Fair enough as far as statistics are concered, but keep in mind that SD and HD are not mutually exclusive formats. You can easily output SD from HD source today and keep the HD version on hand in case anyone ever wants that, so why limit yourself to the SD option? (Other than the cost of equipment.)

...Precisely.

As I said before, if I were in the market for a new camera, I wouldn't consider anything that didn't have HD AND SD capability, for exactly the reasons you mention above. However, since my current camera meets my needs and works fine, the question is really when to make the jump into HD.

To do HD well, the cost of the equipment is nothing to sneeze at. If I want to maintain my current SD workflow but produce an HD-resolution product, I need to not only buy a new camera, but a new deck, a new dual-core editing workstation, and an HD-resolution monitor. Even if I go with the cheapest decent HDV option, that's still pushing $10,000.

I'm probably going to also need new extra batteries, battery charger, a wide-angle adaptor and a carrying case. It's quite possible I may also need to get a portable digital audio recorder to make up for the loss in audio quality of HDV, additional lights to make up for the lower light sensitivity, and a portable HD monitor to provide accurate focus. That could easily add up to another $10,000, or more.

So, after spending $20,000+ on a complete HD setup (to say nothing of learning new equipment and workflow), I'm still going to be delivering a Standard Definition DVD to the customer -- something I can do now, quite well. That strikes me as kind of silly. For folks who are catering to a niche market who can afford HD-everything, by all means, jump into HD with both feet. For folks like me, it makes more sense to let the Blu-Ray / HD-DVD / H.264 WMV delivery format issue get settled, let those kind of decks get some percentage of market penetration and then look at upgrading to HD.

By that time, the second-generation HD prosumer cameras will be out, with
more and better features, bug fixes, and probably at a lower price. I'm not entirely sure those cameras will still be HDV, either. They might just as easily be a ported professional HD codec. Or maybe, by then, everyone will be watching 320x240 video on their cel phones, HDTVs will be gathering dust at Best Buy, and the whole argument will be moot. ;-)

When I made the move from analog video to DV, that choice worked well for me for 15 years and counting. I expect to get a similar length of service when I go (and I eventually will) with HD.

Dan I shoot wildlife and I'm looking to build up a library, so if HD DVD becomes viable in our guesstimate year of 2011 then I will have 5 years of footage to work with - a much better option than only having 2 years.

I don't see myself as locked in to the H1. If I get 3 years use out of it that will be fine, anything extra will be a bonus. Sure better cameras will come along and I'll weigh up their costs and benefits, but my battleground is a sub $10,000 camera with interchangeable lenses and they are not common.

Brian: your assessment is mostly logical but leaves out a few key points.

(1) Shooting in SD essentially forces you to decide up front whether to produce widescreen or 4x3 output, with limited ability to convert to the other ratio while maintaining decent quality. So most videographers are still defaulting to 4x3 ratio because they figure that's the safest thing to do, but it's the worst choice if you want footage which will look good on HDTVs. Shooting in HD solves this problem nicely now for all customers for both SD and HD delivery, in a way inherently better than you can do with any SD camera.

(2) If you know you plan to upgrade to HD and you know it's going to cost real money, does it make more sense to wait until the last possible moment to start buying new gear and then do that all at once, or maybe get started sooner and do it gradually? Granted you'll get better gear the longer you wait, but that will always be true so at some point you just have to take the leap and get started. I've noticed several videographers buying the least expensive HDV cameras for their own personal use and to get some early HD experience, and those same cameras will still be useful as "B" cams well into the future when HD acquisition is required for most projects.

(3) As several of us have noted, you can't build up HD sample material if you don't have an HD camera. You also can't come back in time and shoot today's events in HD for future viewing pleasure unless you have a retrofitted De Lorean with a time flux capacitor and a 1.21 Jigawatt power source. :-)

(4) Some of your customers and competitors are already buying inexpensive HD cameras, so it's going to get harder and harder to justify not offering some sort of HD option. If you set a price for an HD upgrade and no one wants to pay it you're off the hook, but at least offer customers a choice!

(5) You can't learn the ins and outs of HD production if you don't do it. When the day comes that someone really wants to pay you something to shoot in HD, will you be ready?

Nothing of the sort. It is extremely easy to make a 4:3 output out of 16:9 without seeing or losing quality. I doubt anyone here would be able to see a loss if I made a 4:3 crop for 4:3 output to DVD in Vegas. You'd have to magnify it in Photoshop to see.

Sure, gradual makes sense, but I don't necessarily have to start with the camera. I could (and very well may) spend my first money on upgrading my workstation, getting an HD monitor, finding a dual-system audio solution that will work with HD and making sure all my other production and post-production gear is HD-ready. All of these things will continue to work with any HD format, and will help me in a SD environment, too. Since I don't shoot a lot of library footage, I can rent an HD camera as projects come up, and be ready to edit and work with the footage. Meanwhile, I'm not locked in to a particular brand or flavor of HD camera, and I can try them out at my leisure and wait for one that really knocks my socks off.

To some extent I'd agree with this statement, which makes it even more ironic that most of us are still shooting 4x3 SD instead of at least shooting widescreen. If we could just convince ourselves and our customers to accept widescreen SD as the new baseline standard, we'd be doing the future a favor.

A fair statement, but it's amusing how often the term "locked in" gets used lately in discussing this topic. As if buying one type of camera today somehow precludes you from buying anything else in the future -- is there some secret illuminati which checks and enforces this? :-)

For many of us, especially those of us who are doing independent moviemaking on our own projects rather than work for hire, a camera represents a significant investment. It is not a purchase we can afford to take lightly. I rarely have enough money in the bank to replace my camera, so when I do, I had best make sure I choose one that will serve me well for some time. In addition, many accessories, such as batteries, cases, lens adaptors, etc. are peculiar to a particular brand or model of camera, adding to the expense. I can't put Canon batteries on a Sony. This is what I mean when I say "locked in."

I wish I had the money to buy a new camera every year, but I don't.

I'm not surpirsed they said HD wasn't in the cards quite yet - we still have to go through the equivalent of the Betamax/VHS Wars regarding the HD-DVD standards. But I'm surprised at what you've said regarding 4:3 versus 16:9 SD as 16:9 has been the standard aspect ratio on much of European broadcast TV for a number of years. IMHO, the logical approach to use today is to shoot 16:9 HD or HDV, perhaps composing the shot with attention to its compatibility with pan-and-scan 4:3, and then downrez to 16:9 SD in post for distrbution. This workflow of downrezzing the HDV in post gives a generally higher image quality than either shooting native 16:9 SD or downrezzing an HDV image to SD in-camera. This way you have the best possible SD image now and your camera original masters are "future-proofed" by being in HDV for later reuse for HD broadcast or on HD-DVDs when the dust settles after the format war is resolved. If you've used a tool like Cineform to bring your footage into your NLE for editing, a lot of the headaches of editing native HD go away and it's a relatively simple matter to render the final program to SD now and then re-render the same project in HD later if desired.

how can they "clean up", when there is no delivery format for hdv? what are they giving the client? sd, of course! the fact that you haven't made any money off of hdv proves my point.

once again, that is not relevant to your wedding videography business, because your customers won't be coming back a year or two later for the hd dvd version.

btw, what are you using for an hdv playback deck while editing? let's not forget to add the expense of a deck into the cost of switching to hdv.

paul, i'm with you on the h1, it has real lens options, and soon there will be battery-powered hd recorders that you can plug into it, so you'll have options other than hdv... i think there could also be ways to monitize wildlife footage on the 'net, and you don't need hdv to do it... hi-8 or whatever would look great!

"...IMHO, the logical approach to use today is to shoot 16:9 HD or HDV..."

Yes, Steve, this is what most of us have been saying...but as Brian so rightly mentions - "...For many of us, especially those of us who are doing independent moviemaking on our own projects rather than work for hire, a camera represents a significant investment...(including related accessories etc)..."

That is why many of us choose to continue using the 4:3 & 16:9 SD cameras (that we already own, or can afford to buy)...because they provide the best possible quality - within our own price range - to enable us to provide the best end product for present and future sales to our intended audience.

You might try asking the people who have been more successful at marketing HDV to high-end clients: they're the ones who are "proving the point." And as I'm sure we've discussed there are ways to distribute HD content to customers today, mostly using Windows Media. ;-)

What's relevant is my ability to show HD content and demonstrate an ability to produce it to future potential clients. I'm shooting HD for all projects now, because I want the option to use sample clips in future demo reels.

I've been using the FX1s to bulk capture footage, but will probably switch to the HC1 now that I have that. Total cost of an FX1, HC1 and accessories ~$5000: not bad compared to DV or any other current HD camera option.

True enough for internet distribution, but shooting HD doesn't hurt you any there either.

I wouldn't scrap a perfectly usable SD camera just yet either but if one were buying new or finding age creeping up one's existing hardware, say it's getting near the end of the useful lifespan of the recording heads, that sort of thing, then HDV for the replacement should get very careful consideration IMHO.