Why in God's name are we still bothering with interlaced?

DavidBeier

DavidBeier

Veteran
I don't get it. We did 720p and everything was great. We had higher resolution but, MORE IMPORTANTLY, a progressive signal. No fields crap. No trying to figure out different ways to embed a progressive frame onto a 60i signal. None of it. Pure progressive.

So why in the hell did we go backwards with 1080i? I just don't get it. I know some people like the smoother motion of video for live events but that's what 30p and 60p is for. Why did the industry go backwards in this way? And, for that matter, why the are some of the HD cameras like the XLH1 and Z1 using interlaced CCDs. Sony does 1080p wonderfully with the CineAlta and the Canon's XL2 was a progressive camera so why the step backwards?
 
There is no strobing with interlaced that comes with all the progressive cameras. It is much more pleasing for reality shows etc.
 
Fugitive said:
There is no strobing with interlaced that comes with all the progressive cameras. It is much more pleasing for reality shows etc.
Click to expand...
Not compared to 720/60p it isn't. 720/60p gives you even smoother motion because there's no interlaced tearing artifacts. Check out football games on ABC/Fox/ESPN or prime-time shows like American Idol for how incredible 720/60p looks.
 
DavidBeier said:
I don't get it. We did 720p and everything was great. We had higher resolution but, MORE IMPORTANTLY, a progressive signal. No fields crap. No trying to figure out different ways to embed a progressive frame onto a 60i signal. None of it. Pure progressive.
Click to expand...
You would find a lot of kindred spirits at the EBU.

So why in the hell did we go backwards with 1080i? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
A few reasons. First, 1080 makes for a "bigger number" than 720 does, and for marketing purposes that matters (how else could a certain manufacturer stick the label "FULL HD" on their interlaced/1080i equipment?)

Second, some people really LIKE that live video look. People like the Japanese. As in, the country that designs and builds most video gear. They've had interlaced high-def a lot longer than we have, and their made-for-TV movies and things are shot on interlaced high def. So if the people designing and building our camera and television systems prefer the interlaced look, is it any wonder that we end up with more and more interlaced gear?

And, for that matter, why the are some of the HD cameras like the XLH1 and Z1 using interlaced CCDs. Sony does 1080p wonderfully with the CineAlta and the Canon's XL2 was a progressive camera so why the step backwards?
Click to expand...
Interlaced does offer some benefits when it comes to scanning a video signal. An interlaced CCD uses row-pair summation to add lines together between scans which results in a 6dB boost in sensitivity and a 6dB reduction in noise.

Panasonic chose progressive for many reasons, but in going progressive they gave up those two aspects, and used larger pixels to compensate. Sony and Canon used tinier pixels so they couldn't afford to give up the noise-reduction and sensitivity boost that comes from interlaced scanning. But they gave up progressive to get there. The end result is that the Sony and Canon are about a stop slower than the HVX, but the interlace factor lets them work with the noise to compensate. The Canon is comparably noisy but has 3x the pixels for marketing purposes, and a mildly sharper picture; the Sony is comparably sharp but has cleaner noise and can in fact go to 6dB before its image is comparably noisy to the HVX, and maybe as much as 9dB. At 9dB you have comparable noise and sharpness and sensitivity as the HVX, but you're dealing with interlaced instead of progressive footage at that point.

You should read the EBU's opinion letter about progressive and why the EBU is so firmly in favor of it.
http://www.ebu.ch/trev_301-editorial.html

Eventually interlace will hopefully die out and be replaced by all-progressive all the time; the EBU expects we'll get there with the introduction of a 1080/50p (and for us over here, 1080/60p) production & broadcast system.
 
Second, some people really LIKE that live video look. People like the Japanese. As in, the country that designs and builds most video gear. They've had interlaced high-def a lot longer than we have, and their made-for-TV movies and things are shot on interlaced high def. So if the people designing and building our camera and television systems prefer the interlaced look, is it any wonder that we end up with more and more interlaced gear?
Click to expand...

Wow. Yet another insanely bizarre thing about the Japanese. I can't get why someone would want 60i after seeing 60p. Everyone I know and all the clients I've shown stuff to all prefer the look of progressive (looks more professional). I really wish we hadn't made the jump to 1080 untill we were ready for progressive. We never had any 720i (as far as I know). It's just so odd that we took a step backwards in this regaurd. I guess it particularly ticks me off since, even though I'd love to shoot 1080p and take full advantage of the HVX200, the interlaced hassles simply aren't worth it to me at this point. There's something so wonderful about simply having 24, 30, or 60 pure frames to work with.
 
Barry_Green said:
Second, some people really LIKE that live video look. People like the Japanese. As in, the country that designs and builds most video gear. They've had interlaced high-def a lot longer than we have, and their made-for-TV movies and things are shot on interlaced high def. So if the people designing and building our camera and television systems prefer the interlaced look, is it any wonder that we end up with more and more interlaced gear?
Click to expand...

They were also the country that introduced progressive scanning. Its true that interlace is popular here, most stuff i see on HD networks is interlace. But hey they also make the panasonic HVX and not too many complaining about that.
 
Hi,

I agree progressive scan looks better and sharper than interlaced but interlaced still has it's place... news broadcasts, documentaries, etc.

For some applications it is still appropiate.

Chris
 
But that can be done with progressive and still look better. 720/60p looks better than 1080/60i and gives the same "reality" look. Check out "American Idol" or "Dancing With the Stars" or any live HD show on ABC or Fox...
 
Nope. The major sports networks here (Fox, ABC, ESPN) went with 720p because it just looks better. I've watched tons of basketball coverage and 720/60p looks way better than 1080/60i. On tennis & football it's closer but the interlaced jiggy/jaggyness that happens on the white lines drives me to distraction on the 1080/60i, but on the 720/60p it's pristine and clear at all times.
 
The key here is not the "P" it is the 60... 24P is inappropriate for many things but 60P would suffice just fine.



ash =o)
 
I think for 2 reasons-

1. Because 1080i sounds fancier than 720p. Any naive consumer will fall for that.

2. Irrelevant and different, but not everything supports 1080p- Only 1080i.

I think things are starting to move toward progressive nowadays.
 
Virtual-one said:
For football games and sport is interlaced better than progressive
Click to expand...

Like Barry and Ash said I thnk you guys just aren't looking at the same stuff. Have an HVX200? Try setting it to 720 60p and compare just the motion of that to 1080 60i. 60p looks WAY smoother and cleaner. I never said I was frustrated that people wanted other frame rates than 24p, I can understand the desire for smoother motion, but interlaced just seems inferior in everyway and, more importantly, pointlessly frustrating. Just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top