Should I shoot in HD or SD?

Question

This question comes up from time to time in this and other forums. Clearly, the answer would be to shoot in HD if the final result will be delivered in HD. But what if the final result will be delivered in SD, such as DVD? Does it still make sense to shoot in HD, or will the results not be worth the extra hassle? Here we enter a sort of gray area.
As a general rule, conversion introduces artifacts, whether you're converting from 35mm film to DVD, or from HD to Flash for the web, or even from DV to DVD, the process of converting introduces certain artifacts. This is just a fact of life we can't yet avoid. So the ideal scene is to convert as little as possible. If you shoot in SD for DVD delivery, there is at least the one conversion step that can't be avoided. After all, DVDs will only take MPEG video. But if you shoot in HD for DVD delivery, you need two conversions, one to go from the HD resolution down to the SD resolution, and another to the required MPEG video for DVD. (Whether or not this can be done in a single step is incidental, two conversions are taking place - the resolution change, and the MPEG encoding.)
This brings us to our question. If shooting in HD adds a second conversion step to the process, thus adding more opportunity for artifacts, is it's greater source resolution really worth it? Some say yes, other don't know, I'm not convinced.
So here I suggest a game of sorts, and here are the rules:
1) Same scene shot twice, once in SD, once in HD.
2) Same camera, same lens both times.
3) Both shot in the video norm of 30i. (24p and 30p might also make good tests, but would be separate tests.)
4) Both imported into an appropriate Premiere project. No editing or other manipulation should be done at this point, the idea is to keep things as pristine as possible. A second test after doing some editing would make for another good comparison.
5) Both exported out of Premiere as MPEG2-DVD 30i files which can be used for authoring a normal 30i DVD, uploaded to whatever file sharing site one prefers. I suggest
FlyUpload because you don't have to 'sign up' to use their service, but there are others as well. Files should be named without any indication of which was which, so testers have no preconceived bias.
5a) Those still working in CS3 may also add an hd2sd (script from Dan Issacs) version for comparison, but also as 30i with the same final encoding settings to keep things as level as possible.
6) Once the files are uploaded and links posted, readers in this forum can download the files, burn their own DVDs and watch on their own TVs. I recommend a variety of such tests, DVD on a CRT, DVD on an HD set, DVD played back on a Blu-ray, etc., then come back here and post our observations. Those who take the time to do the work of shooting, processing and uploading should wait a bit for several users to post observations before listing which version was which.
So there it is folks. Anyone care to play?

Answer 1

Dan,
>his love of the "film look"
And you are all the way innocent :)
Back to topic.
I may have misjudged what Bill showed in his link. For my excuse I could say, oh it was web format. The thing is though that I have several times seen the end product bringing something from the source, also when the end product is video for web. The overall look made in the camera (no matter SD or HD) is more important than pixels in most cases, unless of course one wants to use a BIG screen.
Even more back to topic.
I think Jim has a good question (wanted test). That's because the few times I have worked with HDV/AVCHD, I have been surprised seeing how little of the "extra pixels" in HD that makes a difference in the end product.
And, I have done one test myself that showed me pretty clearly that I should shoot in SD instead of HD. I filmed a mobile-phone (cellular, or whatever you call it) and the end product's (flash video) pixel-size was set. Trying to shoot HD and resize to the set pixel-size did NOT turn out well at all. I didn't try Dan/Jim/Jeff's method because deadline and budget didn't allow that.
Just to shoot SD, adjusting zoom/distance on the camera so that cropping to correct size didn't involve resize of the footage gave me the best and quickest results.
Anyone who has dealt with one pixel sized text will probably take my point here. Don't resize, shoot (or screen capture for that sake) at the size the end video is going to be!
Of course I could have zoomed the HD camera so I didn't need resizing (just cropping off everything I didn't need), but then I just don't see the point of having to deal with HDV.
Now, I know that filming displays may not be the "usual" thing to do, but still, that is one example where "biggest" (meaning pixels) not give anything extra, and rather make more problems.
I have seen a lot HDV/AVCHD footage that just don't have the same feel as my PD-150 (PS! I normally use low sharpness in the camera setting. That's one thing better adjusted in post). Then it's just don't matter for me how many pixels I look at.
The end product's quality, meaning what people are looking at, that's what going to be judged. And then again, Jim has a good question, is it always needed to "shoot big".
I would like to see the same test as Jim describes (and I regret I didn't have the time to do it myself last time I had a HDV camera in my hand (which could do both SD and HDV)).
Would it be bad for anybody to see that test coming through?
Dag