I'm not. But I'm starting to think we're either talking about two different things or we're just saying it in different ways.

What I read you as saying is that a television scans one field, keeps it there, then fills in the rest of the picture with the next field with the first field being just as bright as the second one is filled in -- then the next field erases those. Maybe that's not what you meant? If not, then I misread you. If it IS what you meant, then yeah, I disagree very much.

Now, if you mean it the way Ron describes it, where the phosphors fade on the first field as the second one is painted, then yeah -- we agree. But in this sense, only one field is ever active at a time, and yes, your brain fills in the rest of the picture as the previous field fades.

But if you're seeing jaggies on an interlaced display, you must one heck of a set of eyes, because almost no one can. Pausing a "frame" of interlaced on a progressive display (like an NLE preview window on a computer monitor)? Sure. Then you see the jaggies. But not in motion on an interlaced display.

Ron, I think 24p is kept for cinematic motion picture production because people just like the way it looks. I know I do.

David I too like the colour saturation and depth of field effects of film but find the stutter so disturbing I really don't watch much film anymore. Unfortunately this is also starting to apply to television too. It is possible to shoot with high frame rate to get all the fluid motion and use post to get any effect one wants( within reason!!!) I would even like the opportunity to have the player do this on playback so that people like me can have their nice smooth motion and people who like the stutter of a slow frame rate get what they want too. Emulating stutter from a higher frame rate progressive image would be easy. High frame rate progressive capture has a lot going for it.

Ron Evans

Hmmmm . . .

An on-the-fly reverse telecine from 60p DVD (or whatever).

Interesting. I can see a few problems in the production pipeline, but I can see some uses for it, too.

you solved a problem
 

I do not know if you are still following this thread, but in all the interesting debate you solved a problem I had in a recent music video I produced.
I used stills periodically through out, taken from grabbed frames. all of them turned out just fine while editing. However in the dvd production when we watched it this one still looked like it was fluttering continually.
After reading this I realized that I must have captured the frame from film that was 60 frames interlaced!! In relaity I had captured two frames and they flash back and forth!!
I now shoot primarily in 30 p and take stills out of it and should not have that problem again.
So while editing 60 i the cure is to deinterlace a clip, take your stills and then reinterlace the clip.

is that correct? is there an easier way??