"live transfer" question

[4K2K]

It's because they want it to look like a "live" event. If they shot it at - or converted it to 1080p24 it would no longer have the "live event" look that 1080i60 gives. It would look more like a movie - it would look more like a movie than a live concert. It's probably also easier and cheaper to shoot at 1080i60 than 1080p24.

You're thinking just of progressive versus interlaced but progressive on Blu-ray at full res can only be 24fps which isn't as high as 60 fields per sec that 1080i allows so the later can give advantages to live recordings that you want to look like live recordings not 24fps movies.

They could also shoot 1080p30 and encode at 1080i60 like they say the Nine Inch Nails disc is encoded at, but no player will say that's progressive as far as I know - and that wouldn't have the 'live' look that 1080i60 gives which is probably better for a live concert.

Is filming in 1080p a more difficult process that requires a more controlled environment? or do most of these features just have low budgets

When they shoot feature films, at 24fps, aren't they very careful how they film it, and have to pan or move the camera at certain speeds to minimize judder that is inherent in 24fps filming? If shooting a live concert at 1080i60 they wouldn't need to be so careful while panning or moving the camera as the higher refresh and frame rate would mean much less judder* - or whatever the correct word for it is.