HD Video and "REAL" HD Video

It's very confusing because, actually, 1280x720 has been the accepted broadcast HD standard in the US, but 1920x1080 (a European standard) is becoming more common in the US.

Further complicating matters is the issue of interlaced vs progressive, and 30 frames vs 60 frames, and yet another layer of complication is added by the advent of the HDV (tape-based) camcorder, which is so compressed that it can hardly be considered HD at all. And HDV cameras and even the Panasonic HVX camcorder (the only current model less than $50,000 that can shoot true HD) camera use fairly small CCDs compared to their expensive professional counterparts, so they actually are electronically upsizing the image to whatever output format one uses.

The HD material that we have shot thus far is 1920x1080 at 30fps progressive. However, if we switch to 1280x720, we can shoot at 60fps progressive. The question is whether the faster frame rate is worth the decrease in image size.

And... even further complicating things, downrezzing from HD to standard def for output to standard DVD or Web use is complicated, and most sources indicate that 720 actually downrezzes better (sharper) than 1080.

How anyone can make any sense of all this is beyond me. It's somewhat reminiscent of when the switch was made from LP to CD and there were incessant arguments over analog source recordings, analog mastering, digital mastering, etc, and what actually constituted a digital recording. Never mind the fact that now people are paying big bucks to find a studio with analog recorders to get the supposed "warm" analog sound.

Some days I wish it was simple DV or even VHS. Lot less technical shit to wade through.