Interlaced vs Progressive?

[azl3c...@gmail.com]

I have decided to upgrade to a better video camera. I currently own
two Sony's (a TRV-10 and a HC-46) which I've used over the years.
Most of what I film is outdoor panoramas, "nature kind of stuff",
tourist-like travelogue footage, and the requisite family gathering
shots.

After doing a bunch of research I'm confused and bewildered as what
to get. My budget is probably no more than 3k US. I have somewhat
narrowed my search to a Sony FX1, a Panasonic DVX100, and a Canon XL2.
I know that the Sony is HD and the other two SD. Do you think that
progressive scan would be superior to interlaced scan for my
application? And then there's the old SD versus HD thing that has
compounded my decision. A part of me says to stick with SD for ease of
editing (I use PP1.5) and realistic distribution possibilities. The
other part of me says that HD is the future and I should bite the
bullet and go there. If I was to go HD would the interlaced with its
more "vivid digital-look" be better for my application rather than
the progressive more "film-like" look? I realize that these are
loaded questions and there may not be any clear cut winners out there
as all things are highly subjective but any advice would be
appreciated.

TIA

Mike

[Johan Stäck]

azl3c...@gmail.com skrev:

As for Interlaced vs progressive:
If I am not misinformed, it seems that all modern TV sets (LCD and
plasma) are equipped with rather advanced de-interlacing circuits.
This being because they can't handle interlaced video the way the old
CRT-equipped sets did.

My impression is that these circuits try their best ( and often with
rather good results) to undo the damage done by interlacing in the cameras.
But it shouldn't be needed if the cameras did "the right thing" namely
recording non-interlaced from the start.

But maybe I've gotten this all wrong..

/JS