I’ve been watching a TON of Internet videos with my son the past few days. I haven’t found one that really looks awesome yet that can compare with the Discovery Channel’s HD content, for instance.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t watchable. Patrick and I enjoy watching Diggnation, for instance. That content doesn’t require a high-resolution version.

I find myself wanting more, though, in many videos. Particularly ones that actually show something like what my show did last Friday where we got a tour of Franck Muller, famous Swiss watch maker. There the lack of resolution was frustrating for me as a viewer and as a content developer. What I had on tape was a lot more compelling than what came through on my TV screen.

Today I spent a few hours at Adobe seeing its CS3 Suite (ships on Monday). I wish I could push high resolution versions of the videos down, but I don’t have the machines, nor can I afford the bandwidth. Now some companies are offering the bandwidth for free, but that gets back to what Apple’s suggesting for Internet video producers: doing one format for iTunes that’ll play on both Apple TV as well as iTunes.

I don’t think that’s the best practice in the end. I think if we really want Apple TV customers to be happy we’ll offer them one feed for that (translation: something that’s 16:9 and has more resolution than 640xsomething) and another for iPods (cause they can’t deal with more than 640xsomething resolution).

One other thing? Most Internet video content just is really boring. Mine included. Gotta work on that too along with the resolution.

UPDATE: Make just announced an Apple TV version of its videocast.