I am constantly surprised by "filmmakers" shooting video trying to emulate the film medium of Hollywood. Personally I see these cameras a different medium in themselves and see the differences between film and video as positives to be explored rather than negatives to be worked around e.g. with expensive clunky 35mm adaptors. Some of the greatest filmmakers and if not the finest of our time, Abbas Kiarostami, regularly use Deep Focus as a device.Deep DOF has several consequences:

1) By not throwing background out of focus, when one pans with a moving subject to eliminate Foreground judder, Background judder will not be prevented.

a) We all know that zooms are taboo. In fact with Prime leneses, zooms are impossible. So, why do we continue to pan? We have widescreen and HD -- so we can put a camera near the ground, shoot-wide, and let the subject move through the frame. Or, place the camera high. The subject will have a low motion-vector and so no FG judder.

b) Normally when we pan using widescreen we leave more open space in the direction the subject is moving. This open space gets more of our attention -- since new objects are entering it -- than the space behind. Thus we will see BG judder here more than behind the subject. Can we compose a tighter shot with the subject in the middle? The extra DOF makes tight framing easier with a moving subject.

2) By not throwing background out of focus, when one moves the camera with a moving subject to eliminate Foreground judder, Background judder will not be prevented. This is a tough one because the availability of steadicam makes these shots so EZ. Perhaps too EZ. Everything is being shot with a moving verses a static camera! Frankly, the style is already out of style. Why carry it into HD?

3) By not throwing background out of focus, when one moves the camera using the ever so popular jib, judder may be introduced. What you may not realize is that when shooting interlaced video -- flat-panel HDTVs will "bob" the entire picture causing 50% of the vertical resolution to be lost. So like pans and zooms, these camera moves should be avoided.

In short, HD allows and encourages, a style where life unfolds through a window into "reality." Think of the westerns that were shot very widescreen and composed with very wide angle shots.

4) We are taught that we should throw the background out of focus to better isolate and focus our vision on the subject.

a) I recently saw a 4:3 movie with a wide-shot of an actor with lush trees behind. When the CU came, the trees went out of focus. Frankly, it bothered me. With widecreen, I would let the tree leaves remain in focus and let the viewer do the focusing on the actor. Rather than "distracting" the viewer, the act of choosing where to look may be more powerful to the viewer.

b) In a photo mag., a photographer who uses Leica cameras with wide-lenes commented that he considers deep DOF vital to providing the "context" in which the subject exists.

In short, although there is a lot of talk about using 24p to make "movies" or "increase the quality look of video" -- the concepts that come along with these desires reflect a very limited view of "cinema."

These limited views lead to judgements of what an HD camcorder "must" offer -- such as narrow DOF. As Tony Tremble said in the quote at the top -- we live in a new world and it seems creativity might be the appropiate response to changing technology.

Steve, my compliments. Great post, and this is exactly how I think about the whole "DOF" and 24p matters. The only thing many people on this board are worried about is emulating the film look. Film and video are different. Like you mentioned, the movies I remember best are films that do not take the usual approach and are shot from a different perspective. I think if you understand how video/HD video works you can really use it to your advantage.

I am happy to see that I am not the only one with this opinion.

I agree with a lot of the points you have posted up there Steve, but I think a lot of filmmakers want to make the jump to a shallower DOF because you just can't seem to find that in typical consumer cameras. I have to admit that I would rather see something on the big screen that I can't do with a $300 camera I'm picking up from Best Buy or atleast achieve a look that isn't similar. I guess what I mean is, if I'm paying for to watch the movie, I don't want to feel like I could have made it pretty easily.

I do think that we will start noticing a change in the way movies are being filmed to utilize the deep DOF. I actually noticed some shots in The Grudge 2 this past week and although they really utilized the shallow DOF, they also used deep DOF quite often to provide "hints" on what would happen next. I guess a good balance is what counts.

What is really important is the concept not whether you could could produce what is being seen on your own camcorder. Have faith in the concept.

If you haven't seen the film Draughtsman's Contract by Peter Greenaway I well recommend it. It's a strange murder mystery set in 17th century England. Greenaway uses an almost entirely static camera and wide DOF and frames his subjects as if framed by the protagonist in the film. The concept being to morph the medium of film into a moving painting (about a painter).

http://greenaway.bfi.org.uk/material.php?theme=2&type=Photograph&title=draughtsman

Ultimately the concept is free from the constraints of technology but undue emphasis can sometimes be placed on how best to capture those concepts based on established conventions.

If one looks at the history of cinema the periods when conventions change the most are during periods of technological change.

Viva la resolution!

If you like your cinema to flex the old grey matter, check out Greenaway and Kiarostami's work to see concept heavy work free from the constraints of conventions.

TT

What is really important is the concept not whether you could could produce what is being seen on your own camcorder. Have faith in the concept.

If you haven't seen the film Draughtsman's Contract by Peter Greenaway I well recommend it.TT

Thank you -- and Greenaway is just about my favorite director.

"I think a lot of filmmakers want to make the jump to a shallower DOF because you just can't seem to find that in typical consumer cameras."

I understand the comment, but the idea that one would choose a look so that it doesn't look like something else -- seems to be reversing the whole process of "creativity."

Video Salon (Japan) has a story on shooting Super 8 and using an adaptor to pull segments of film through a scanner. They list the amazing selection of film stock available. Perhaps, those who want the look of film should just shoot film!

I remember one definition of artistic creativity is the ability to work well within the constraints of the technology being used.

Shallow DOF is only one of film look aspects that so many of us are after. There are many other aspects making it kinda difficult to precisely define what "film look" is. How much of what we see on big screen is the characteristics of the negative, how much depends on developing, how much is post and CGI, especially these days?

There are many factors at play, but shallow (or maybe I should say "not too deep") DOF is closer to characteristics of human eye. The way we see the world in terms of DOF is closer to characteristics of 35mm frame than small video sensor. Often we don't even notice that because of natural attention focus on what we look at. It works naturally very well in 3D world, but in 2D space it's different story.

Of course, human faces is what we recognize the best and focus majority of our CPUs on. That's why we see "faces" in so many objects like clouds, tiny drops of water, pollen or dust caught in the flash (sometimes called "orbs") and many others. Human faces is where, imho, shallow DOF is most important because it brings flat screen experience closer to our natural perception.

While the post here deals with the aesthetics of deep DOF. The other practical consideration is that it is a lot easier to maintain focus on a subject with deep DOF. Since with Cameras like the V1 you're trying to focus on a really low-res display this is a huge blessing. Until the viewfinders get a lot better deep DOF is your friend.

I think the reason that people prefer shallow DOF is that it is less like reality. It's the same reason people prefer 24p over 60i. It creates a sheen of vagueness that extends the suspension of disbelief for fictional films. Shallow DOF also allows the DP or director to control what the viewer focuses on. I think both shallow and deep DOF are both useful tools in our disposal. Personally I prefer the shallow DOF look.

According to an article I read sometime ago regarding the history of film production, shallow DOF was used so that they didn't have to worry about distracting elements in the background because they didn't have the budgets to carefully arrange everything in view. It was easier to throw the background out of focus. That may not be the only reason and it has certainly become a sought after principle even to this day.

I am personally a fan of deep DOF. Not to make focusing easier, but I feel that it more closely mimics the way I see the world. When we look near and far, we do a rack focus, but it happens so fast that it just appears that everything we look at is in focus. With HD, I think we should be working towards deep DOF.

However, shallow DOF is used to force the viewer to concentrate on what the storyteller wants to emphasize at that point in time be it still or video. It's like someone grabbing your head and saying, "Here, look at this."

-gb-

According to an article I read sometime ago regarding the history of film production, shallow DOF was used so that they didn't have to worry about distracting elements in the background because they didn't have the budgets to carefully arrange everything in view.

The history books are probably correct because much of the background was painted to look 3D -- just like on the stage. Even staircases were cut-outs with the "posts" painted to look like they were "real."

Also, with VERY low-sensitivity film there was no choice to shoot with the lens wide-open.

So shallow DOF was dictated by the technology of the day and has become a "convention."

The convention will changea as technology changes -- at least as it does for those with less than $5000 to spend. There is always 24p XDCAM HD with 1/2-inch chips. And, let's be fair -- the JVC HD-series provides both 24p and you choice of lens. So you have $5000, $10000, and $15000 options.

If you really, really want 24p AND shallow DOF you certainly have multiple choices, but you will have to spend money for what you want -- just like it when you buy many things you "want."

I would guess that a lot of the shallow DOF craze that has permeated the small-format world has been partially flavor-of-the-month, and also because it allows users to further simulate the look and feel of 35mm that began with the introduction of 24p/frame mode etc. I do feel like much of the time I see "forced" shallow focus in many people's work these days. I have owned a Mini35 for a few years and have had a few people here and there comment on some of my projects, "it doesn't seem all that shallow". The reason for that is that I shoot exactly what I want to shoot, which may be about isolating someone from the background or it may not. The nice thing about this having the flexibility to make the choice for a given shot rather than being limited into the endless depth of field of 1/3" video. I might shoot a day exterior at T11, or knock it down to T2.8 if I want, with a significant visual difference between the two.

The point about the difficulty of maintaining focus is an excellent one. I believe that we are entering a phase where soft shots in low-budget production will becoming rampant as more alternatives (larger-sensor cameras as well as the adaptors) come on line. Buying the gear is part one of the battle, finding someone to pull focus accurately is a whole different animal. I've already seen many examples of hunting focus in clips on this and other sites. On the big screen, this is much more of an issue than online. Probably this will become the new "look" of cinema--lots of soft shots! (for those who think that they see a lot of this already in movies/TV...that's from seasoned pros who may occasionally miss the mark, and/or directors choosing to use bad takes for performance reasons).

BTW, "Draughtsman's Contract" was shot on Super 16, one of the early features to do so as I recall from the American Cinematographer article at the time, which made it a lot easier to maintain deep focus of course.

I believe that we are entering a phase where soft shots in low-budget production will becoming rampant as more alternatives (larger-sensor cameras as well as the adaptors) come on line.

Amazingly, even Primetime shows have soft shots from time to time.

By the way, for those who love film, follow this link to see Super8 to video. So far NO transfer to HDV, but you can do your own for $1000.

http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/filmxfer/super8sample2.wmv

Picture below of Bolex Super8 camera. I saw it in Germany in the summer of 1966 when Bolex engineers were testing it. I was shooting with a Bolex H8 -- which died. So I bought a Bolex K2. Then a Bolex H16 Rex.

Really interested in Super8 -- try one of these Canon 1014s, a transfer unit ($1050), and a V1.

OR, here's a transfer to 1080i HDV service link:

http://www.videoconversionexperts.com/Film_to_DVD/Choose_Process.htm

The lattitude and low contrast of the V1 makes it an ideal transer format.

3) What you may not realize is that when shooting interlaced video -- flat-panel HDTVs will "bob" the entire picture causing 50% of the vertical resolution to be lost.

How can you lose resolution that wasn't there in the first place? Interlaced has half the resolution in moving images. And bob-deinterlacing doesn't remove any resolution compared to the interlaced frame.

How can you lose resolution that wasn't there in the first place? Interlaced has half the resolution in moving images. And bob-deinterlacing doesn't remove any resolution compared to the interlaced frame.

Your post provides the opportunity to provide a link for folks shooting interlace:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/

Last year amost 50% of the HDTV tested used "bob" deinterlacing and lost 50% of interlace video's vertical rez.

It's gotten worse -- the number failing is gone up to 55%.

Bottom line, 30p or 60p progressive seems the only safe video to shoot. Everything else will take a huge quality hit when actually viewed in the real-world.

But, don't assume that on the "passing" HDTVs interlace video looks good. Objects that have motion will still lose 50% of their vertical resolution -- and it is painfully obvious when watching on a big screen. You can see the "object" turn into an object with alternating video and black lines. When the object stops moving, full detail returns.

Plus you need to worry when shooting about line-flicker and line-twitter.

Moreover, most HDTVs are unable decode correctly 2:3 pulldown. But, that may be less of a problem if you edit/export so the cadence is never distrurbed.

Last year amost 50% of the HDTV tested used "bob" deinterlacing and lost 50% of interlace video's vertical rez.

That's bull. I can change the interlacing method in my computer at will and bob is excellent for interlaced material. It's absolutely the best way to deinterlace material as it creates 60 progressive frames out of 30. Yes, resolution will go down 50% in moving scenes but that resolution isn't in the interlaced file either. How can you say that bob deinterlacing loses resolutions when it simply displays one field after the other? There's NOTHING lost compared to the original interlaced material.

The only other method that is better is adaptive bob deinterlacing where you "quess" which way objects are moving and use that information to recover lost resolution. But that's actually NOT PRECISE to the interlaced image.


But, don't assume that on the "passing" HDTVs interlace video looks good. Objects that have motion will still lose 50% of their vertical resolution -- and it is painfully obvious when watching on a big screen. You can see the "object" turn into an object with alternating video and black lines. When the object stops moving, full detail returns.

Yes? That's because of interlacing. If you watch that normal footage in an interlaced crt it will do exactly the same thing. Has nothing to do with bob-deinterlacing. In interlaced formats objects flutter. I mean...That's how it works. You can't blame bob for being bad!

Yes, resolution will go down 50% in moving scenes but that resolution isn't in the interlaced file either. How can you say that bob deinterlacing loses resolutions when it simply displays one field after the other? There's NOTHING lost compared to the original interlaced material.


You are simply incorrect. The fact that interlacing is used does NOT mean a frame does not have approximately 700-TVL (V1). It makes no difference if the object is moving or is static.

When bob is used one field is discarded. Gone! And, with it goes half the information in a frame. Resolution is cut in HALF.

The progressive display, if 1080-lines, is now needs 540-lines to replace the 540-lines discarded. It gets them by copying the 540-lines that were not discarded and placing them in the frame. Resolution is not gained.

You are simply incorrect. The fact that interlacing is used does NOT mean a frame does not have approximately 700-TVL (V1). It makes no difference if the object is moving or is static.

When bob is used one field is discarded. Gone! And, with it goes half the information in a frame. Resolution is cut in HALF.

Google for how bob-deinterlacing works. I've been doing slow motions using bob-deinterlacing a lot and it really works wonders. There are dozens of deinterlacing methods available on the pc with different softwares and bob is simply the best for video.

Bob doesn't discard one field because the other field is displayed immediately afterward. It shows the fields one by one. NO FIELD IS DISCARDED in bob-deinterlacing.

It makes no difference if the object is moving or is static.

You're actually complaining about losing 50% resolution in moving objects without comprehending that it's just a fact of interlacing. How are you going to combat against that? Your 10 000 dollar deinterlacers are just like magic bullets deinterlacer or alparysofts in that they make stuff up. They calculate the movements of pixels and make up stuff that isn't in the interlaced material to create something that looks progressive without interlace twitters. Bob doesn't, it shows you exactly how the material would look like if it would be played in an interlaced monitor. Except 30i is converted to 60p.

AVISynth Bob deinterlacer is one the best deinterlacers out there in the pc world. Try it out and compare it to...well anything really.

Bob is also used in a lot of pc dvd software like windvd and powerdvd.

There are a couple of sites that regularly complain that bob-deinterlacing loses 50% resolution. That is wrong. They don't take into account the fact that in bob every field is shown. They're not discarded even though one frame will be half. The other frame will be the other half. And as the images are shown at double the speed (30i -> 60p) that means nothing is lost compared to a normal interlaced monitor that also shows line after line after line.

NO FIELD IS DISCARDED in bob-deinterlacing.

If you want to claim your PC experiments prove everyone else is wrong about bob deinterlacing -- there's no way to stop you.

But, you might want to consider why published experts are wrong and you are right. It doesn't matter what you do on your PC, you can't change the definition of deinterlacing.

bob discards one field of every two. The second field is never shown. That is where your error lies.

It is weave that uses both fields.

Steve,

A weave shows both fields at the same time or in other words it doesn't do anything at all. It just weaves field 1 and field 2 together into a frame which can show interlacing on moving objects.

A bob works just like it sounds. It alternates fields into frames which can cause small details to bob up and down due to the alternating lines each frame. Bob is the process of turning 60i into 60p. This is listed on many websites and in a lot of software programs. VLC player uses the bob mode to playback interlaced material as 60p.

Deinterlace is just that. Just throwing out a field or removing the second field. Better known as discard.

A blend will bob the frames and then blend every two frames together to form a 30p sequence. Kind of like the motion filter on the JVC HD-100.

There are only two ways to get better than a bob. One is to only bob the sections that move and duplicate the non moving pixels. Kind of a blend of bob and weave. The other method is motion adaptive which is the huge beast to try and process.

Just check out how VLC player does it.

Steve,

A bob works just like it sounds. It alternates fields into frames which can cause small details to bob up and down due to the alternating lines each frame. Bob is the process of turning 60i into 60p.

Deinterlace is just that. Just throwing out a field or removing the second field. Better known as discard.



By your definition, bobing isn't de-interlacing but a frame-rate doubler. However, other definitions have bob discarding every other field which is "bob de-interlacing." If the frame is larger than a field, then the remaining field must be scaled.

http://www.100fps.com/

A paraphrased quote to be legal:

"Line doubling takes the lines of each interlaced frame (ONLY even OR odd lines) and doubles the number of lines, filling the entire frame, resulting in video with effectively half the vertical resolution. This technique is also called bob deinterlacing."


A paraphrased quote to be legal:

"Deinterlacing assembles progressive frames and shows them twice to use up the same amount of time as two fields. The need for 60 flashes on the screen each second stems from the Flicker Fusion Frequency."

Most HDTVs deinterlace. They discard, as you correctly say, every other field. The discarded field is gone and with it 50% of the frame's resolution. That is the way to eliminate interlace artfacts. The question then is by what process the missing lines are created. There are many ways and they are not hard to do with a DSP. 2D FIR is fine. Line-interpolation or line-doubling (scaling) is the simplest.

When you read an HDTV person use the term bob, they mean "bob deinterlacing."

Of course, HDTV's don't need to deinterlace. As you point-out, both fields can be combined. This is weave. It can be used only for static images, or even for motion with very heavy filtering to remove combing.

... - there really wasn't a quote that addressed the "keep the deep DoF" piece of the first post here, but that's what I'm addressing.

One of the problems with video is that you're working with a more limited resolution medium. If you shoot Deep DOF (which is a perfectly legitimate artistic choice), the backgrounds get mosaiced into the little squares of the ccd...if you have a background object that only spans 2 pixels, but is high contrast, it starts to do funny things if it moves. These artifacts of the non-random, small pixel count are not visually appealing and are the primary cause (the other being the limited exposure range) of the "video" look.

I personally am annoyed by the "film look" thing as a whole...but that isn't to say we need to discount the techniques employed to that end. Arguments will be made that there have been tons of deep DOF things shot and shot well...but the material that is constantly referred to was shot on a much higher resolution format...even s8mm footage has a resolution more comparable to that of HD than DV. And s8mm has a "technically" shallower DoF than most HD/DV cameras. A 1/3" CCD is really only 7mm. The larger the capture plane, the shallower the DoF at equivalent iris size.

I see selective focus as a tool, I see deep DoF as part of that same tool kit, but on lower resolution, grid based capture media, it's too easy to end up with the audience looking at the artifacts caused by the format rather than concentrating on the story being presented.

What makes a good picture is shooting within the limitations of the format. So light well, expose correctly (DV is less forgiving of bad exposure than film) and even softening the background slightly can make a dramatic impact on the apparent quality of your footage.

As I've stated in the past, the "Film Look" happens in front of the camera, not in it. Like a paint brush, the mechanics and physics of the camera is painfully simple stuff...the art happens when that tool is applied in a creative way to produce an image that tells a story effectively.

By your definition, bobing isn't de-interlacing but a frame-rate doubler. However, other definitions have bob discarding every other field which is "bob de-interlacing." If the frame is larger than a field, then the remaining field must be scaled.

http://www.100fps.com/

A paraphrased quote to be legal:

"Line doubling takes the lines of each interlaced frame (ONLY even OR odd lines) and doubles the number of lines, filling the entire frame, resulting in video with effectively half the vertical resolution. This technique is also called bob deinterlacing."


A paraphrased quote to be legal:

"Deinterlacing assembles progressive frames and shows them twice to use up the same amount of time as two fields. The need for 60 flashes on the screen each second stems from the Flicker Fusion Frequency."

Most HDTVs deinterlace. They discard, as you correctly say, every other field. The discarded field is gone and with it 50% of the frame's resolution. That is the way to eliminate interlace artfacts. The question then is by what process the missing lines are created. There are many ways and they are not hard to do with a DSP. 2D FIR is fine. Line-interpolation or line-doubling (scaling) is the simplest.

When you read an HDTV person use the term bob, they mean "bob deinterlacing."

Of course, HDTV's don't need to deinterlace. As you point-out, both fields can be combined. This is weave. It can be used only for static images, or even for motion with very heavy filtering to remove combing.

Dude in that same site you listed did you happen to notice that under bob it mentions it has very smooth movement and a need for a system to be able to playback 50fps? That is where I took the definition of what bob is in my other post.

If all of these HDTV's are doing just a deinterlace and throwing out a field then basically all they ever show with interlaced material is 30p if what you are saying is true. That is not true at all. Since a lot of people complain about 30p from the JVC-HD100 I'm sure it would have been a huge issue if a HDTV could only show 30p. It wouldn't look very real to a lot of people. Every HDTV I have ever looked at when I was looking to buy one looked like it was showing smooth 60hz motion even on 1080i channels. I have never in my entire life ever saw a HDTV that only showed 60i material as deinterlaced 30p.

Couldn't the test be thinking of a normal 60i to 60p bob as a failure since it doesn't try to enhance the missing detail? In fact I have a Samsung HDTV on that list that has failed the deinterlace test but it is still converting 60i to 60p. I know this for a fact because I have edited a HDV tape with different conversions where one version was 60i and the other was 30p. The 60i clearly flowed better then the 30p version which means my failure of a TV was still showing all 60 fields.

If all of these HDTV's are doing just a deinterlace and throwing out a field then basically all they ever show with interlaced material is 30p if what you are saying is true. That is not true at all. Since a lot of people complain about 30p from the JVC-HD100 I'm sure it would have been a huge issue if a HDTV could only show 30p. It wouldn't look very real to a lot of people. Every HDTV I have ever looked at when I was looking to buy one looked like it was showing smooth 60hz motion even on 1080i channels. I have never in my entire life ever saw a HDTV that only showed 60i material as deinterlaced 30p.....

..... In fact I have a Samsung HDTV on that list that has failed the deinterlace test but it is still converting 60i to 60p. I know this for a fact because I have edited a HDV tape with different conversions where one version was 60i and the other was 30p. The 60i clearly flowed better then the 30p version which means my failure of a TV was still showing all 60 fields.

I completely agree! Something is wrong in the interpretation because it is manifestly evident that every other field is not being discarded, else it would end up looking like low rez 30p frames versus smooth movements recorded every 1/60 second as fields.

Couldn't the test be thinking of a normal 60i to 60p bob as a failure since it doesn't try to enhance the missing detail? In fact I have a Samsung HDTV on that list that has failed the deinterlace test but it is still converting 60i to 60p.

There are three facts:

1) 60i gets converted to 60p

2) the 60p motion is smooth

3) Less than half HDTVs are able to offer max. vertical resolution while more than half of the HDTVs limit resolution to about 50% of this value.

The reason for this situation, is the fact that interlace video must be deinterlaced. Depending on HOW it is done, there may be a reduction in V rez. The HDTV's that show the reduction use a method called "bob deinterlacing."

=========

UPDATE:

When bob de-interlacing is used, EACH field is input and placed into a frame. (You were correct -- one field is not discarded.) The frames are displayed at 60fps. This is the 60i to 60p conversion.

1) If the frame has 540-lines, as was the case with EDTV's that had 480-lines, then the field is used as is. This is common in software.

2) If the frame has between 540-lines and 1080-lines, then up to 540-lines have no information. These cannot be left black otherwise the brightness would drop by up to 50%. So up to 540-lines must be "created."

With bob deinterlacing, scaling is used to obtain the missing 540-lines. If 540-lines are needed, then this scaling is typically called "line-doubling."

bob deinterlacing uses "interpolatation" so the new lines are created as an AVERAGE of the lines above and below them. Interpolatation may reduce resolution by up to 50%. Why?

The test pattern has areas where very fine (1 pixel) black and white lines alternate. The pattern also has a moving object that will trigger the HDTV to use whatever type of deinterlacing used for video with motion.

The MT story states (paraphrased): "TVs that fail the test, show strobing black and white "boxes" because they double the first field that consists of just white lines, and then double the next field that has only black lines. Each interpolation of just odd or even lines wrongly assumes that, if odd lines are black, then the missing lines must be black. When a white field appears, it makes the same wrong interpolation, causing the box to appear to be all white. This causes a 50% loss of resolution in EVERY frame. However, when bob-deinterlacing is not used, the boxes show the alternating B&W lines as they originally appear."

Therefore, bob deinterlacing inherently causes a loss of effective vertical resolution of each field's original resolution.

Thus, we are both correct. Fields are not discarded, but HDTVs that use bob-deinterlacing reduce resolution up to 50%.

Which means that there is a 50:50 chance that when your interlaced production is actually viewed -- the resolution of the entire screen will be reduced by up to 50% whenever there is motion ANYWHERE on the screen.

Although 50% loss are the test results, with real video the loss should be only about 25%. For 1080i video that would mean the scaler output would average about 750-TVL and that was fine when displays were only 720- or 768-lines. It's really showing up as displays get 1080-lines. So that may be why so many folks don't notice it.

1) The loss is NOT from interlaced video as claimed.

2) It is from bob-deinterlacing despite what was claimed.

3) The fact that three brands had all their HDTVs pass the test means that when bob-deinterlacing is NOT used, resolution is significantly increased.