Is progressive HD really video? - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Open DV Discussion

Open DV Discussion
For topics which don't fit into any of the other categories.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 19th, 2006, 07:26 PM   #16
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Posts: 670
Yes, video is video because it is an electronic signal. But "digital film" sounds more expensive, doesn't it? Then when someone says, "wow, what's that" you could re-hash what you know about HD, replacing "HD" with "digital film" and impress the heck out of them...it does have a nice ring to it...
__________________
youtube.com/benhillmedia
linkedin.com/in/benhillmedia
Benjamin Hill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20th, 2006, 09:15 PM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Hill
Yes, video is video because it is an electronic signal. But "digital film" sounds more expensive, doesn't it? Then when someone says, "wow, what's that" you could re-hash what you know about HD, replacing "HD" with "digital film" and impress the heck out of them...it does have a nice ring to it...
The definition of video as "any moving image that was recorded electronically" is exactly what I think is outdated. There's two things that can happen to a definition when people start to see it as dated: The word stays the same but the meaning changes, or the word keeps it's old meaning, and a new word is created to embody the new meaning.

Right now, the term video by the above definition means both something shot on a consumer VHSC camera AND on Genisis. I'm sorry, but that to me means the definition is outdated.

Thank you Mathieu and Benjamin! I definately agree that "digital cinema" is an all around good name, but how smooth does it sound to say "I'm going to go shoot some digital cinema"? As long as "video" has less syllables, that's the word people will use... we need a shorter word IMHO.
__________________
~Justine

"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams" -Arthur O'Shaunessey (as quoted by Willy Wonka)
Justine Haupt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2006, 06:22 AM   #18
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: McLean, VA United States
Posts: 749
Whereas "film" means 8mm shot on a consumer home movie camera and IMAX (70 mm moving sideways)....
A. J. deLange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2006, 07:24 AM   #19
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Posts: 670
Not digital cinema; digital film. Or how about "digifilm", that's three syllables.

"Cinema", to me, has too much baggage; it is too immediately associated with feature films- "movies"- and academic film studies. Esp. narrative driven stuff. "The Bicycle Thief". To establish a new format it needs to be a blank slate, I think...
__________________
youtube.com/benhillmedia
linkedin.com/in/benhillmedia
Benjamin Hill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2006, 08:14 PM   #20
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Hill
Not digital cinema; digital film. Or how about "digifilm", that's three syllables.
I can't see why the word film should be involved, so how about "digema"? Better yet, "videma".
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2006, 08:25 PM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 208
A.J.... while that's true, you also just proved my point. Film has a descriptive set of 'sub-words'. You can say "I'm shooting 35" or "I'm shooting super 8" easily in conversation, and people know what those are and what they look like. But video has no such way of distinguishing it's look. The only 'sub-words' video has are HD and SD, and they don't distinguish between video-look and cinema-look. News channels might be using HD and indie "film"makers might be using SD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw
I can't see why the word film should be involved, so how about "digema"? Better yet, "videma".
Hehe, that's exactly what I was saying in the first post; words like that sound... awkward.

So, where was I going with this topic, anyway? I don't know!
__________________
~Justine

"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams" -Arthur O'Shaunessey (as quoted by Willy Wonka)
Justine Haupt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2006, 10:42 PM   #22
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 384
Interesting discussion ! However, I would suggest that the differences between "digital photo" and "video" are becoming increasingly small. As many of you know, there are high-resolution digital cameras today that shoot individual photographs at rates exceeding 30,000 frames per second. These are not video cameras as we know them, and in fact are much closer to point and shoot cameras in their evolution. Many such cameras could be easily set to shoot 24 or 60 FPS at a resolution equivalent to either 720p or 1080p. Are they then HD video cameras ? I think the definition is artificial at best, and is probably better related to the use of the camera rather than to the camera itself.
Mark Donnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2006, 07:30 AM   #23
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: McLean, VA United States
Posts: 749
I read here all the time things like "I shot it in 1080i and want to know if I can convert it to 720p." In fact each of the SD and HD formats is fully described in terms of its parameters. The difference between 1080i and 720p is as fully descriptive and as easily understood as the difference between 16mm and 35. I guess I am missing the point.

In any case the engineers will always call it "video" if for no other reason than to distinguish that part of the signal or data set from the part that conveys the "audio".
A. J. deLange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2006, 10:21 AM   #24
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Haupt
Film has a descriptive set of 'sub-words'. You can say "I'm shooting 35" or "I'm shooting super 8" easily in conversation, and people know what those are and what they look like. But video has no such way of distinguishing it's look.
There are various ways of describing different kinds of video; if anything the problem is that there are so many variations now. Maybe it's time to stop worrying about that and simply describe the type of content you're creating: e.g. "I'm making a documentary."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Donnell
Many such cameras could be easily set to shoot 24 or 60 FPS at a resolution equivalent to either 720p or 1080p. Are they then HD video cameras ?
I haven't heard of any mainstream digital cameras yet which can record HD video at 24+ fps continuously, but we're getting closer. Once they can then they would be video cameras in their video mode, just as some video cameras can be still cameras in their photo mode.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Open DV Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:35 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network