What is better non-interlaced or interlaced TV?

Answer 1

Non-interlaced, more commonly known as progressive or progressive scan, is better. This is because every line is drawn on the screen in a progressive manner which results in clearer, crisper, and sharper pictures than interlaced ones.

Answer 2

That's all down to how you shoot. Non-interlaced footage is referred to as 'progressive', ie you're seeing complete frames of information displayed consecutively, one after the other, 25/30 times per second. With interlaced, each frame is broken down into two fields, which are mixed together (interlock your fingers -the fields are arranged like this), and instead of the whole frame changing 25/30 times per second, the fields will take turns to switch, and each field will change once per second. So, effectively, there are 50/60 image changes per second, as it takes 1/25th or 1/30th of a second for both fields to swap out with new images. High end cameras these days can generally shoot either of these frame rates. If you wanted an end product that looked progressive, shoot progressive. It's not ideal to shoot interlaced if you're planning on converting to Progressive (known as de-interlacing), as technically, in order to do this, you'll have to remove one of the fields per frame (I'm not quite sure how the conversion works), meaning that essentially you're losing half of the information. This lowers quality etc. That's what they say, anyway. If you ask me, interlaced is not suitable for drama. Even documentary looks cheap when shot interlaced. But that's just me. If your camera shoots progressive, and that's either 24p, 25p, 30p, 720p or 1080p, your image will contain as much information as an interlaced one. Then it's all up to your camera, and its lens...