>>3987347Except interlaced was NEVER good. It was always a way to save space on VHS tape. There is NO visual advantage. If you owned a VHS camcorder (or VHS cassette player that could record video), and you didn't have a long enough tape to record what you wanted to record, you would compromise with interlaced...once. Then you'd never do it again, and instead just stock up on more blank tapes.
35mm film was always engineered to actually be good. You might compare it to the best digital sensors and say that the image quality isn't quite there, the fact that it has to be developed is a disadvantage, but people still shoot film today for a reason. It was good back then, and it's still good today.
Nobody chooses to shoot interlaced film, if they have any alternatives.
