HD or Not HD
 

I have never shot anything but HD, but have to sometimes wonder if that is wise.

Is editing in SD easier than HD and take up less storage?

I was just curious if there was enough time saving to offer both HD and SD video?

I shoot everything in HD and deliver in SD/HD.
I'll never shoot SD again.

SD is "easier" because the computer handles the DV footage with less effort than HDV footage.

SD is "easier" because it's more forgiving with things like focus (you can really tell when HD is slightly out of focus.)

I have the ability to shoot and deliver in HD, but most of my business video (sales, training, demonstration) is shot and edited in SD because it's primary distribution will be in a tiny window on a website.

I did not set a date to "make the switch" to HD. I simply upgraded equipment when it was due to be upgraded. First an HD camera, and a few months later, a workstation that could more adequately handle HDV.

Yes, rendered HD video typically takes up more storage space than SD, but hard drives are cheap. That would be one of the least of my concerns.

Since 2005, all of our weddings have been shot and edited in HD whether they ordered HD or not. We archive an .m2t file of all completed projects, which has the same file size as SD. Although most of our clients order SD today, we give them the option of being able to order blu ray at any time in the future. This has been a great selling point for us, being backwards compatible with HD in the future!

This year, we are starting to produce HD shoot wedding on DVD but we have been shooting on HD for few years now.

HD is good for variety of reasons, just better quality, bigger size of image to play with.

Even if you are delivering in SD, shooting it in HD will provide a better quality image.

DV footage uses 4:1:1 chroma subsampling to compress the data. What this means is that the Chroma (color) data is only 1/4 the size of the luminance. So basically you are seeing 720x480 luminance data, overlayed with 180x480 color data (stretched out) to create the final image.

HDV uses 4:2:0 chroma subsampling to compress the data, which is a little different. It uses 1440x1080 luminance data, overlayed with 720x540 chroma data.

So, when you are making your final 720x480 SD video, would you rather be using (DV) 180x480 chroma resolution or (HDV) 720x540.

If you are shooting DVCPRO HD or XDCAM, your chroma resolution is even higher.

If you want to offer your clients the highest quality possible, shoot and edit in HD, then use a good program to downscale the video, as this is also an important part since there are many different algorithms to perform this step, and some are far superior to others.

If your shooting in HD - why go back to SD? It's a better product even when you down convert.

However, if I was still shooting in SD, I might (due to the economy) re-think upgrading right now. My customers are not looking for HD at the moment, and I know I am losing clients in this economy because I am a little more expensive due to the quality of my equipment. Will this turn around - yes, but I'm not sure when.

I love shooting in HD though, just a huge difference as far as quality goes for me. . . .

It's my first season with HDV camera. I'm still learning it so I'm not offering HD services for weddings yet, until I feel confident about camera and new workflow. But with what I've already seen - I'll never go back to SD cameras :-)

Ok, will continue shooting HD, so far I have delivered everything in HD, I may start making that an upgrade.

Since I've started doing wedding videos, not one client has opted for the "high definition" option. Delivering SD in 16:9 widescreen is plenty for most people. I will always shoot in HD and deliver in SD unless the client wants something more. High definition is still considered a luxury to some people, and others don't really care if you can see the pores on a brides skin, or every detailed little hair on a groom's goatee.

HDV is actually quite close to SD in relative disk space per hour.

I use Matrox RT.X2 and shoot HD all the time. Matrox lets me edit in real time with a full HD hi-res preview on my 24" LCD display. It makes editing more enjoyable, and then when I'm satisfied, I render for DVD.

Sounds a bit rude!!!??

I noticed that many of the popular wedding videographers are opting on HDV, or mostly on Canons. Only seen a few with AVCHD. Wondering what's the general reasoning on choosing to be with HDV, since there are a few more options like Sony's EX series and also Pana's P2 / AVCHD.

Is it because the ease of editing or the quality of Canon's sensor. I know this would struck off a long debate.. But I'm looking on the general reasons.. not to comparing cameras, low light and etc.

The Panasonic HMC150 is already getting a pretty good rep among W/E video guys... and I believe more than a few are using the SR11/12 for multi angle use. I suspect the XR500/520 with it's improved low light and image stabilization might also prove to be a decent cam for some shooters who like to shoot with a "discreet" rig.

And of course the 5DMkII is getting a fair amount of play, and not HDV...

The cam is a tool, I think most just shoot the best quality rig available/affordable to them.