticeably better than my XHA1 (another cam I got in that incremental switch-over process). However, the XA10 is very small -- the word teeny comes to mind --- and that may (or may not) pose ergonomic issues for you. It also uses touch screen menu functions, which some people hate using. Rent or borrow one or at least go to a store where you can handle one.

Or buy one and start the incremental upgrade. If it doesn't work for you as a main cam it certainly will make an excellent B cam. There is a huge amount of commentary here about it in its own forum so you can get a much better feel for it.

To down sample interlaced HD to interlaced SD, one must first deinterlace the HD material to 1080p60, then rescale the progressive frames to 480p60 and finally weave the progressive frames back to interlaced 480i30. With reasonable software this all happens automatically and you don't have to think about it. When things aren't working properly the result is a mess and then you have to figure out how to fix it. Note that things are less likely to go wrong if you start with 720p60 footage in the first place.



All I can say is that I've shot interlaced material (50i), edited in FCP in Prores then sent it to Compressor to high quality downconversion to m2v files for use in DVDSP to make the DVD. No interlacing enacted and it looks very good (wheeras in QT it looks poor due to all the interlacing artefacts). DVDs play interlaced material perfectly well if you downconvert correctly and I've never had any problems with this. I wasted hours and hours of processing time, de-interlacing material that not only compromised the image, was a complete waste of time.

DVDs play interlaced material perfectly well if you downconvert correctly and I've never had any problems with this.

People who have trouble downconverting interlaced material often are mixing DSLR footage with HDV and DV all in the same project or using footage shot with a 35mm adapter that turned the image upside down.

Er, David, sorry, but I have to take exception to this.

The "squat or bust" technology upgrade scenario has been so discredited that I'm amazed anyone would suggest it in this day and age............

Integrating one different camera into an existing workflow may not be everyones cup of tea, but it's better than falling flat on your face by trying the "squat or bust" routine and having it go spectacularly down the toilet.
OK, but how would you suggest the original poster mixes footage from the two cameras? Ignore HD, codecs, tapeless etc for now, and tell us how you'd suggest they went about mixing 4:3 footage from the old cameras with 16:9 from the new?

It's one thing to produce material for client that's 4:3 throughout, but if it changes aspect ratio on shot changes.....? It may be acceptable when archive is cut into a new programme - but surely not just on camera cuts?

Maybe you could switch the PD150s to widescreen mode? No - they are poor in that mode, and you'll get a noticeable jump in quality between the old and the new.

Alternatively, keep the PD150s in 4:3 mode, and extract the centre 4:3 cutout from the new cameras? Technically, that should match - but the end product is then still SD 4:3. So then what's the point of having bought any new cameras in the first place!?!

Or is there a fourth possibility I haven't thought of?

And what is "squat or bust" about getting (say) 3 EX1s anyway? You'll need to (possibly) upgrade the editing setup if you want to take full advantage of HD, but if all were used widescreen SD (at least for now), that would give the widescreen (and tapeless) advantages without any neccessary upgrade to the NLE. It would just mean importing DV format files versus capturing off DV tape.

Yes, a little getting used to - but won't that be the case with a single new camera anyway? Surely the issues importing from 3 tapeless cameras are the same as from one?

But David, isn't DVD a natively interlaced medium, so there's no need to de-interlace - downconverted interlaced material plays perfectly on DVD in my experience?

and

All I can say is that I've shot interlaced material (50i), edited in FCP in Prores then sent it to Compressor to high quality downconversion to m2v files for use in DVDSP to make the DVD. No interlacing enacted ....
Ah, but the software DOES - must - deinterlace - it's just that you're unaware of it.

Eric is completely right when he says "one must first deinterlace the HD material to 1080p60, then rescale the progressive frames to 480p60 and finally weave the progressive frames back to interlaced 480i30"

Think about it. A given field consists (for 1080i/30) of 540 lines, the next field the other interlaced 540 lines. You want to produce two corresponding SD fields of 240 lines each. You can't simply do it field by field, taking each 540 lines to form the corresponding 240, because of the interlace. Hence it's as Eric says. Their needs to be an intermediate deinterlacing to 1080p/60, rescaling to 480p/60, then form a conventional 480i/30 signal.

It's all transparent to the user though - just hit "downscale 1080i/30 to 480i/30". Behind the scenes it's far more satisfactory to start with 720p/60, do a simple rescale to 480p/60 (simple frame by frame rescaling) then interlace to 480i/30.

Think about it. A given field consists (for 1080i/30) of 540 lines, the next field the other interlaced 540 lines. You want to produce two corresponding SD fields of 240 lines each. You can't simply do it field by field, taking each 540 lines to form the corresponding 240, because of the interlace. Hence it's as Eric says. Their needs to be an intermediate deinterlacing to 1080p/60, rescaling to 480p/60, then form a conventional 480i/30 signal.


I'm a little lost in your flow -- why can't the software simply do it field by field? In fact I believe that is what it does -- I don't see the requirement to follow the path you suggest? You take Field A, downsize it, take Field B, downsize it ... you end up with a downsized 1080i>480i file ..?

Cheers,
GB

I'm a little lost in your flow -- why can't the software simply do it field by field?
It depends how good you want it to be......!

It may be possible to achieve a result as you say - but initial de-interlace to 1080p/60 will produce a better result. I'd guess less likely to give line flickering, for one thing.

Likewise don't forget the chroma information. In the range of cameras we are talking about here that's likely to be 4:2:0, so 270 lines of chroma information to downscale - 4:2:2 may not make that much improvement with progressive material, interlace is where 4:2:2 most shows benefit.

The real point is that starting with 60p makes the job easy. You've got an individual 1280x720 true progressive frame to correspond to every NTSC field.

I take your point -- if you start with a progressive image, it is 'easier' to create an interlaced one than vice versa. But if your source is interlaced, you still have the problem of deinterlacing, and all the bob and weaving choices that have to be made -- good software will do the job without creating an interim 'faux' progressive frame, in my experience. And that's all I intended -- there is no reason why the faux progressive frame is necessary.

But if you've tested, and your software does better work with this interim step, have at it!

Cheers,
GB

..........if your source is interlaced, you still have the problem of deinterlacing, and all the bob and weaving choices that have to be made -- good software will do the job without creating an interim 'faux' progressive frame, in my experience. And that's all I intended -- there is no reason why the faux progressive frame is necessary.
Ah sorry! No, I wasn't inferring that there ever should be a 1080p/60 de-interlaced file as such, deliberately made. Rather that it's a step (maybe a virtual one) that good downconversion software should go through on the way to the final result. That's what I really meant by "Ah, but the software DOES - must - deinterlace - it's just that you're unaware of it."

To the user you just specify "downconvert", and a NTSC file pops out the end. But under the bonnet the engine is doing a deinterlace, rescale, and reinterlace, even if the maths and algorithms are all rolled into one and the user's not aware of it.

I'm a little lost in your flow -- why can't the software simply do it field by field? In fact I believe that is what it does -- I don't see the requirement to follow the path you suggest? You take Field A, downsize it, take Field B, downsize it ... you end up with a downsized 1080i>480i file ..?

It is not quite this simple. The top 540 line field in a 1080i video stream is shifted in space by 1 scan line from the bottom 540 line field. One scan line in a 1080i video stream is about 0.09 percent of the field of view. If you rescale each 540 field to 240 lines, the two fields will still be offset from each other by 0.09 percent of the field of view. However, the top and bottom fields of a 480i video stream should be offset from each other 0.20 percent of the field of view. This error could result in noticeable aliasing and loss of resolution.

Well if your software doesn't know what a line off set is, you've got troubles. For the record, neither FCP nor Premiere have given me problems, but YMMV

Well if your software doesn't know what a line off set is, you've got troubles. For the record, neither FCP nor Premiere have given me problems, but YMMV

I expect you are right on that one. It would be interesting to compare the results of different software and settings when converting the same 1080i30 source to 480i30.

Getting back to the original post, producing a widescreen DVD doesn't immediately require an investment in new computers and software. If you shoot HD, the footage can be down sampled to widescreen SD prior to editing.

For the record, neither FCP nor Premiere have given me problems, but YMMV
No, but do they deinterlace before downconversion, or just do a simple field by field translation? The user has no way of knowing (and neither do I) but I suspect they deinterlace, even if the user is unaware.

It's worth thinking of NTSC-PAL standards convertors as a comparison. I remember seeing converted US TV shows in the 70s and technically there was no doubt that strange things had gone on, both relating to jagged edges on straight lines, loss of definition and jerkiness of motion when converted to PAL. Come the digital world and it became a different and much better story - the new techniques allowed much more complicated and cleverer algorithms to be used.

In this case, downconverting 540 lines to 240 COULD be done as simply as dropping 13 lines in every 27. It wouldn't look very good! Amongst other problems you'd get a step on diagonal lines every 12 th line. At the very least, prediction needs to be done such that every output line is formed from a number of input lines to smooth things out. If that was (say) 5 lines, that could lead to a noticeable softening, but if the 5 was 5 out of a deinterlaced 1080 there should be a marked improvement.

It's not that you can't convert interlace to interlace on a field by field basis, it's that there are better (and far more complicated) ways to do it. And starting from a 60p original takes a lot of the pain away.