A-ha!

A key point not already mentioned - workflow, as opposed to the format delivered to the client.

If you have the equipment already, an HDV workflow makes perfect sense even if the client expressly requests SD. After all, the output from the HDV editing can just be converted to SD.

BTW - should the final product for the client be in mono, stereo or 5.1 surround? (Just a lighthearted question....)

Workflow may have been a bad choice of terms on my part.... after all, workflow means nothing to the client. They deal with the delivered product.

If the client specifically requests SD, and your workflow is HDV....that remains transparent to the client. The only difference is that they will (in most opinions) own a higher quality product.

I guess a good question is... do you consider a Flash (or other type of movie) for online or computer playback HD if it exceeds 720 x 480? In my mind, it is HD. Therefore, if your client would benefit from a framesize that exceeds 720 x 480... then by definition, they "need" HD. Given that garden variety screens and laptops are typically in the 1280 pixel dimension or more, this is a powerful argument in favor of an HD source. Try a fullscreen playback of a standard clip as opposed to an HD clip.... no comparison.

In terms of audio delivery, that depends on content and distribution/playback. For training stuff, where it is primarily talking heads or VO, mono is the obvious choice. Technically, if you encode for DVD, it is output as a stereo soundtrack (part of the DVD protocol), but if it is encoded from a mono source, so far as I know there is no risk of phase problems. If you have a music bed, it's nice to have that in stereo... but if the playback environment is mono, you're better off providing a mono master.

Personally, I don't. I see computer generation graphics/animations etc as distinctly different from video. Actually, I have to give a Powerpoint presentation this morning and no doubt it will be projected and remotely shared at 1024 x 768. No one will think "ooooh, that's great definition" because that's what is expected from a computer-based presentation. If it were presented at 640 x 480 there would definitely be comments! Unfortunately, I don't have any HD video to put in it to get an "ooooh". Even if I did, the audience have much more important stuff on their minds (i.e., a crisis).

Best leave to give it....

Sounds like SD meets your needs.

Some missed the basic point. If your updating your equipment, and still want to stick with SD, then get an HD camera anyway. You can shoot HD, have the benefit of an HD archive, and you can still convert the media to SD. If you're not happy with a few added hours of conversion, then switch the camera to SD and be happy that your only a setting away from HD should the need present itself.

Otherwise, wait a while longer and the world will make the choice for you.

That is a good approach Peter.

The essential premise that I tried to raise in this thread was not so much making a decision as to purchase HD equipment.

It is more than the ability to flip a switch and produce HD or SD.... It is the fact that SD from HDV origins is superior, not just for archiving and the ability to output HD in the future.... It is superior because it looks better in any framesize even if it remains in SD forever.

Secondary point that got muddled here is that HD is not only what we watch on large LCDs and Plasmas.... it is also comprised of clips that are integrated into Powerpoint presentations, CD ROM, and even online.