Chris, with all due respect, I am not of your oppinion.
First, I am not talking about recompression but resizing, which is a different process.
Second, the whole-number divisions thing is not a myth but something people are taught at the university, so it can't be THAT false.
Third, try yourself: To resize 1920/1080 to PAL 720/576 would require you to reduce the HD original by factor 0,53333333. Compare the result with the same original HD footage you resized by factor 0,50. You will end up with very small black bars on top and bottom of the resulting video, kind of "fake letterboxing". BUT it will be significantly sharper then the first one. Tried that several times, went to the lab, evaluated the result and always came to the same judgement - it is sharper.

Bottom line: It do not say the a non-whole-number division would not be possible. All I want to say is, if you strive for the sharpest possible result, only believe in maths not myths.

With all due respect
Peter

Bill, I've pretty much settled on being just a camera owner/operator at this point. Technically, I know how to edit, but it just doesn't give me the same satisfaction as the act of acquiring the images. That being said, I find myself shooting HD for the most part. Doing live events, I either supply the HDSDI output, or, the SD composite output to the client, but if rolling (er... spinning), the camera is laying to disc in HD for posterity.

An example was in December where I was hooked to the live truck of a local tv station via composite SD. Although the program was broadcast in HD with the main cameras, the remotes were fed with SD widescreen because the trucks haven't been upgraded yet. This same station uses BetaSX in widescreen for local news and the upconvert looks pretty nice, not HD, but still pretty darn good. But the parts I recorded locally to disc were in HD so that the client can cut promos for next year's event in HD. I've noticed more television ads showing up in HD on my set lately. Other freelancers say they are getting more calls for HD shoots too.

I've had a client shoot HD to disc for SD DVD delivery. I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually had to use DVCAM mode on the camera. Once was for intercutting my camera with a PD-170 in post.

The photographer side of me says to acquire images in the highest possible quality and that's why I'm such a proponent of HD. I want as much exposure latitude and resolution that my budget will allow. That's my creative side speaking out.

-gb-

Okay, I get that totally. If I was shooting for others, the clear path to success is to shoot whatever format and onto whatever media they choose. And if I was primarily shooting for TV Stations that are transitioning to HD I'd be crazy delighted if I could work with something like an EX-1 for delivery.

That's a lot different from program origination for corporate and industrial clients.

I can see the pressure to deliver on high def for broadcast. But I've still got to contend that for every dollar spent to create video content for broadcast - I think there's $100 (if not a thousand!) spent on standard business video.

After all there are a whole lot more businesses out there than TV stations, cable companies, or even home high def screens - at least right now.

Perhaps in time, direct HD video sales to set users via something like iTunes might change the market. But until then, I think cameras exclusively shooting in High Def like the EX-1 will only generate significant returns for niche players - not the wider market. And precisely because of it's modest price point, I think that market will be REALLY well served by current shooters adding that capability rather than opening up scads of opportunities for early adopters and beginners.

Let's both hope I'm wrong. It will make for much more interesting business if I am!