Europe has widescreen broadcasts, America doesn't. In America, if it's SD, it's 4:3. If it's HD, it's 16:9. We don't have that middle ground that Europe has.
Of course, Europe ended up with a lot of complications because of that too, so some broadcasters started demanding product in 14:9 aspect ratio (which is halfway between 4:3 and 16:9). That way whatever gets broadcast will look equally bad on everyone's television...
I doubt we'll see another SD camcorder from any of the manufacturers.
Wikipedia lists 704x480, either 4:3 or 16:9, interlaced and progressive, as part of ATSC standard. On the other hand, it mentions 720x576 as part of ATSC standard too, so I don't know whether wiki can be trusted. The atsc.org site is not very friendly, I could not find the ATSC table easily. If Wikipedia is correct, then WS SD is pretty much part of current/future digital broadcast standard. Some brodcasters may consider it, because it requires three times less bandwith (am I right?), while retaining pretty good picture. In a way this would be a step back from HD, but isn't bit-starved HD-Lite transmission a worse kind of step back?
DVD movies are SD and usually WS, so while WS SD video may not be broadcast, the WS SD material is in abundance on DVD. I bought my HDTV to watch DVDs and I am very happy with the result. Though HD-DVD or Blu-Ray are better, regular anamorphic DVDs look very good. My new TV can fully realise the potential of DVD, my old tube TV could not.
I know that some PBS programs, for example, are routinely made in WS SD, and upscaled to HD. The quality of these programs is very good. I mean they still make them this way, and if it works why switching their workflow to costlier HD? Considering that many operators try saving bandwidth, SD content may have the same resulting clarity but less macroblocking artefacts than HD content.
Other major companies finally started to accept WS SD content from Europe, like French Open and Wibledon, or Formula One Grand Prix. They upscale it to HD because as you pointed out WS SD is not broadcast directly in America. Still, the result is worth the efforts, and it is much better that old-fashioned 4:3. For the first time Formula One looked almost real for me.
I know that many members of this site do their productions for release on DVDs, like weddings or corporate stuff. These productions are not intended for over-the-air or cable broadcast, so they can be done in WS SD. Which is why I cannot get why many videographers still shoot in 4:3 or shoot in WS and then letterbox in their NLE. A DVD player will letterbox automatically if WS content is displayed on an older 4:3 device, and the WS picture will shine in full glory after upgrade to HDTV.
For many people the major difference of HD is it being large and wide. Improved resolution comes next.
Ugh, sorry for the rant
I just hate 4:3 Apple is to blame too with its 4:3 iPods. I would like to return to my original question: what cameras do they use in Europe for WS SD? Do these cameras have native WS processing? Does it make sense to buy, say, a PAL version of DVX? Or a PAL version of another popular camera? My $300 consumer camcorder has native WS processing for pete's sake.
