Originally Posted by Philip_L
I've checked the video, basically it is interlaced footage that has been flagged as progressive, looks like a problem in the creation of the final output before upload to YouTube.
Maybe. Maybe it is YouTube's deinterlacer. You never know. Bottom line: you get predictable and consistent results with progressive source, you get unpredictable and inconsistent results with interlaced source. If you do deinterlace interlaced video so that it does not have neither combing nor ghosting you lose half of vertical resolution compared to native progressive video. And yes, this is noticeable even on YouTube.
As for TV viewing, all TVs have deinenterlacers, some are better other are worse, but even when deinterlaced "field-to-frame" (a.k.a. "bob") the image usually is still watchable. Which is why I would prefer consumer cams having 720p60 instead of 1080p60, but Panasonic does not want to hurt its professional lineup by offering what they think is a professional format (720p60), so they offer a format that is not used by pros (1080p60).
1080p60 is not BD legal, it can be watched only on AVCHD 2.0 - compliant players, it is not used in broadcast. This way Panasonic (and Sony) made it look like they offered a super-duper format to consumers while fully protecting their professional lineups. Bravo.
I convert all my interlaced videos into 720p60, I also render from 1080p60 into 720p60, and it looks good enough for me (I render 1080p60 too, but I don't give it away). Presently, I consider 720p60 the best middle ground, it is fully supported in BD players and in broadcast and I can render great interlaced DVD-Video from it if I needed. And it looks great on a computer without the need to tweak deinterlacing settings.
Compare frame size in pixels: 1280x720 = 921600, 1920x1080 = 2073600. Now compare bitrates: 24 Mbit/s for 720p60 and 28 Mbit/s for 1080p60 and you will see that 1080p60 has to work harder. Hence occasional macroblocking that I see from the SD600.