O.k. here's my question... To get really good slow motion you need a high frame rate, now from what I've read in videomaker magazine. The JVC GR-HD1 high def camera can shoot at 60FPS Progressive scan in SD. I'm not too sure if this is true, it could be a type-o... correct me if i'm wrong. This combo will obviously produce some amazing slow mo if the specs are right. Now from what I've read, if you want really good slow motion footage you can have a camera that shoots at a high frame rate or you can use a plug-in like twixtor or realviz Re-timer to slow it down. Both of these plug-ins recommend having Progressive scan footage for the source for them to work there best. What I want to know is... If I have a GL2 that only shoots at 30FPS Interlaced footage and i deinterlace it into progressive scan with a plug-in, would the quality be as good or the equivalent of footage originally shot on a camera at 30FPS Progressive?... Wow! that was a mouthful...

On a seperate question... If I deinterlaced my entire film before putting it on a dvd will it still play properly on a regular NTSC tv set, and will this produce better image quality in the end? (Is it worth my time?) Would i have to re-interlace all of my footage?Suggestions...

Oh yeah, I also heard when you have progressive footage it renders quicker (AE) is this true?

You're forgetting that all video for TVs must conform to a standard of 60 interlaced fields per second. So, all SD camcorders record to that standard. Every single NTSC one. Even the cameras that say they are 24 FPS progressive record to 60 interlaced fields per second and therefore can be played on TVs. So, with that in mind, No the gr-hd1 probably doesn't record to 60FPS (unless 'F' stands for fields). And, when you deinterlace your entire film, you still have 60 interlaced fields of video and therefore are dvd compliant. [Not to confuse things, but DVDs can also be 24P because all dvd players can do a 3:2 pulldown--but DVDs are not 30 FPS progressive]. When you apply a deinterlace filter, you are choosing either the odd or even field and copying it to the other field. Effectively, you throw away 50% of your vertical resolution--so no, it's not the same quality as footage that is captured progressively.

Slo-mo with camcorders is really hard, if not impossible to make look good. Depending on what you're doing, "outside the box" brainstorming might be your best best. I remember those kids that made that film boy/girl achieved really really slo-mo by morphing two frames of video together. I thought that was genius. ...and based on the Internet preview, it looked really good too.

...and, After effects see's frames only (unless you specify otherwise), so two fields will look identical to one frame so there shouldn't be any rendering difference.

"O.k. here's my question... To get really good slow motion you need a high frame rate, now from what I've read in videomaker magazine. The JVC GR-HD1 high def camera can shoot at 60FPS Progressive scan in SD. I'm not too sure if this is true, it could be a type-o... correct me if i'm wrong. This combo will obviously produce some amazing slow mo if the specs are right. Now from what I've read, if you want really good slow motion footage you can have a camera that shoots at a high frame rate or you can use a plug-in like twixtor or realviz Re-timer to slow it down."

You need a frame rate much higher than 60fps to get adequate slowmotion. Anyway, it's a moot point, since as Joren pointed out it doesn't shoot at 60fps. Some of the newer HD cameras that are coming out may have overcrank ability, but these are generally made by Arri, etc. and you won't find people using them here.

For doing slowmotion in post, you can use Magic Bullet. This seems to provide OK results, though I haven't tried it. Your best bet is to avoid it altogether. Nothing signifies an amateur project more than poor-looking slowmotion.