I see sports in 60p all the time. There's not a single thing about it which interlaced would make better.
I think you're attributing the motion cadence to it being interlaced, but that's not what does it. It's the frame rate. Motion-wise, 60p and 60i (or 50p and 50i) are identical. The progressive versions simply have higher resolution and no interlace artifacts.
Of course, you are absolutely right. Interlaced has half the resolution (or to be more precise, half the information - it trades spacial resolution partly against temporal resolution) but it is an old and widely used format. 60p (or 50p) is far out of sight as a TV norm in Europe. Don't know about the states but can't be that different. And the cinema norm is (still) 24f/s so nowhere to go with the high frame rate.
And, so we are back with to actual subject, why not keep the formats that have a long track-record (like 25p/50i, 30p/60i)? I appreciate new formats but I still need the possibility to work according to the standards (eg. for commissioned TV work) and that's where the GH2 falls flat for me. It can do 50i, OK, but I loose data-rate and quality.
Best, g
Last edited: