My new ...PAL G1?
 

So it seems like there is alot of preaching about the importance of using 50i for nicely de-interlaced footage. So this begs the question: How does Canon's frame mode hold up against a pal 50i footage (using the appropriate recipe for making 24p from such footage).
I know no footage yet exists from these cams, but I am trying to get a general idea on whether a person might want to do the PAL route.
Should I be considering a PAL G1?

On a PAL A1 you could just use 25f.
It's captured from interlaced CCD's but from what I've heard it looks just like 25p.
If you then want 24p you can put it easily from 25p to 24p (haven't done it myself but I've read that many times) as long as you watch your audio pitch.

From what I've heard, the Frame mode of these new HDV Canon Cameras loose some resolution, but are still much sharper than many other HDV or HD cameras on the market right now. I think much sharper then if you would deinterlace afterwards.

Contra: I think 24f and 25f still isn't supported by some NLE's.
I think Edius supports it but I'm not sure.

I may have found my answer here: http://www.dvfilm.com/fx1/index.htm

Sounds like they are recommending XL-H1 setings to be 50i/60i with the de-interlace afterward instead of frame mode. They even have a comparison...Hmmmm....

Well call me silly, but I think out of the screen shots I preferred the 24F frame grab from the Canon. Straight interlaced is, of course, horrible; no question. But the 50i->25P still contains minor interlace artifacts and the colors looked kind of, I don't know, sort of pixelated whereas the 24F shot was smoother. I guess that can be chalked up to the lower rez maybe. If you've got to blow up a portion of an HD image by a factor of 2 to show some slightly increased detail.. I don't know, probably won't make much difference on a 1920x1080 display..

In any event, if shooting for film out or just trying to mimic film look I'd still recommend 24F. I personally don't see it worth while rendering 50i->25P->24P just to have 24P footage with slightly higher resolution while still retaining occasional interlace artifacts. 24F also has the advantage of shooting at 1/48th shutter to really nail that film motion (for better or worse). Additionally, I recall that 24F mode is encoded by the MPEG engine as 24 progressive frames, which means less compression artifacts since MPEG encoders do a better job encoding progressive images AND 24 frames allocates a few more bits per frame. What's the point of higher resolution when you've got more "blocks" or other MPEG artifacts to deal with?

Honestly if the product has good cinematography, proper lighting, solid directing and convincing actors, then no one in the theater will EVER walk out complaining that the picture should have resolved at least 200 more vertical lines of resolution. Stuff shot on the PAL Canon XL1S has been on the big screen and audiences didn't complain. And the Canon 24F footage absolutely blows ANY SD cam out of the water in terms of resolution.

Just my two cents...

www.philipwilliams.com

It was odd, becuase I thought the 24Fstuff looked better too. Definitely softer but those interlace artifacts were funky looking.