I keep on finding the claim that progressive scan video necessarily gives a high resolution than interlaced video. For example, take this from AudioVideo101.com:
HDTV signals broadcast at 60 Hz, the standard for broadcast television, vary in what scanning format is used. The highest resolution format (1,920 x 1,080) is presented using interlaced scanning while the 1,280 by 720 format uses progressive scanning. Thus, the 1,280 by 720 format presents a complete 921,600 pixels 60 times per second. However, the 1,920 by 1,080 format presents only half of its total resolution every 1/60th of a second (1,036,800 pixels 60 times per second or 2,073,600 pixels 30 times per second). In essence, then, at a 60 Hz refresh rate, the true resolution of the two HDTV formats (what is presented every 1/60th of a second) is very similar.
This is true only in the case of material sourced from a progressive scan video recorder. It is not true with film-sourced movies. These are filmed at 24 frames per second. Progressive scan transmission at 50 hertz involves repeating every single telecined line twice. It’s a bit more complicated in 60 hertz countries since each line is shown 2.5 times. The ‘resolution’ in the sense of the amount of data carried by a progressive scan system is higher than the interlaced version, for sure. But the ‘resolution’ as used in common parlance — the amount of picture detail you see on screen — is, in the case of film sourced material (ie. virtually all movies), identical in the progressive scan and interlaced versions. It’s just that the progressive scan version carries a huge amount of redundancy.