de-interlacing vs. progressive

[skittles_of_SDC 0]

As I understand it de-interlacing is the process of converting interlaced video to progressive video. What I am curious about is whether de-interlaced video is the same quality as video that is shot with a camcorder that has progressive shooting mode?

P.S not that it matters but this isn't directly related to skydiving.

[DSE 5]

The answer to your question is dependent on a few factors, but *generally* an image acquired as progressive is a better quality image than one acquired as interlaced and then deinterlaced.
If you're acquiring in 1080i and outputing as 720p, you're better off in some ways, although 720p actually as around 30% greater resolution than 1080i converted to 720p.
However, there is this think called "Kell" that offsets that 30% gain. Panasonic tried to use Kell in their marketing hype until the industry more or less let them know how full of shit they were. 60i is still the BEST way to grab motion unless you can shoot 60p.
Even then, the way that 60p is derived is pretty important, so there is more to the discussion than simply saying "I'm shooting with a progressive camera vs an interlaced camera." In many cases, the cameras shooting progressive have interlaced imagers, and are merely PsF outputs of that interlaced signal.

This'll give you a start if you wanna play with Google.

[skittles_of_SDC 0]

Thank you for the info, sir. All the stuff I was coming up with from google was about the advantages of de-interlacing rather than a comparing it to stuff shot in progressive. I'll have to look a little harder. Thanks again.

[DSE 5]

Consider that there are no good cams in a low price range that are progressive, outside of the Canon DSLR's, and those are not really considered video.

Consider that in ALL price classes, interlaced acquisition drives the bus. Consider that even progressive content is interlaced, then de-interlaced at broadcast, and that every display made in the past four years expects an interleaved/interlaced signal. DVDs output interlaced signals for the most part.
Progressive certainly has its place, and will continue to grow. But it also consumes a lot of bandwidth for acquisition and delivery that interlacing doesn't. Progressive imaging isn't at ALL new, although some companies want you to think it was. Progressive imaging was invented BEFORE interlacing was. Problem was (and still is) the bandwidth progressive imaging requires for broadcast and display, which is why television has been (and will be) interlaced in some form or another for a long, long time to come.