Yes I know that. But since it takes 1080i 1/30th of a second to draw a full frame because it has to do each frame in 2 passes as compared to 1080p which does it in 1 pass taking only 1/60th of a second - does that mean 1080p is drawing 60 frames per second where as 1080i is drawing 30 frames per second.
Meaning that it would take (1080p) twice as much disk space for the same footage ?
According to the Wikipedia:
Due to bandwidth limitations of broadcast frequencies, the ATSC and DVB have standardized only the frame rates of 24, 25, and 30 frames per second (1080p24, 1080p25, 1080p30). 1080p30 is currently the most bandwidth-intensive video mode supported.
The frame resolution (thus storage requirements) of 1080p and 1080i are the same.
I could be wrong on this, maybe someone can confirm or prove me wrong.
There are 30 frames per second, and each frame is made up of 2 fields. So on an older CRT monitor, the electron gun would print the odd fields first, followed by the even fields. So the electron gun would print through the screen twice a second.
I guess it was my understanding that this was the progressive method.
Interlaced would mean that it displays the odd and the even fields at the same time, meaning it only needs to take one pass through the screen.
So where this all boils down to in my mind is that there are still 30fps (or you could shoot 24fps) and all in all, it should (in my theory atleast) be the same file size.
It seems like most people are agreeing that they take the same amount of space.
Also - Prominc. You have the names reversed. The older technology where it takes 2 passes to draw the frame is called "interlaced" and presenting all in one pass is the "progressive" method.