Why all of a sudden is there all this demand for HD video now? All the DV camera makers are coming out with HD cameras and lots of short films are being made in HD. Why? I don't really see the need for it unless you're shooting something for the Discovery Channel or something. If you're shooting a film, wouldn't you want a soft "film look", and shooting in HD would be at the opposide end of that spectrum?

720x480 pixels spread across a theatre screen does give a "soft" look. I've projected it on screens wider than 40' and while it looked better than I expected, the resolution just isn't anywhere close to film. The result is that everything looks a bit out of focus if you're very near the screen.

1920x1080 is a huge improvement. If you think it looks too sharp it's always easy to add a filter in post to soften.

I think many including myself see HD as a way to achieve low cost good quality SD, while waiting for HD tv´s to be common. I used to shoot DV on a shoulder-cam with 1/2" LCD´s and a good Canon lens. My Canon H1 is like a hole new world as far as I´m concerned. And it´s easy to carry around.

When down-converting to SD the picture is still beautiful, and if you convert to a codec that can handle it you have 4:2:2 colors. In the end you have something that looks more like digibeta for much less $. And when the time comes your footage are HD ready. Reasons good enough for me.

Adam, it isn't so much a matter of resolution as it is one of detail... which is largly independent of resolution, and perfectly controllable.

Using negative detail, appropriate filters, etc... an HD image will hold up much better on the big screen as compared to a 480 image, and with no unsightly detail to boot if you know what you are doing.

All this commotion over how certain movie stars are going to be out of work due to hi-def ‘exposure’ is sort of silly, I think. I guess the guy who can shoot in high definition and STILL make his stars look beautiful will get the most work!


Hope this helps.

The sudden demand for HD is maybe because people have realized that they have been shooting with 'web cam' resolution for years and when they compare this to HD ( the various flavors of HD ), it looks like crap.

The soft look is really the out of focus look of film, nothing more. Let's get real on that issue. While most mall theaters are only 1000 across resolution, if you were to use such a scale, the DV still looked 'out of focus' to use a basic term.

Now half the problems of video are solved. The Canon H1 is just as sharp as scanned 16mm film, maybe more so. Now all the electronic film maker needs is more bit depth to be able to color grade like it was film. Kodak is in big trouble.

-Les


Why all of a sudden is there all this demand for HD video now? All the DV camera makers are coming out with HD cameras and lots of short films are being made in HD. Why? I don't really see the need for it unless you're shooting something for the Discovery Channel or something. If you're shooting a film, wouldn't you want a soft "film look", and shooting in HD would be at the opposite end of that spectrum?

If your sensible you want to "future-proof" your productions - A decade from now SD won't exist and if you want your feature/short/Docco/TV Series to have any longevity you'd better be shooting in HD or Film NOW.

Now half the problems of video are solved. The Canon H1 is just as sharp as scanned 16mm film, maybe more so. Now all the electronic film maker needs is more bit depth to be able to color grade like it was film. Kodak is in big trouble.-Les

Les, I read somewhere that going from 1080 to SD you can actually gain 4:4:4 color depth. I guess that opens for some serious color grading.
Now, going the SDI route you have 4:2:2 colors even in HD.

Color grading needs more bit depth, not more chroma resolution.
10 bits per color would be a big help.
-Les

Les, I read somewhere that going from 1080 to SD you can actually gain 4:4:4 color depth. I guess that opens for some serious color grading.
Now, going the SDI route you have 4:2:2 colors even in HD.

And if for no other reason than the aesthetic. If you shoot because you love the creative aspects..regardless of the current delivery, then it's hard not to love hooking your camera to a 36" HDTV and seeing your work at a level that you never have before.
It's like producing with a point and shoot camera and suddenly having a 35mm digital in your hands.
Artistically, it's more than worth the price of admission.

Color grading needs more bit depth, not more chroma resolution.

Same thing. You can potentially get close to 4:4:4 color with 10-bit depth if you average four HD pixels down to one SD pixel.

If you want to "future-proof" your work MAKE IT COMPELLING!

But why shoot your compelling work on an inferior format if shooting on a superior format is no more expensive?

Same thing. You can potentially get close to 4:4:4 color with 10-bit depth if you average four HD pixels down to one SD pixel.



But why shoot your compelling work on an inferior format if shooting on a superior format is no more expensive?


What if you already OWN SD gear? Even compressed DVCproHD or HDV takes more space and processing power, that is more expensive. The delivery is WAY more expensive as there is currently NO network or festival that will take an HDV master. More pixels does not mean it looks better or is more compelling. Ever shot with or seen footage from a DSR450 or SDX900? SDX footage will BLOW AWAY any of the higher rez 1/3" CCD cameras.

HD is great but it will not ensure a shelf-life...



ash =o)

What if you already OWN SD gear?

Why limit the salability of your project rather than rent HD gear?

Ever shot with or seen footage from a DSR450 or SDX900

I've edited a lot of DVCAM and Digibeta footage. The Z1 is comparable to the Digibeta footage I've worked with at SD resolutions, and looks a heck of a lot better at HD resolution.

SDX footage will BLOW AWAY any of the higher rez 1/3" CCD cameras.

Not on an HDTV, it won't. I doubt it even will on an SDTV if you downconvert properly.

What if you already OWN SD gear? Even compressed DVCproHD or HDV takes more space and processing power, that is more expensive. The delivery is WAY more expensive as there is currently NO network or festival that will take an HDV master. More pixels does not mean it looks better or is more compelling. Ever shot with or seen footage from a DSR450 or SDX900? SDX footage will BLOW AWAY any of the higher rez 1/3" CCD cameras.

HD is great but it will not ensure a shelf-life...



ash =o)

This isn't really an applicable comparison...no 2/3" SD camera will be comparable to a 720p image on HDTV.
Plain and simple, NTSC is half century old image technology.
Well shot HD on an HDTV looks demonstrably better.

Mark, are you claiming that a resampled HD frame gains bit depth?
I suppose that if you are considering the noise in the equation, you would possibly get a little improvement, but only a little.

What I'm saying is having 10 bits of bit depth is what is needed for real film like color grading. That's 2 extra stops of latitude to reach into. Resizing HD will not gain much. And 10 bits is just enough if it's a linear 10 bits.

Again, color grading in a film style needs 1000 levels of intensity ( 10 bits ) to start being competitive with film color grading possibilities.
Resizing HD to SD will not magically get a lot of extra shadow or highlight latitude. It will get you more chroma detail. Different animal entirely.

-Les
Same thing. You can potentially get close to 4:4:4 color with 10-bit depth if you average four HD pixels down to one SD pixel.



But why shoot your compelling work on an inferior format if shooting on a superior format is no more expensive?

The sudden demand for HD is maybe because people have realized that they have been shooting with 'web cam' resolution for years and when they compare this to HD ( the various flavors of HD ), it looks like crap.
-Les

LOL! I agree entirely. I wasn't even looking for an HD camera until I saw some footage! SD looked fine until I saw HD just like VHS looked fine until I saw a DVD!

The problem with SD is that TV stations are beginning to broadcast HD and high definition DVDs are only months away. Once the general public is exposed to HD they won't want anything else. Sure there's a lot of great documentary stuff that is only (and will only) be available in SD. The general public is going to abandon this stuff like they abandoned B&W.

Now before everyone jumps all over me for saying this, let me say this: I still like a good black and white movie or documentary that is only available in VHS. I'm not saying that SD is dead. I'm just saying that the demand for SD is about to get really low. Anyone who can't see this is just not facing reality!

What if you already OWN SD gear? Even compressed DVCproHD or HDV takes more space and processing power, that is more expensive. The delivery is WAY more expensive as there is currently NO network or festival that will take an HDV master. More pixels does not mean it looks better or is more compelling. Ever shot with or seen footage from a DSR450 or SDX900? SDX footage will BLOW AWAY any of the higher rez 1/3" CCD cameras.

HD is great but it will not ensure a shelf-life...



ash =o)

Two comments. Ash, you continually keep this drone of "why HD now?" The point is taken and heard. Move on.
Second, you're wrong that no one will accept HDV masters. Only in the US and Canada is this so. Several South American/Brazilian stations accept HDV, and all of the Japanese stations do. NHK has been accepting HDV since the format launched. The US is simply slow. It's also unlikely that HDV will ever be a common delivery format, any more than DV is a common delivery format. But DV eventually became an acceptable format. Some US stations will likely accept HDV at some point, but dumping via HDD is more likely the case as the future comes closer.

My production manager just got back from NATPE and his statement was interesting and revealing.

Broadcasters, according to him, are waiting for a critical mass of content before taking the shift to HD seriously. So basically, the sooner we start producing HD and not producing SD (except as a post production down rez), the sooner broadcasters will invest on their end.

About 40+ years ago, I watched for the first time in color, "The Wizard of Oz" at a friend's house. I was telling another kid about it, who like us didn't have one. He went on to tell me that his dad said color Tv was not yet "perfected."

When we finally got one at our house, I remembered his words. And I found these curious controls for "hue" and "color," to go along with the brightness and contrast controls I was familiar with on B&W. I remember thinking that when color Tv is finally "perfected," it won't need these controls.

My Z1U has controls for "color level" and "phase" i.e. color and hue. Do not be duped! HDV is not yet perfected!

high definition DVDs are only months away.

Make that weeks away: Best Buy says they'll start shipping the Toshiba HD DVD players around March 26th for people placing pre-orders.

I think the HD demand is a large part due to manufacturers needing to sell stuff.

HD is a good way of differentiating your product from everyone else's... everyone starts thinking along the terms of HD versus SD.

In my opinion, resolution is overrated. It's not like it's the biggest factor in determining image quality... think of computer/PC games versus console games. Computer games have been doing "HD" for quite some time, yet console games are still massively popular. And sometimes they look better.

In my opinion, we could get a lot better quality if:
Consumer televisions followed standards instead of intentionally going against them. Standard color gamut / chromaticity and color temperature would mean that color accuracy would improve significantly. Instead, manufacturers try to make their displays as bright as possible (this is so the display will look best in a store setting).

Better NTSC/PAL decoders to get rid of cross-color artifacts (the rainbow/moire effect you see).

Digital transmission with low compression. Right now (with analog), a lot of broadcasters store stuff on video servers with very high compression. A lot of consumer TVs actually accentuate this since they have excessive edge sharpening.

On the production side, better lighting would help. It would be interesting to see lights become faster to setup, better in quality (i.e. LEDs = low power consumption, may eventually be any color tempearture you want, very dimmable), and lower in price (i.e. HMIs kind of cost a lot).

More color enhancement would also help... the show Top Gear looks beautiful. You can smear vaseline on the display and it'd still look beautiful.

Cameras that can capture high exposure latitude would also help.

A question and two points, Glenn....

1. Would you prefer to shoot your family portraits on a .4 megapixel camera or on an 8 megapixel camera? Especially when blown up to say....8 x 10?
We both know you'd pick the 8 megapixel cam.
HD is 1.6 mp vs .3 mp.

You might think that HD is over rated, or that it's a ploy to sell more "something" and to a degree you're right. That's the way of capitalism. Build a better mousetrap and sell it. By your suggestion, maybe we'd be better off with the television Philo Farnsworth invented?

All of the other things you posted are true; of course better decoders, better lighting, better blah, blah, blah. But more resolution only makes those "better" things shine "better."

And regardless of what anyone anywhere thinks, wishes, hopes for... it's already gone HD. So, either fight it and absolutely lose, or learn to deal with that which is already a foregone conclusion. I know that you "younger" guys might not get it, but there are those of us who remember the arguments against remote controls, color television, stereo television, VHS vs Beta, LP vs CD, Laserdisk vs DVD, etc, etc. It's called "progress." Either you roll with it, or it rolls over you.

With still pictures, you can actually see all that extra resolution. Whereas with HD, you may not be able to see that extra resolution depending on your viewing angle. i.e. sometimes console games look better than computer games, despite lower resolution.

There's an interesting interview with Yves Faroudja which deals with this.

YF: So there are all kinds of limitations to that. Number one, it's for entertainment. I know there is educational TV, but it shares, worldwide, the same boring characteristics. Maybe I'm wrong... 95 percent is for entertainment and 4 percent is "information." But that's it. It's for entertainment and in a family environment. Now, Mr. Lechner has discovered that everybody watches TV nine feet away from the screen and the law is independent from the size of the screen. You are always nine feet away from the screen (except in Europe where you are three meters away). It doesn't depend on the number of lines, it doesn't depend on whether it's VHS or disc or broadcast, it's nine feet away. The reasons are the size of the couch, the number of people watching the TV (it's usually between one and three watching at the same time), and the size of the living room. That is the first law. Law number two, the TV set has to go through the door.

HP: (Laughter.)

YF: But this is the reality, it's interesting what people buy. They can't buy anything which is bigger than the door.

HP: You can't?

YF: You can't. You can't sell a home appliance that can't go through the door and a door is a worldwide standard. So, it appears that you have, nine feet away, four people sitting in lounge chairs. You have a living room that may be just a little bigger than this room at best. You have a couple of eccentrics that have magnificent, gigantic installations, but the big deal is a standard room and a screen cannot be that big. The point that I want to make is that you have a visual angle which is limited by very strict practical bounds. Maybe it's 20 degrees, maybe it's only 10 degrees, but I would say 20 degrees is probably right. That is the case here also, with the widescreen. When you are sitting in the first row of JK's display downstairs, with the screen full width, that's it. I'll bet it's about 25 degrees maybe, at most.

HP: Looks like 25.

YF: Okay, so my point is that anything that you do not perceive with the highest contrast, in the brighter conditions, and with a 25 degree visual angle is useless. In other words, there is no point to have resolution beyond these limits of perception. So what I'm saying is that the characteristics of my NTSC, an NTSC which has been decoded my way, line doubled my way, bandwidth expanded my way, are sufficient for these conditions. I don't see the point to go further, except for very specific professional applications. I do believe that a lot of the HDTV proposals are over-designed. I don't believe it's necessary to end up with a picture resolution which exceeds NTSC by an order of magnitude. What I'm interested in about HDTV is the digital transmission scheme and digital processing.
http://www.avguide.com/film_music/film/film_main_04.jsp

Certainly in the future there will be HD of some sort. However, I'd just hold out and let the early adopters figure stuff out (and wait for prices on HD equipment to drop further). In some broadcast scenarios it does make sense to go HD. In other cases like weddings and corporate video, SD DVD is likely your best bet. Yes HD DVD players are coming out, but it's going to be two competing formats and they will also be fairly expensive that there won't be good market penetration in a while.

Are you suggesting folks CAN'T see the additional resolution? Even on a crummy 23" SD display, one can clearly see the difference.
I understand why people constantly refer to what Faroudja has to say in that panel, it bolsters their argumentative position. And my response is "So what?" He's a looked-up-to leader of our generation. That certainly doesn't mean he's incapable of being wrong or ignorant at times. Walter Winchell said television would never be as popular as radio was. And he was a bigger influence on media culture than Faroudja by a long, long way. And he was dead wrong. You could also show a quote by Steven Spielberg several years back saying digital acquisition would never really catch on with film makers. And you can find Robert Rodriquez saying film is dead and it's all about digital.

Regardless of who with which name says what, I stand by my points.

1. People like bigger, better, cleaner pictures. Those who fight it haven't experienced it, or else they like arguing math for the sake of arguing math. Consumers don't give a crap about math.
2. Television, like all techno toys, will continue to advance, and you can either fight it, or work with it.

Significant breath is wasted saying "I don't think we need it" when you really should be figuring out how to embrace it, because if you don't, it's just gonna pass you by. For all intent and purpose, SD is dead. Broadcasters want HD; they'll put up ANYTHING that looks half decent just to have it up. Consumers want HD, they're buying new sets faster than televisions have ever been purchased before. Look at the sales from just last week. The superbowl seriously is spiking sales. On the camera side, who of significance is announcing new DV cameras? No one.

Whether you're talking about HDV, MPEG 4, or HDCAM, people can clearly see that when apples are compared to apples, more resolution looks better to their eye. Period. You can tell them compression sucks, you can point out the blocky artifacts in fast motion. You can stand all day and tell them it doesn't look as good as well-done SD, you can show them math to demonstrate they're wrong, and they'll still tell you it looks better to their eye. This much I know, because I've done it in retail stores on more than one occasion, just to understand consumer thought processes when they're buying a display. Try it. You'll be surprised.
Until you really experience HD at both the authoring and viewing side for any length of time, you just won't "get it."

To add to the topic:

1. My aging DV/SD equipment needs replacing, and I'll invest in the biggest bang for the buck. 4x the resolution for only twice the price. A deal.
2. Future-proofing my work. Even in SD land, I have referenced/used media shot back in the 1980's. I cringe to think what my current DV25 stuff now will look even 10 years from now -good chance that it would be useless.

In my opinion, resolution is overrated.

Resolution obviously isn't the only thing that matters, but once you have a decent HDTV and have watched some HD footage on it, it becomes obvious that SD video is doomed. Fer cryin' out loud, we're talking about a 50 year old image display standard which was a hack to begin with, and doesn't even have the basic resolution of today's $25 digital still cameras. Give it up people: SD is soooo 20th century and deserves to go away...it's just a question of when. HD matters now because it's the format people will be used to watching in just a few years, and they'll be thankful if we at least give them proper widescreen DVDs downsampled from HD cameras. If you can't afford an HD camera today then so be it, but SD is done for.

Whether or not SD is "done for" depends entirely on the market... there will continue to be plenty of SD applications for some time yet to come. A substantial portion of the wedding industry will remain SD until the majority of household DVD players are replaced by HD. Plenty of lower-end corporate work will continue to be SD. Sure its days are numbered, but there's still a couple three years left in it, in my opinion.

Sure its days are numbered, but there's still a couple three years left in it, in my opinion.

Agreed, however; three years is nothing in the grand scheme of advancement, and more importantly, the only reason 3 years will go by before we see the majority of all SD acquisition gone, is because there are folks with significant investments in SD cameras, displays, and editing systems. Personally, I don't see three years going by, simply because consumer demand will drive the event/wedding market and corporate markets. But of equal importance, is that no one is announcing new SD switchers, displays, cameras, editing systems, etc. Because the acquisition side of the market knows there is no money to be made there. On the consumer side, by year end we'll be seeing huge numbers of HD-capable DVD players, and by next year's end, it'll be ubiquitous. Can you imagine being a corporate videographer telling someone why they need their project done in SD when they've got a 50" display and an HD player in their office or home?

Overall, this thread seems absurd if you look at what's been happening in our industry over the past 20 years. There has been a strong push for HD since the early 80's, a tremendous push to HD since the mid 90's, and we arrived at the turn of the century. Only now? are people starting to wonder "why the demand now?" when the demand started years ago, and they just haven't been paying attention.

Not on an HDTV, it won't. I doubt it even will on an SDTV if you downconvert properly.

This is true. I've worked with SDX900 footage somewhat regularly, and my H1 material is mind blowingly better on an HDTV. The H1 downconverts extremely well into DV50 too. The only major difference is that you get better shallow DOF with the SDX's 2/3" chips, and you get better low-light with the SDX.

point #3:

I capture/edit in HD/HDV and render to SD. One year later Boss comes in and say's we need last years thingy published in HD. Sure! 1-2-3 Render. Lunch.

Pete

Are you suggesting folks CAN'T see the additional resolution? Even on a crummy 23" SD display, one can clearly see the difference.
That's exactly what Faroudja's argument is... folks sit too far away from their TV / their TV isn't big enough (both determine viewing angle).

Whether well-done SD or HD looks better is subjective. In my experience:
At Ryerson university they have a HD control room, where there's a 20" ikegami HD broadcast monitor and below it a 42" LCD (Sharp I think; consumer). The LCD does look better, even though the image displayed in it takes up only half the display width (because it shows the switcher interface and has a bunch of camera angles on it). The LCD image is effectively about SD resolution.

Reasons:
A- The HD monitor is too far away to see HD resolution (it sits in an equipment rack several feet from the switcher position). Effectively, the two monitors look about the same resolution (this is partly my eye sight too... I don't have 20/15 vision).
B- The LCD monitor is really bright, and the HD monitor dim. Which makes this an unfair comparison.... in isolation, the HD monitor would look better. The bright LCD makes images on the HD monitor look dim. The HD monitor would look fine/great if the LCD wasn't there.
This may be why CRTs are designed to be very bright... they will make other monitors look bad in side by side comparisons.
Bright displays also look better in brightly lit stores (which is not the best viewing environment).

Your experience may be different that mine!

2- My other point is that people have been getting crappy SD for a while. It may be because consumers aren't that discerning, so they don't complain about cross color or MPEG2 artifacts. In terms of artifacting, the Superbowl is one of the programs with the most artifacting.

3- Certainly a lot of people demand HD, so it that sense it can make sense to invest in HD equipment. So you'll probably be right about HD taking over.

My point (which is a bit of digression from the original topic) was that HD quality may be a little overrated. Some people effectively don't get HD resolution. And in my opinion resolution is not as important as some other factors.

Sorry Glenn,
like most others in this thread, I've gotta strongly disagree.
With all things being equal, I've yet to see any situation where HD is "lesser than" SD. I've been in too many broadcast houses, post houses, trade events, etc where this discussion has taken place, and even at the most snobby end of things (Good Morning America) they much prefer the Z1 for instance, over their much higher end Ike SD cams, because the additional resolution, even with the lesser saturation from a 1/3 chip, looks better than what they get in 2/3 chip from the Ike, when the Z1 is downsampled, or when the Ike is upsampled. Mathematically it might be a lesser quality image, but they don't care about math, they care about what they see.

You're arguing semantics vs practice. Look at the posts on this board, and every other board out there. Well-seasoned veterans of SD are moving to low-cost HD in hoards, because of the better image.

Of course "whether well done SD or HD is better" is subjective! It's equally subjective to say that a 2 megapixel still camera is better than a .4 megapixel still camera. You can argue all day long that people can't see the additional resolution, and I'll equally argue all day long that they can. How discerning they are or aren't isn't really part of the question. Bottom line is, when you're watching the bowl games in SD, then flipping to ESPN with 720p, then flipping to CBS where it's 1080, there is a huge difference that can't be ignored, and that certainly isn't subjective when you look at them side by side. Additionally, the 20" HD monitor isn't comparable to a 42" SD monitor, you're seeing two entirely different signals. HD at all pixels being native, means you have a 46" display for 720p, and a 60" display for 1080. If you're viewing SD and using the same 32 pixels per inch table, then you're looking at a 26" display. So, in your case, you're blowing up SD to 42" and downscaling HD to 20", and neither of those are very real world scenarios. The majority of television displays being sold to HD consumers are in the 42-60" range, and given the 3:1 rule of distance vs diagonal, this is about average for the typical consumer. You've seen our 12' projection system, and switching between the Sopranos broadcast at 1080i (downsampled to 720p due to my projector resolution) and the standard HBO broadcast channel is huge in difference. It's not much up for debate, as you've seen most folks here suggest.

I'd really urge you to get your hands on an HD camcorder of sort and go shoot, and then view it on an HD display that is current and not older and compare that to anything shot with SD at the same time. Otherwise, you're just shooting ducks in the dark and talking textbook vs real world practice.

Not to make a long thread longer, but one aspect that hasn´t been discussed much is the fact that many adopting these wonderful new toys are people that until now have been shooting DV25. DV25 certainly isn´t the best SD has to offer, but cameras recording 4:2:2 and with less compression like DV50 or digibeta, are much more expensive equipment. When you count in disk raids to edit uncompressed, and video cards, deck´s and so on, the hole workflow can cost quite a lot. Then HDV appears and suddenly you can shoot and edit high quality material with a cheap camera and an ordinary PC with a LCD. The bang for bucks factor is overwhelming, and that reason alone is what drives the market. For the new generation of filmmakers the choice will be obvious. They will soon enough learn that there´s more to it then a high rez. camera. But the entry level for good quality has changed.

It´s not the money anymore, but skills that matters. It doesn´t matter one bit what SD is capable of. HDV does it for less $ and is also prepared for the future.

To clarify:
What happened in that HD studio was that the LCDs were used as a display for the switcher. So each LCD display is sort of like a video wall. In that way, the signal is effectively SD.

The HD monitor effectively displays SD resolution since it's too far away. i.e. if you had a HD monitor 1km away, you probably can't tell the difference between it and a SD monitor.

So it's not a really good comparison because neither is really, truly HD. But anyways, this is kind of what happens in the real world. (Although one could argue that this particular setup is not real world.)

2- I've also seen DVCPRO HD 720p and 1080i footage on a HD broadcast monitor (Ikegami CRT) up close.

3- I've shot some material on DVCPRO HD (1080i)... unfortunately it's hard to view the footage at HD resolution. Usually the project just ends up in SD.

4- Obviously all factors being equal, a HD image will look better than a SD image.

In practice, you're going to have limited time (i.e. render time, shooting time / grabbing focus) and money. You also have distribution considerations... HD is currently not very widespread (this will change of course).

Is it better to shoot HD, or to shoot better SD? The answer is subjective and I don't have anything to add.

Certainly in the future there will be HD of some sort. However, I'd just hold out and let the early adopters figure stuff out (and wait for prices on HD equipment to drop further). In some broadcast scenarios it does make sense to go HD. In other cases like weddings and corporate video, SD DVD is likely your best bet. Yes HD DVD players are coming out, but it's going to be two competing formats and they will also be fairly expensive that there won't be good market penetration in a while.


Huh?
Not to be smug or give you grief but before we made the transition to HD we had the transition paid for and HD making a profit because it was part of creative presentations and a requirement for some of the new broadcast creative.
It wasn't a whim or a look toward the future it was an immediate need for my production company this month and from here on in.
HD simply is right now.

A substantial portion of the wedding industry will remain SD until the majority of household DVD players are replaced by HD.

In general I'd agree that this will be a gradual transition, but I don't think it will be long before anyone spending any serious money on a wedding video will consider having it recorded in HD. Personally I think it's a shame we're not recording all wedding videos that way now, but of course it does cost something to do so and most customers don't get yet why they might want to spend that extra amount. Eventually HD will be standard for anything above bargain-basement videos, but not right away.

I agree with Spot. HD is coming and it's coming pretty fast. I keep putting off buying a camera, because I think HD is the way to go. I hope the prices keep dropping!!

Personal Thoughts:

Right now we are on the verge of a revolution. HDTVs are only half the battle. The other is distribution as everyone points out. Now that consumer HDDVD players (and soon to be released Blue-Ray players) are becoming available, the small time producer will have a means of direct distribution to the consumer. Corporations will be able to use HD materials for in house videos edited in Final Cut and shown from a DVD player to “The Big Screen” in the conference room or with projector on the wall via an inexpensive off the shelf play back device. Additionally we hope that most modern laptops can already play HD based DVDs for field reps and the like.

Basically we hope that the demand for HD will grow as quickly as people have an easy way to use their own material. Let’s face it, if you have invested even as little as $5k in an HDV rig, having a way to display your material from something other then the camera or a $3500.00 deck has to come and coming they are. Even minor festivals would be hard pressed to refuse an HDV Indie if it were delivered in a format that could be handled by an $800.00 consumer player. Especially since the number of HD Indie producers will only continue to rise as this technology becomes ever less expensive.

Just some thoughts from someone who really wants HD to take off.

Dave

Don't get me wrong.
I've shot a bit of HD and seen my work on a HD broadcast monitor (from up close, so viewing distance isn't an issue). In ideal conditions, HD does look significantly less blurry than SD.

I just don't think it's a big a deal as some people say it is. i.e. it's not as big a deal as DVD versus VHS. It doesn't do my laundry either.

Perhaps I've been a little too disappointed with HD... the work I've done ends up in SD or lower resolution. And I'm mostly interested in color correction so I tend to push filters to the extreme (i.e. 30:1 rendering is ok with me)... HD means much longer render times.

Is HD worth waiting for? I'm the kind of person who would and wouldn't wait for it. I wouldn't wait for the rendering... I would wait for computers to get faster.

Fair enough?

point #4: HD edited on an SD timeline allows for more creativity to pan/scan and zoom without losing resolution. So, if I want to zoom in a little to draw attention to a speaker, I can. If the shot simply doesn't frame right, I can move around and reframe it, etc.

To me, HD is SD on steriods, and HDV makes it on the cheap. Five years ago we spent nearly $10K for an uncompressed video toaster for SD. Two years ago an upgrade to HD was looking more like $60K (not including the camera). With HDV, I can get the whole shebang for less than $30K -which includes the camera, (unless I opt for that matrox axio -but that's not much over 30). That's still less than the cost of new BetaSP cam, or what we used to pay an outside firm for a 60-minute package. Nuts. For the first time in my life I realize that I could afford my own production system for the same price of a luxury car.

Sure, we'll still produce SD, and until something replaces the current DVD production model, my guess is that HDV equipment will run it's warranty long before blue-ray or HD-DVD finds it's way onto Mr. Joe Adverage's entertainment stand. In any case, we'll be ready when that happens.

Pete

The truth of the matter is that BOTH SD and HD are in greater demand than ever. Everyone I know in production is SWAMPED. There are people on the bleeding edge who want HD and there are people who need press kits, infomercials, etc. etc. etc.

If you look at the spectrum of TV channles there is a very minute % of the broadcast day in HD, it is ever growing but it will be a decade before it outnumbers SD. I think people always try to use primetime on the big networks as the benchmark but how many people in these forums are targeting that? Same way with all the posts for a "film-out"....

I do know a lot of music video production companies are moving to HD, but that is from film. HD is a trend, a growing trend but there is lots of time left and lots of money to be made with SD...

My point is not to deny that HD is eminent, it is only to be fair to those seeking advice on a REALISTIC timeline in regards to purchasing equipment, etc.

Also, not sure what happened to my other posts but I have seen SDX900 SD footage uprezzed to HD and it looked GREAT, way better than anything I see out of an HVX or XLH. If you have seen "The Making of Smile" on Showtime HD, they cut SDX with HD and you cannot tell the difference.


ash =o)

Ash, I agree, SD is still there. Just that I'm not going to reinvest in SD equipment, when I know that HDV/HD can be had for not much more, and can do just as good or better than SD. It's technology, it happens. Take advantage, c'mon in, the waters warm... join us... (resistence is futile... :)

I have seen SDX900 SD footage uprezzed to HD and it looked GREAT, way better than anything I see out of an HVX or XLH.

Your points are well taken and there's no doubt plenty of money to be made yet producing SD video, but I haven't seen any upsampled SD footage which looked like anything other than upsampled SD when viewed on a good display. Maybe footage from an SDX900 intercuts nicely with HD because it looks so good in terms of overall image characteristics, but the resolution is still limited to basically 1/3 megapixel and that's just poor. Most photographers avoided digital still cameras like a plague until they got to around 5-6 megapixel resolution, and yet for video we're willing to accept less than 1/10th of that?

By all means keep making money with SD if you can, and use good SD cameras when it makes sense to do so. But let's admit that the basic resolution of SD video is so low, it's a wonder anyone ever accepted it.

Ever seen a 480p DVD? That is SD and to average Joe is not discernable from DVD. I did an A/B on Shrek 2... splitting hairs really.

Quit thinking merely in terms of lines and pixels. When you SEE good 2/3" CCD SD bumps to HD, then you will realize that it looks BETTER than native footage from the Z1u. You mention digital stills... a higher megapixel on a SMALLER sensor will generally not look as good as a lower megapixel on a larger sensor.

Again, the Showtime HD show "The Making of Smile" looked great, most everyone who has seen it has been impressed.



ash =o)

I think this is a good time to close this thread, since it's no longer offering up new information. Please start a new thread if you have anything new to add to the subject.

Ash, I agree, SD is still there. Just that I'm not going to reinvest in SD equipment, when I know that HDV/HD can be had for not much more, and can do just as good or better than SD. It's technology, it happens. Take advantage, c'mon in, the waters warm... join us... (resistence is futile... :)


No resistance... I had 2 shoots today with a Varicam and I also use an HVX200 and an XLH (I do not OWN those, just have fairly unlimited access). Equipment is not an investment, it is a tool. If you can make more money with the $100 hammer, GO FOR IT... if not, buy the $20 hammer.



ash =o)