Why do you need/want progressive?

[Alex Huppenthal]

Originally Posted by David Ziegelheim

Fixing those things is probably more a by product of going progressive. Display devices are going progressive because the underlying technology--LCD, DLP, plasma, LCOS--is progressive. If analog broadcasts to CRTs were the only available technology, we would probably still be interlaced.

I agree with you David. The world is digital, progressive is native, and the (i) belongs to the broadcaster's problem set.

One could fix the separate encoding of fields / mpeg2 issue by recombining the fields prior to compression of course.

The rest of the (i) stuff is for the birds. Sells alot of equipment, but the market for new production equipment is *huge*, and I think the mfgs miss that.

Go progressive, never look back, let the station worry about interlacing your delivery for broadcast.

Hopefully some mfg, maybe even in the V1, someone will realize that 24p can be better produced in the time/space of 60i, that just duplicating frames on tape. If they do that, and the imager is there (as it appears to be from teh stills on Sony's site), then we may really have something here.

[James Duffy]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

24F provides deinterlacing in camera - almost like have a deinterlacer software plug-in in camera. I've not seen a great tech breakdown of exactly how it works (anyone?) but there is a loss of resolution but it's superior in quality and effort over doing it post.

In some ways it's a very advanced frame movie mode but giving you 24 fps instead 30fps and seems to a better job of saving resolution than frame movie mode did.

True progressive is still superior to 24F mode but due to some fancy engineering, you get shutter speeds under 1/60th with 24F which you would not get shooting 60i and deinterlacing in post. So 24F gets my vote, especially when you factor in not having to render and tweak in post.

Did you mean 24f gets your vote over 24p, or that 24f gets your vote over filming 60i and de-interlacing in post?

Aside from the process used to obtain 24 fps, is there any inherent difference between 24f and 24p? If so, is it only a technical difference, or would there be an aesthetic difference noticeable to the human eye?

I appreciate the discussion in this thread; it's very informative.

[Heath McKnight]

I believe this Holiday season will see a huge amount of HDTVs sold, and most of the advertising seems to focus on 1080p, mostly because of the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360's HD DVD player...both support 1080p.

1080p30 is the pinnacle, right now, for HD delivery. Sure, other cameras can shoot in 2k or 4k, but delivery in 1080p30 (or even 24) is a big deal and the best of the best.

heath

[Ron Little]

So does the V1 shoot 1080p?

[Stuart Brontman]

The entire 1080p vs 720p vs 1080i debate is mind-numbing. The more I research this, the more I realize it's all based on trade-offs. On one hand, 1080p is the latest, greatest thing. It's capable of the ultimate image, but difficult to achieve with today's HDTV offerings. For us resolution freaks, it's the Holy Grail. BUT, no one offers broadcasts in 1080p yet. Plus, unless you're viewing on a really large HDTV, it's hard to see any real advantage over 720p. But we still want 1080p!

I see its biggest appeal with the new high-def DVD solutions and gaming - at least until the networks adapt it. For my client base (corporate), I need to convince them to invest in a blue ray or HD-DVD player and a 1080p monitor (with true 1080p inputs) for use at trade shows and other sales events.

For others on this board not shooting for eventual cinema work, what are you seeing with your clients? Are they asking for 1080p? Do they even care? Are they investing in equipment that will allow them to take advantage of 1080p material?

My attitude is shoot at the highest possible resolution/quality you can afford, knowing that within a few years it will be much more common to see 1080p HDTVs. Now I just have to see what offers the best bang-for-the-buck with 1080p acquisition.