<p>It uses a lower data rate (within the TV, not for the actual signal) and is cheaper to produce.  That is all.  The only difference is that if you are going to view it on a 1080i display, then shooting in 1080i would look slightly smoother since half the information updates every half a frame rather than updating the whole thing at once, but 1080p is preferable pretty much hands down on a 1080p display.</p>

<p>Interlacing just means that the upper and then lower fields update alternately.  It's less difficult to fake interlacing than it is to deinterlace, but you still get some artifacts displaying a progressive scan image on an interlaced display because of how things update.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-19T00:22:04.000Z
There are no interlaced displays anymore, though.
leftaroundabout
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-19T01:53:57.300Z
@leftaroundabout - maybe no new ones, but there are still 1080i displays that don't support 1080p hanging around.  I have one in my bedroom.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-19T20:09:48.520Z
Don't forget that many broadcast stations (air waves vs. cable or satellite) broadcast in 1080i.
filzilla
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-24T21:33:58.667Z
@AJHenderson - Why is the 'lower data rate' claim?
Izhaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-24T22:52:14.933Z
@Izhaki - within the display it is a lower data rate as only half the screen has to be refreshed at a time.  Each field is only half the information, and while there is still twice as many fields as frames, each field only has to update 30 times a second.  Thus, the TV only has to have half the data rate for each field (but the total between the fields is the same).  This matters for loading in to the frame buffers that control the display.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-25T00:04:03.210Z
Oh... OK.... The last sentence gives the real explanation. One can easily misinterpret your answer to think that interlaced has altogether lower data rate than progressive. As you mentioned, both involve the same amount of data (only with interlaced a frame is split into 2 fields).
Izhaki
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-25T14:10:35.753Z
@Izhaki - agreed, I updated the answer to make it more clear.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-18T23:16:59.607Z
2013-11-25T14:09:54.477Z
2013-11-25T14:09:54.477Z
AJ Henderson
<p>Why do some camcorders record in 1080i? Does it have any technical or visual advantages over 1080p?</p>

<p>Let's suppose that all media players and TVs which can handle 1080i can also handle 1080p. Is there still an advantage of 1080i?</p>

<full-hd>
Why do some camcorders record in 1080i?
pts
# Why do some camcorders record in 1080i?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-11-18)

Why do some camcorders record in 1080i? Does it have any technical or visual advantages over 1080p?

Let's suppose that all media players and TVs which can handle 1080i can also handle 1080p. Is there still an advantage of 1080i?

**Tags:** full-hd


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-11-18. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

It uses a lower data rate (within the TV, not for the actual signal) and is cheaper to produce. That is all. The only difference is that if you are going to view it on a 1080i display, then shooting in 1080i would look slightly smoother since half the information updates every half a frame rather than updating the whole thing at once, but 1080p is preferable pretty much hands down on a 1080p display.

Interlacing just means that the upper and then lower fields update alternately. It's less difficult to fake interlacing than it is to deinterlace, but you still get some artifacts displaying a progressive scan image on an interlaced display because of how things update.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: There are no interlaced displays anymore, though.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 - maybe no new ones, but there are still 1080i displays that don't support 1080p hanging around.  I have one in my bedroom.  
> **username_3**: Don't forget that many broadcast stations (air waves vs. cable or satellite) broadcast in 1080i.  
> **username_4**: @AJHenderson - Why is the 'lower data rate' claim?  
> **username_1**: @username_4 - within the display it is a lower data rate as only half the screen has to be refreshed at a time.  Each field is only half the information, and while there is still twice as many fields as frames, each field only has to update 30 times a second.  Thus, the TV only has to have half the data rate for each field (but the total between the fields is the same).  This matters for loading in to the frame buffers that control the display.  
> **username_4**: Oh... OK.... The last sentence gives the real explanation. One can easily misinterpret your answer to think that interlaced has altogether lower data rate than progressive. As you mentioned, both involve the same amount of data (only with interlaced a frame is split into 2 fields).  
> **username_1**: @username_4 - agreed, I updated the answer to make it more clear.  

---

