Hells bells... SD or HD for a new camera???
 

My beloved DSR250 is almost 6 years old and I feel it's time to get a replacement. The problem is, I still can't decide whether to get one last SD unit or jump into the HDV world. The issues with both are manifest... SD will be "on the way out" sometime (who knows when?), but it's cheaper, proven, and I've yet to have anyone ask for HD. Heck, I've never even had anyone ask for 16:9.

As for HD, well... it's the future, but the Blu Ray/HD DVD wars haven't even started yet so we don't know what format will win... and it will probably take years to declare a victor. And then there are the low light issues, the latitude issues, etc.

Any suggestions are appreciated. I've been doing this for 12 years and know my stuff when it comes to the technology, but I have no idea when HD is really going to become "necessary", and when SD will be a liability to my business (as in "Oh, you do't shoot in HD? Well, forget it."). Will a new SD cam get me by for another 2 or 3 years? Or am I gonna start getting asked about HD soon? And even then, do I choose Blu Ray or HD DVD as a delivery format?

The way I saw it, why limit yourself? I got the HD100, thinking that shooting in HDV and downrezzing would produce at least as good an image as a SD cam. And at the same time, it will give me some experience with HD and the equipment to do it if the need arises. In any event, it leaves my GL1 in the dust.

SD or HD
 

My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that SD is "workable', meaning many/most client are satisfied with SD. If a customer wants HD, rent an HD camera and charge more. Charging more for HD give clients an option for cost control and depending on what the video need is, many/most will opt for SD.

Just my opinion...

PS. However, I would look into buying a used, low hours SD camera. DSR 390's are excellent.

I agre with Keith with everything hes written here, and as youre used to the form factor of the shoulder mounted ENG type cameras, youll handle the JVC quite well. Yoll notice the weight is considerably less, so you wont do ur back in ;)
ALso considering the DSR250 is quite old now, i can only assume youve had the unit for at least 3 or so years, (maybe more if u bought it brand new) so yor investment with the JVC will prolly be jsut as long, if not longer than ur existing relationship wiht the Sony. This futureproofs your investment for HDV format later, so u wont need to upgrade for a while.
All teh HDV cams shoot SD in 16:9 nowadays anyway, so even if ur still shooting SD, it doesnt matter where u go, youll still get good results. Be aware that some clients dont want 16:9 as they feel theyre "losing" the picutre with teh block bars (they dont understnad that this is nuance of 16:9 on a 4"3 tv)

There are many variables to consider, but IMO, i wouldnt jump the wagon (now anyway) unless its absolutely vital

Yeah, B&H has a great deal on one. But if I stick with SD, I'll go with a new XL2 because of the warranty, auto focus, image stabilization, native 16:9.

I've had it for almost 6 years... bought it new. Haven't had even the slightest problem with it, but at this point I have to consider that it might be primed for a major problem, and I don't want that to occur in the middle of a wedding.

I'm wondering... would the JVC produce better still image prints because it shoots true progressive? Is anyone offering prints from their HD videos?

i always offer stills on cd..
as for Progressive.. yes, results are better (ie no interpolation u see.. ) BUT, this is all dependant on shutter and exposure, as your susseptible to motion blur if ur shutter isnt set correctly..

People usually freak out when i hammer on 1/250th for that Gladiator look (theres so much motion that 1.250ths still gets me that schmick detail) , and its PRISTINE, and ppl freak when they see stills which look better than their photogs.. also, with Slowmotion, running a faster shutter in progressive mode yields sharper an far more acurate results, considerin the stream is in fact 50i (or 50p as the JVC and HVX allows.. )

I would only recomend it once u start getin the hang of the camera, progressive shooting and the nuances of the framerate itself...

Hi Bill,

I have been shooting with the DSR-250 for 3 years. Before that I had the XL-1 for 5 years.

The reason I'm chiming in is because at our first Tulsa Workshop in April one of the videographers brought their XL-2. I used it for a particular demonstration and was really shocked at how hard it was to find focus through the viewfinder. It was terrible.

If I were in your situation I would strongly consider the JVC or the Sony Z1. The JVC is probably the closest to your DSR-250. I have played around with the JVC at a couple of trade shows and there is a lot to like about the camera, except for the lowlight capabilities.

I think you would be much happier with the JVC than the Canon XL-2. Not that the XL-2 isn't a good camera, but coming from the DSR-250, I think you would be let down by the XL-2.

Mark,
Thanks for the advice. I'm in a quandry -- I have tried the JVC and found the viewfinder very inadequate for my sadly nearsighted vison. The screen was so small in 16:9. I've tried the XL2 and found its viewfinder better (for me) than the JVC, but I must admit I did not do a lot of testing. I used to own the Z1u and it had a good viewfinder, but the low light was awful. I think I'm going to have to accept that if I go the HDV route, I sacrifice low light ability. I might just get a DVX100b and wait for HDV to improve.

Wow, I really liked the JVC viewfinder, especially the focus assist. Oh well. The manufacturers could make this whole thing so much easier on us if they would just release the next generation of HDV. You know the ones that are better in low light ;-)

The colored peaking function was great on the JVC. I just found the image to be tiny. Now the XL2 has a bigger viewfinder but lousy peaking. Ho hum.

So... get an XL and an HD100, put them in a quiet room with some Barry White playing softly, and see what comes of the union?

Bill,
I got a monochrome viewfinder (fu-1000) for my XL2, and it helps quite a bit.It's at least 2 times the resolution and bigger than then the stock viewfinder. The only problem is that if you screw up on white balance (use a wrong preset), you have no idea until you get home and watch the footage.
Bruce Yarock

this is where, IMO, the JVC shines..
Despite its shortcomngs, its one of the best thought of HDV units to hit the market.

JVC knew there would be focus issues hence the focus peak function, which IMO of probably it saving grace above all else.
The lens could have been better, however with this much control one really doesnt need much else.
Even with a small finder, or even if ur vieing through the LCD this peaking is visible.

For alot of people, its only a matter of time until they get used to it.

I agree Peter... even I'm getting used to it!

I hate to throw a wrench into the spokes of this post, but what about the PD170. I own and love 4 of them. The first thing out of most of my clients mouths is wow the picture is incredible. Also, it is considered one of the best low light cameras available. Best of all the HD market has pushed the price of a new one to 2995. You can't beat it as far as I am concerned. We are all pushing towards HD when most clients never ask and the delivery technology is still being developed and is not mainstream.

If the PD170 is rugged enough for a CNN embedded reporter in IRAQ then it will last you long after HD gets on its feet. Then you can switch.

Definitely a good DV camera, but without a true widescreen recording option it's effectively obsolete. Put an anamorphic lens adapter on it and you've got something, but at that point you might as well sell it and buy an FX1.

4:3 video is soooo 20th century! :-)

We shoot anywhere from 1 to 6 weddings a week and nobody has asked for 16x9.

To us 16x9 is overrated unless you are going to the actual movie house.

Our studio just picked up another pd170.

it's effectively obsolete
4:3 video is soooo 20th century! :-)

Tell my clients that. When I am one of the busiest guys in town. I think because we as videographers get so caught up in the technology that we think are clients actually care. I live in Sarasota County which is the 2nd richest county in FL per capita and my clients could care less about 16:9

Sorry Kevin you are mistaken. Just ask Glen Elliot. I know for a fact some of his best stuff was shot 4:3 with a Sony.

But what about selling 16:9 as a marketing technique? You may well come off as more progressive (no pun intended) than your competitors as you explain how all TVs will eventually be 16:9, so a 16:9 wedding video has more long term merit than 4:3. To me, it's a way of standing out from your competition. Your clients may not think of 16:9, but that doesn't mean you can't put it into their heads and books more jobs because of it. Just a thought.

4x3 TV shows look like garbage on 16x9, so thinking all TVs will be 16x9 in the near future is probably wrong.

The dimensions of a 4x3 show on a 16x9 TV never look 100% right. It gives a stretched looked to the image that I detest. Watching 4x3 with vertical letter box on a 16x9 TV feels like the cart is pulling the horse.

I have to disagree about 16:9 being over rated. My clients usually have or will soon own an HDTV. I actually use the 16:9 aspect as a selling point to my clients saying that their wedding video wiill fill out their widescreen television without everyone having pumpkin heads.

You are right that it isn't the tools but what we do with them that makes the difference. Technology isn't everything but it isn't nothing either. I feel the production value of my work has gone up tremendously since switching over to HD. The detail is richer, the colors are more vibrant, and the aspect ratio is more pleasing to the eye. 2 of these three points (HD delivery will get there) are readily apparent to the bride and I think it makes a difference when they get serious about who they want to book with.

Right now the person responding to the HD thing are grooms which should be no surprise there. For the brides I emphasize the wider aspect ratio that fits more of her bridal party in there as well as the prettier picture. For the groom I mention that I make a digital master so when the HD format wars settle out they will have a high definition disc of their wedding. That gets them excited about the wedding video.

As for waiting for brides to demand HD? I don't knoe if that's a sound argument. If we used that logic, then alot more folks would still be linear. After all I never had a bride ask how I edit my videos or what I shoot and edit on. And they never will. The reason to go HD is the same as going nonlinear. It will drastically improve your production values from what you're doing now. Keep in mind that's making all things equal. For instance, an SD production from Glen Elliot would wipe the floor with most HD wedding productions but give him some HD gear and let him go loose and I can guarantee it will be like night and day. Make no mistake. HD is to the shooting end of our industry that nonlinear was the the post-production side.

Chris Watson
Watson Videography
www.dallasweddingfilms.com

Valid points all of them, and ill throw my 2c in (HA yeah right) when i can be bothered waking up...

for now i have a slideshow to mangle together..

I have a widescreen in my office, and a large 4:3 in the living room. The footage I've been shooting with my new toy looks great on either set. Of course, it's taking a little adjustment on my part, since I'm not used to shooting 16:9. My GL1 wasn't all that cooperative, so everything was 4:3.

Anyways, my point is, framing a shot for 4:3 even in 16:9 mode, produces an image that will work on both sets. And with the way Circuit City and everybody else is pushing plasma displays, why not do it in 16:9? Sooner or later, a majority of the populace will have some form of widescreen, and a 4:3 project just doesn't look right anymore.

Yes... and this is exactly why we should push for 16:9 on weddings -- because 4:3 looks like crap on a 16:9 TV, and TV manufacturers are going to push harder and harder for 16:9. Prices are dropping on HDTVs already. Do you really think 4:3 will win out in the end? I give that a 0% chance.

100% correct on all counts. I am using 16:9 to "future-proof" my weddings for my clients. I separates me from my competition when I talk about the future of TV and why my wedding videos will avoid these pitfalls. All I do is ask them: "When you walk into a store that sells TVs, have you noticed that more and more TV screens are rectangular in shape?" "Yes, that's true" is almost always the answer.

From a business perspective I have no doubt that 4:3 SD video is still quite marketable and profitable, but technologically it's the worst possible thing to be shooting as people buy HDTVs in ever-growing numbers. The fact that clients don't care just shows that they don't know the difference and are counting on us to provide the best solutions for their needs.

For now you can still make a case for using PD170s for weddings based on their low-light responsiveness, but it would at least be smart to put anamorphic adapters on them to produce footage which looks its best on widescreen TVs. Like it or not, 4:3 SD footage doesn't convert well to widescreen format and doesn't look as good on HDTVs as proper widescreen source footage. And the faux-widescreen mode in some DV cameras isn't much better, so that won't help us out here either. Plus interlaced widescreen footage converts back to 4:3 better than the other way around, because cropping horizontally is less destructive than messing with vertical interlacing.

I tested all this back in February using a variety of DV and HD cameras, anamorphic adapters and in-camera widescreen recording, and the bottom line for me is that 4:3 SD video is an obsolete recording format. Anyone who cares about the technical quality of their work should be contemplating how to produce good widescreen output, and how to explain to customers why that might be desirable. If both you and your customers are content with 4:3 video that's fine, but it's just not a good format for the widescreen TVs people are buying now and will become standard in the future.

"For now you can still make a case for using PD170s for weddings based on their low-light responsiveness, but it would at least be smart to put anamorphic adapters on them to produce footage which looks its best on widescreen TVs. "

Ok ok this topic has gone wayyyy off topic, but anyways...

Much has been said about the PD170, and I agree, its lowlight performance is superior, however general image quality (ie 330 000 pixels) is quite low <for todays standards... expecially when u consider the MX500 is 800 000 pixels per ccd and running true full res widescreen....
BUT with pixels this size on the PD, one is to EXPECT superior low light performance. Its an older design, which was rehashed to compete with the DVX.. speaking of which, considering the DVX100 is 440 000 and pumping full res progressive scan, the image sharpness (and IMO image quality re gradation DR etc etc ), is superior.
Low light performance is marginally lower, however colour saturation is superior. But that is not the point of my post here..
What im saying is that yes its superior in low light, but the pixel count being what it is, makes its so. For todays standards its a compromise one makes.
Either superior low light performance, or superior all round performance, of which MANY cameras, be they HDV or SD are indeeed capable

Now im not bashing it, im saying that there is a reason why the PD does what it does so well, and as technology moves forward, that reason will remain its strongest point far beyond the time they stop stop making it

However IMO low light performance SHOUD NOT be the reason to choose a camera. If you believe you can work a full wedding at candle light levels and get acceptable broadcast results, then you are mistaken.
If yo believe that you can shoot subjects in backlight all day long and use the old tried and true term of "if in doubt, blow it out" then again, you are mistaken.
Light is a MAJOR factor in what we do and if people refuse to accept this, then more likely than not, theyre products will be inferior to the guy who runs a 20w fill light. Above all else, theyre deluding themselves if they believe that this is an acceptable form of cinematography.
Its like being a photographer and saying, its OK, i'll use natural light, when u DONT KNOW what the weather is going to be like on the day, but u have no choice but to shoot it.
I cannot tell you how many clients have approached me dissatisfied with tehir videos simply because their official videographer was so tunnel visioned that they refused to run a light.
WB and exposure is the BIGGEST problem, and 95% of teh time, its either complacency, or lack of education which causes teh problems in the first place.

The tools we have are just that. Tools. Theyre not an insurance policy and if u believe that ur tool of choice is "good enough" to do anythign and everything for you, then again, ur mistaken.

If theyre not used the way theyre supposed to, then whats the point? Your just giving the rest of us a bad name.

As for 16:9, this is all relative. I can easily tell u that squeeze from a DVX100 running progressive scan, looks BETTER than NTSC interlaced. Anamorphic adapters work well, but if you have it misaligned, then ur stuffed, HDV is a good option, but low light performance (if its an issue for you) may be an issue for you.
I dont see 4:3 dying too fast too soon. Reason being is that there are many companies out there who do great work with the format, and from the people ive met, most dont care what format it is in, so long as it looks good, is sharp, is fluidly edited and above all else, represents their wedding day for what it was.
I have had clients watch 16:9 footage on a 4:3 TV, and as the black bars are present, some actually believe that theyre "losing' parts of the image.
Others have run 4:3 on a 16:9 tv and do not know how ot adjust their aspect ratios accordingly. Therefore the image may be seen as being distorted.
Some do not understand the difference between HD and SD, other have no clue about progressive scan.
Clients DO NOT KNOW, but those that do, are far more concerned with the work itself, rather than the format in whch the work is delivered.

Yes we can educate them, but if every person i educated ended up booking me, then id be a rich man... Half teh time, they come to the "big name" companies for info and to find a "standard" then chase teh cheap arsed backyard producer and hammer them with the info i provide.

Oh they all love the work, but noone wants to pay for it.. And those that do, at least have the decency to discuss the longevity of the formats.

No, its now up to the client to do their own research, then after they book, im happy to go over their format options.

Another thing whch has been overlooked is Audio.
I can go on about audio acquisition and compression, but IMO, people have their minds set to one method. IMO, MPG audio just doesnt cut it for live events, which is one major issue i have with HDV. And then there are the 95% of production houses which have NO CLUE about DVD Authoring let alone standards used within that authoring regime (ie Dolby Digital)

Theres alot more to making wedding presentations than the camera you choose... believe me..

OK, so were moving forward now.. 4:3 looks ugly on 16:9 display?? why is that?? the vertical bars?? or the fact your running SD material through a HD panel? Or is it the panels deinterlacing? Or is it the DVD players deinterlacer? Or is it the gamma configuration on the panel? Or is it the underexposed footage? Or is it the noticablity of the shaky footage due to the large screen? Or is it the colur gradation? what is it??
Is it the sound which puts you off subcontiously that turns u off of to what youre seeing?
So here raises another point, being that no matter WHAT the format u use, there are MANY variables which affect the image quality.
4:3 DOES look good on any display, so long as it is done PROPERLY
16:9 looks good, HDV looks good...
All these formats cal also look like poo..
So long as your shooting, camera settings, exposure, colour, sound and above all else, EDIT is good, then it will look good on any display you play it on.

But if u dont know shit about the gear ur using, do u expect good results?
The camera aint gonna do the work for you, so in all honesty, get over it.
Im really over the fanboy crap. It reminds me the Nintendo Sega wars..

As for HD options, 98% of clients DO NOT CARE
For me, i wasted $17k on HDV. I say WASTED becuase that equipment has NOT paid itself back in the alloted timeframe in which i give it (3 months)
Why? People dont care. I got those cameras (2x z1's) specifically for 16:9 and HD delivery, but nup, people dont want it.. they dont want, i wont use teh camera, at least their value stays high due to the low clock count.
I can honestly say that i have not had anyone book me, simply bacuase of the cameras which are available. BUT I HAVE had MANY many MANY bookings because of our audio acquisition and delivery (Dolby Digital 5.1 surround EX).
That says alot about peoples priorities when it comes to weddings.

Not only can they NOT afford to watch it on a HD display but theyre have no inclination to pay any extra to future proof their investment. Not all THAT much anyway..
Theres also the fact that probably every HD client will also want a SD version to go round to the families,
Ive had mroe people upgrade to include Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound, as opposed to those asking for 16:9
This aint free and if u are doing it for free, ur an idiot.

All i can say is GET OVER IT.
Each camera has its stenghts and weaknesses as does each format.

16:9 is here to stay, 4:3 is STILL a viable option and allows prices to stay low. This has a 2 pronged effect, as those wanting to embrace HD and 16:9 must compete with the 4:3 old cam users who dont have teh overheads that a new camera and edit system entails. 4:3 will be here for as long as people accept it. And i for one have not seen anyone be overly concerned with 16:9. Far less interest in HD options...

Their primary concern is image quality no matter WHAT the format. The second concern is Audio, the 3rd concern is edit and style of shooting and the final concern is the music.
And above all else, how one conducted themselves is probably the clincher

We can do what we can to educate the client, but in all honesty, why waste ur time? if they want to know more, they can ask.
U shoudlnt have to justify your format of choice, BUT in doing so, you shoud not put down any other format either, as what one format may be weak on, another may have many more strengths, so dont ever put yourself in a situation or bidding war with another comapny if you have the intention of selectively educating a client.

Misrepresention is a true means of having ur business go down the drain, so when discussing these formats with a client, try to keep a level and TRUE representation of the acquisition format, as well as the display and audio formats used on delivery.
I know its tough out there, believe me, i know.. but lets face it, we all have bills to pay and we dont need any more crap in this world.

We cop enough flak as it is due to our predecessors whove failed abysmally and whove ruined our chances of being on the same level of photography.
Nows our chance to move forward and DO SOMETHING about waht we do and how we do it.
And as everyone has their tools of choice, each and every one of us needs to band together and offer quality products to regain the dignity of that of the Wedding Video Producer

rant over..

Amazing how the point is overlooked and reinstated.

4:3 looks like garbage on 16:9 because it stretches it. When will 16:9 be able to stretch a 4:3 picture correctly?

16:9 on 4:3 looks fine if you don't mind the letter boxing.

In the end 16:9 is not cure all and falls very short of playing the standard TV shows correctly.

Unless you don't mind watching 4:3 television on 16:9 set with the faces slightly stretched or with vertical letter box.

If standard television shows are going to start shooting in 16:9 then let the 16:9 sets have their way otherwise,

Keep 16:9 in the movie house where it shines best.

The size of movie screen displays 16x9 far better than the 32 inches of a TV set. There is no comparision.

Peter, you make some good points and I agree with many of them, but the fact is that interlaced 4:3 SD video doesn't deliver optimal results on today's widescreen HDTVs. As you mentioned this is partly because some (many) customers have their equipment set so that 4:3 videos come up in 'stretch' mode, which will make a bride look 100 pounds heavier when watching her wedding video on her best TV. Of course it's also true that some people don't like watching letterboxed widescreen footage on a standard 4:3 TV, but you'd think they'd be used to that by now from watching any Hollywood movie - and it's easy enough to make a 4:3 DVD from widescreen source footage.

My point here is that you can serve more customers better by having the option to shoot and deliver proper widescreen video, and that you can't do this well using the DV cameras most of us have been using lately. I agree that dealing with this issue isn't something most customers appreciate or will pay enough for to justify a quick conversion, so it's ultimately a business decision as much as a technical one what to do about it. Is this a critical concern for being a successful wedding videographer? Not today, but it's a good thing to think about and deal with appropriately.

As for people not appreciating video as much as photography, there are several possible explanations for that. I'm hopeful that portable video players and internet distribution will help make video seem more convenient and useful to customers, which over time should help make it more popular. Widescreen recording may matter even less in this context than for HDTV playback, but it still can't hurt to have the option to shoot and deliver widescreen output.

Get over it? Sure, but just understand what it is that you're trying to get over. Clearly technology isn't the most important consideration in making a successful wedding video, but it's not irrelevant either. A few years from now there may be a lot of people wondering why their expensive wedding videos don't look so great on their expensive HDTVs, and that could hurt our industry again. It kinda sucks that we can't get customers to appreciate this now when it matters and pay a little extra for optimal image quality, but money doesn't grow on trees and video just isn't that important to most people yet. In the long run widescreen/HD wedding videos won't cost much more than SD does today and should become the de facto standard in some areas, especially as new videographers invest in HD gear for the same price many of us paid for SD.

So getting back to the original topic, I wouldn't advise anyone to invest any money in SD video cameras now unless they're sure that's what they want to do. If you do buy an SD camera, get one with a decent widescreen recording mode of some sort, so you can still use it for something when widescreen/HD delivery is commonplace. Anything else is money down the drain once 4:3 video goes out of favor with customers.

I agree with you Peter.

You can shoot SD or HD and still have it look like poo and vice versa.

I have concentrated more on editing and shooting style then technology and explaining to my customers the difference between 16:9 and 4:3. As you have found out, no-one has booked you just becuase you offer 16:9 or HD. The argument that down the road their video might look like crap on thier new plasmas doesn't make sense to me. I don't have the time or energy to worry about a client's future technology purchases and how they will converge with my film.

case in point...I sat in a 3 story mansion in Siesta Key, FL with the widowed wife of a doctor who payed to have her daughters wedding filmed by my company and watched from beginning to end our completed video on a 72in imported plasma with a customed installed 7.1 surround British designed sound system. We are talking $150,000 in just audio equipment in her one living room. The surround speakers were trimmed out in finished african cherry hardwood and mounted flush inside the walls. Point being...she did not have her resolution set correctly so my 4:3 was stretched and it bothered me. She went through an entire box of tissues and called her niece who was getting married next year and had her book me over the phone for my largest package. In summation...content is king!!

Technology is important but quality and content rise far above it in most clients wishes.

Only Videographers and technofiles care about this type of stuff....lol

The average bride and groom, just want it to look better than the 1-chip camera that they use.

SD is the way to go----especially if your trying to stay under 3K.

Pssst! It's the people who can afford these expensive toys, that would be willing to pay a better rate just to have a better experience ;)

"Only Videographers and technofiles care about this type of stuff....lol

The average bride and groom, just want it to look better than the 1-chip camera that they use.

SD is the way to go----especially if your trying to stay under 3K.Pssst! It's the people who can afford these expensive toys, that would be willing to pay a better rate just to have a better experience ;) "

I think that sums it up quite nicely. Coupled with our never underappreciated adage of "content is king" then were in for a winner.. lol

Clearly content is king, but if you have customers like this why wouldn't you recommend widescreen recording and delivery? Are we all agreed that we should deliver less than optimal image quality for a $150,000 home theater setup because the client doesn't know or care about the difference?

I guess it goes back to the old fashioned practice of custom made products, based on the client's need. If you know they have a huge plasma that will show widescreen, make it so that it will work for them. If Uncle Al only has a VHS and a 4:3 TV, you may need to make a second export to work for him. All that matters is, it works right when whoever it is plays it. If it doesn't you are then labled a fool that doesn't know what they are doing, even if it is the client's fault.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with that analogy. Non-linear editing changed EVERYTHING- from aquisition, to delivery, and especially the "way" we work in post. HD when you really break it down is simply a higher res with a different aspect ratio.

Of course these are both appealing traits however only one of them is a factor at this point. I hear it all the time but have yet to "see" a difference. I don't know how starting with more pixels and interpolating down would offer a better image that displays in a native SD resolution. Granted I do know that HD has a differnt color sampling rate than SD. 4:2:1 vs. SD's 4:1:1 (is this correct) That may indeed be the hard fact that HD imagery provides better color. However is this actually percievable, and in enough of a capacity to warrant the high overhead of jumping in on this new technology now?

The biggest draw to the HD cams is the native 16:9 ability. Sure I can get an anamorphic lense for my 170's but then I limit my flexibility with using my effects lenses (.55x, .3x fisheye, etc). Plus I heard they have problems focusing at full zoom.

When it comes down to it the resolution issue is probably the LAST thing about HD that would factor into reasoning for a switch and paying a prime for the newer technology. Once it's deliverable, and provides better low light than my 1-chipper I may reamain on the sidelines. I'm convinced, though, that the next revision of the Z1 will patch up some of it's weak points. Sony notoriously cripples it's first generation hardware in order to make a more appealing 2nd, 3rd, (and so on) releases with "new" improvements. It's a bit frustrating because Sony's (vx, pd, etc) low light ability has nothing to do with optics or ccd sensitivity but their employed electronic gain algorithm. If the consumer VX uses why couldn't they utlize it in a 5k camera?

HDV has a 4:2:0 color, or 4:2:2, if you have the capabilities to capture it.

Fair enough, but I think the point was that we shouldn't necessarily wait for customers to express interest before adopting new technology. Many of my recent customers already own HDTVs, so I figure it makes sense to provide the best image quality for playback on those displays whether people ask for it or not. Today that means widescreen SD delivery which I couldn't do well with my DV cameras (now sold), and in the future it will mean HD delivery. Shooting in 4:3 DV is undesirable now and will be even less so soon.

If that's true then why not just buy current HD cameras and add some more gain in post? I did some experiments a while back and found that tweaked low-light footage from a Sony FX1 can be made to look similar to footage from a DVX100 in terms of sensitivity, and people with DVX100s don't seem to be griping too much about shooting in low light. The only camera I couldn't match for sensitivity was the PD170, but that doesn't have a proper widescreen recording mode. So right now the best compromise camera for widescreen delivery is probably something like an XL2, but I'd rather not lug one of those around at a wedding reception. If someone can suggest a true widescreen camera with a small form factor and sensitivity matching a PD170 at a reasonable price, I'd like to hear about it...