The DV video format is "progressive" in the sense it is frame and not field based. So a type of de-interlacing does occur as part of the digitization process.
MPEG2 was a more robust standard, in that it was a choice whether to de-interface the fields and then compress or retain the fields and compress. Less motion artifacts could be expected by avoiding de-interlacing. Depending on whether a hardware encoder like a standalone device or software encoder were used might allow this choice or not.
It remains to be seen if DVRs on the low or high end retained fields for capture and playback, varied between brands and models or simply defaulted to de-interlacing.
There are "Profiles" related to bit-rates and features. But I don't think those allowed choosing the de-interlace feature.
MPEG4 and other Professional codec also allowed this choice but its not something people often seek control over.. or understood.
Until we reach a technology can take field based information and infer a depth or object oriented interpretation of the image information and interpolate physics between frames its unlikely de-interlace technology will have improved much. Recent improvements in self driving cars appear to be approaching this level of technology but trickling down to the generic video market will probably take another ten years into the 2030s.
