Video question (if okay): Why even consider a 1080i camera

[JoeCanon]

Hello everyone (i've posted before on Bob's old forums, but first time here)

Why should one consider a 1080i camera while computers and even flat screen TVs are all natively progressive?

I read (1) interlacing was developed only for old CRT type displays, (2) flat screen TVs all have a built-in de-interlacing hardware engines, (3) such 1080i 60 fps cameras can shoot progressive video at 30 fps and 24 fps but they are wrapped in the interlaced video stream, (4) Canon and others will be developing 60p consumer video cameras.

So, as far as I understand, if you shoot 1080i video, it has to be converted on the fly by the TV to progressive and on the computer by software.

So my question in other words is this: If most consumers are going to shoot family stuff and save and play on their computers and HDTV, why are they selling 1080i cameras?  Will 1080p consumer cameras be coming soon?

[Bob Atkins]

I presume 1080i is easier to implement than 1080p and so that's why they use it.

The EOS 5D MkII is 1080p, so it is done, but maybe only on the high end cameras which have enough processing power.

For most people, I doubt that the difference between 1080i and 1080p is a big deal, and they probably won't notice much difference. There's also a marketing issue becuase most consumers probably don't know the difference, so as long as it says "1080" on the box, it's a selling point.

1080i isn't bad, it's what you get for broadcast HD TV I think (but I'm no expert).

[emanresu]

the stations here broadcast 720p