Technically, shooting and editing in HD and then down-converting to SD for delivery will give you better results than just shooting strait SD because when it comes to the compression stage, you are starting with more information. However,I think this whole situation depends on how skilled you are and how good your equipment is.
My one engineering teacher said he has shot very good SD that looks comparable to HD. He claims the key is to have a decent camera body (I believe in his example he mentioned Ikegami) and high quality lenses from manufacturers like Zeiss, Schneider, Fujinon, and Canon. Also, you can’t just get good equipment and expect to have awesome results either. You’ve got to know how to light as well.
So basically, shooting with a camera like the Canon XH A1 and editing the HDV codec then down-converting to SD for delivery probably isn’t as good as shooting SD with an Ikegami and Zeiss lenses.
Buuuuut, shooting with the Canon XH-A1, editing HDV and down-convert to SD will be better than shooting SD with a GL2 or even an XL2 or any 1/3″ CCD camera.
So I guess the question to ask is: What kind of work are you doing? Are you doing the kind of work where it makes sense to get an Ikegami with badass lenses? Or are you doing lower end work where you primarily uses handheld cameras. If you make commercials, or do corporate video, or other things of that nature, I’d say stick with a high end SD camera with nice glass. If you’re doing lower end work, then shooting the HDV codec (or even XDCam HD) and then down converting to SD for delivery is a good route.
***Keep in mind that we’ve all been watching SD our whole lives, and it’s been perfectly acceptable. So don’t fall into the mindset that you need HD to make great video. Also keep in mind that just cause you’re shooting in HD doesn’t mean you’re quality is going to increase. Your image might be a little more clear, but you could still totally be talentless and waste all your money trying to impress people with HD equipment.***
.
