Firstly you need to understand the difference between interlaced and progressive.

When video is shot interlaced the two fields are taken at different points in time so anything that is moving will be in a different position in each field. If you try mergiing the two fields together then you get artifacts.

You can convert to progressive by throwing away every second field and creating new lines by interpolation. This reduces the real vertical reolution by half. If there is little or no motion then the fields can be merged. VV gives you a choice in the project properties.

I'd suggest firstly really ask yourself why you have to have the DVD progessive if the source was interalced to start with. Id suggest then splitting up the video into the bits with fast motion and none or only slow motion. Then de-intrlace them using the best method and patch it all back together again.

If you have tracks with static elements and others with motion again you could use the appropriate methods on each and rebuild the project.

Just bear in mind you're trying to do something for which there is no technically ideal solution.

farss, seems like we're practically playing phone tag here. Thanks again for your help. I do understand the difference b/t interlaced and progressive and always thought it a strange idea or make progressive from interlaced. I even asked about this on a few forums as to how and why this should be done, especially if the material is bound for interlaced only things like ntsc TV. Never have gotten a decent answer. An experienced editor friend told me to follow the basic truism that certain things work even though we don't understand them. I still hate that idea.
Anyway, I tested out DV Filmmaker which is only supposed to deinterlace when it detects motion and for the most part it seems to work. It claims in big letters on it's site that it works w/o any loss of resolution. Don't see how this is possible, though. I also don't see how if it doesn't do anything to parts of the clip w/o motion present how this can be a truly progressive result in the end.
I did not know what was meant by interpolated and blended though, and I appreciate your help with that. Wish they had that in one of the manuals or DSE's book.
I would try your method of splitting the clips up, but it is a silent film in the tradition of Charlie Chaplin and everything is sped up. Very big on visual comedy. ALso, DV FIlmmaker seems to do a good job deciding what to mess with and what not, except when it comes to fades.
Think I'll try interloping and blending the ends of the scenes with fades and compare the results.

For "Joe average" whether a DVD or the internal footage is interlaced or progressive (or marked as such) is pretty irrelevant. His interlaced TV will carry on. His eyes might spot the reduced frame rate and he might make the mistake of thinking he is watching a film, a film with someking of telecine.

If "Joe posh" has his computer playing the DVD or media file. This is when the difference occurs. For some reason best known to experts in directshow. A PC player assumes that the frame it pulls off from the source has to be drawn on the screen memory in the same fashion as the scanning system of the monitor. This clearly isn't necessary, the computer screen doesn't even have to refresh at video rates, so drawing on it could quite easily be interlaced, by the memory accesses missing a line at a time in accordance with the media files indicated field dominance. To remove scanlines, the previous scan could have be replaced by a faded version of it on the new scan, simulating a slow phosphor as might be associated with TV. But no, the programmers of video players try to de-interlace the video whilst it is in the pipeline and blame your PC for any failings. - So why does my Avermedia JoyTV give me interlaced video with NO tooth combing on the edges on a monitor that only supports progressive scan? I appreciate that the phosphors on my VGA CRT are not EBU ratable ones but nor probably are the Lcd and plasma that "Joe posh" is readily buying. Broadcast TV has its principles which is fine.

Back to the subject. If your footage is progressive, or has been made progressive-like. Then to ensure that the player doesn't preprocess the media as if it were interlaced, set the whole project to progressive. Interleaved sets will continue on regardless and quite appropriately.

Lastly, if your footage is progressive-like but not strictly progressive. Within an NLE project, temporal filters, transitions and manipulative effects could show up some of the interlace features and give the game away. You have to be the judge of when to run DV-Film post processing to best counter this.

Progressive target devices are the worst ones to handle interlaced flags on media that is progressive or progressive-like. It is still possible that a basic implementation of progressive scanning will still be doing what you want . Remember that digital formats store the whole frame and then flag how to spew it out. (all of them AFAIK)

24p varies in default size for NTSC and PAL, and some cameras and digitisers run to 59.94 frames/sec and sometimes above for quality slow-mo work. There are always exceptions.

Some Charlie Chaplin films were originally played back to audiences at nominally the same rate as the camera took them. OK, slightly less laughs probably....