Fast action video: Progressive or Interlaced.

[Laercio]

I just bought a VX2100. Got it today. Haven't tried it yet.

I just read this:

"If you go for a progressive camera you won't see interlace artifacts either, but be aware that the motion will not be as smooth as it would be on an interlaced camera."

That's what I have read in some other places too.
But, there are some people that say that progressive are great for action and sports video.
That's what I don't understand. If the motion in progressive is not as smooth as in interlaced, why would it be better for action video?
Someone also mentioned that it makes a difference if you are following the subject with the camera or if the subject just "cross" the video (and the camera is in a fixed position).
So, when I do my horses video, I am always following the horse. So, it makes the background moves fast. What would give me a better image? The progressive or the interlaced camera? If I want to show the video in slow motion, what would be better, progressive or interlaced?
Is it true that I can get the same 30p (GL2) result from the VX2100 if I just use Final Cut to deinterlaced the video?

For the VX2100, could anybody give me some advice about shutter speed? What would be the effect of slow or fast shutter speed in a horse video?

Thank you very much.

 

[moebius]

First of all I wouldn't recommend the progressive mode (whatever it's called) of the VX2100, better de-interlace if you want progressive. Also the GL2's progressive isn't all that good (what these modes do is record fields and then interpolate them to full frames, which essentially leaves you with half the vertical resolution). If you follow a horse with a progressive shooting camera the horse will be sharp and the background will have much more motion blur than with interlaced video - in my opinion that looks really cool. But if the horse runs through the frame, the motion won't be smooth. For slowmotion it's better to shoot interlaced since you can later just split the fields and make them full frames, so you have 60 frames a second with a slighter worse quality, but much better than interpolating full frames. With the cameras you have I'd recommend shooting 60i all the time and, if you want to go for some kind of film effect, get a good de-interlacer like nattress and make it progressive.
For shutter speed it depends on what you are going for. If you document sports action, want to do slomos and need a sharp picture always try to go for the fastest shutter speed possible. If you want to go for a film effect use 1/60th and use ND filters to keep the apperture open.
Hope this helps!

 

[Laercio]

Thanks for your answer. It really helped.
I agree with you when you say that "If you follow a horse with a progressive shooting camera the horse will be sharp and the background will have much more motion blur than with interlaced video - in my opinion that looks really cool". Do you think that I can get the "same" thing if I use nattress to de-interlace or I have to start with a true progressive camera?

It might look really cool. But, I believe sometimes there will be some scenes where the horse will be coming in my direction, so he is gonna be kind of running through the frame, and like you said the motion won't be smooth. So, I may keep shooting 60i with the VX2100.
I just got the VX2100, so I still have time to get something else. But I think I will get some good results with it.

Thanks again!!!