HD A backwards step.
 

I believe HD is a backwards step for many of us and hasn't delivered much of an advancement apart from a sharper picture, which in many cases looks somewhat artificial. We have to invest in higher priced equipment from camera through to high power processors for editing.

Here's an example article on the Xl2 Watchdog of what I mean.

XL2 Fields of View Comparison by Chris Hurd

Look at the amazing variety of shots obtainable on a SD camera with relatively cheap lens and attachments which are easily available. To duplicate a rig similar to this in HD would cost an arm and a leg, plus some. In fact I wonder if it's possible.

Maybe I'm missing something. But what has HD really done for us? Not much in my opinon.

If you don't like it, then stay SD. No problem there.

HD offers the same advantages as sound over silent, color over black and white, digital over analog. And people wasted a lot of time poo pooing those as well. If the HD you see looks artificial, then it was badly done.

By the way, the article you linked to is 2 years old. Are you really that far behind?

Hi Perrone,

I shoot in HD when doing contract work for a nation wide tv station.

Sound over silent. Great advancement. Colour over black and white. Even better.
Digital over analog. Fantastic improvement when it came to production editing and effects.
Easier than cutting film or rolling tapes. HD over SD. Small improvement relative for what it involves.

Maybe you're right. Of the shows I've made and those I've worked on some people have liked. Others have said 'stink'. But thems the breaks in tv land.

Is the article only two years old? I thought it was older. Some of the components featured in that article are far older than that. I used some of them on a XL1 some eight or ten years ago. I think I still have a XL EF converter here somewhere. The point as I see it is we went from film to tape then onto digital with great improvements and speed in production methods. Then mini DV opened up a whole new world with a large range of cameras and lenses at a lower cost than before. It made video production affordable for many new players.

Now we are re equiping at what seems a huge cost for a gain which is not much more than 'diddly squat'. That's not much.

I guess my problem is that I don't see the great chasm you do in terms of costs. To me HD brings several wonderful things to the table.

1. Worldwide standard of frame sizes. No more trying to reshape PAL/NTSC frames to fit one broadcast standard or the other.

2. A solid way to finally incorporate 24p into both the camera and broadcast

3. Let's be honest. This is the FIRST full overhaul of TV broadcast in over 50 years. FIFTY. If you bought a piece of music that was available to be played 50 years ago, most people couldn't play it today. We've been through 78s, 45s, 33s, 8-track, cassette tapes, minidisk, and mp3. And TV hasn't change in all that time. It was time to move on.

4. Major production studios are opening up vaults. For the classic film viewer or collector this is marvelous. TV is NOW considered good enoiugh to faithfully reproduce early film. So movies that have desperately needed to be remastered or restored, are now getting that work because there is a real audience for it.

5. HD and UHD are allowing for MUCH better projection and sound at the cinema, and at home for that matter.

6. In terms of cost, my miniDV camera was about $4800 I believe. My deck was $1800. My HD camera was $7k or so, and no deck was required. I fail to see the large gap in cost between buying comparable gear.

So perhaps you could spell out what "huge costs" you feel are disproportionate.

However we shoot it, most of us are still distributing SD on DVD, and although HD downsized can look almost as good as original SD depending on how you encode it, we mostly accept that it doesn't. So while HD isn't a backward step, we really are still waiting for it to go forward. And as for cost, stick to SD and you can still edit natively on your steam powered PC. But dang, tape is such a nuisance once you start using cards.

I don't understand this at all. HD on DVD should look VASTLY superior to SD. And mine certainly does. If you are accepting that yours doesn't, then that's the problem. Figure out why it doesn't look BETTER and solve the issue.

We can generally agree that Hollywood releases look fabulous on DVD. Movies like The Matrix and the Dark Knight. These movies start on film or in a computer at 4k or 6k resolutions. FAR higher than HD. And yet, when they get to DVD they look spectacular. The problem in your SD DVDs is not inherent in the resolution you are starting with, they are in the methods you use to get your SD DVDs done.

As to the cost of the PC, I don't have any steam powered ones. But the normal cycle of 3-5 years means that if you bought a new PC for editing miniDV, it's well time to move on up anyway. And frankly, even my 3 year old dual core edits my XDCamEX footage just fine.

It seems to me that people are blaming HD for what is really a problem with workflow, methodology, or other unrelated issues. I am sure that adding sound to film was a MAJOR headache for the people of the day. Certainly offered more challenges than us making the change from SD to HD.

On the principle, more information in, better picture out. And generally in graphics, if you reduce an image, it looks much better. But unfortunately any algorithm you use to shrink a certain number of pixels to a smaller number of pixels is going to lead to compromise somewhere. OK, you probably don't regularly use the Mainconcept encoder used by Vegas and Premiere where you get an obvious loss of image quality, but even high end encoders cannot improve on the image. Perrone, I respect your opinions and admire your experience, but in this case only, no way.

So you are saying that of someone with a DVX100 and another person with a RED One shooting at 4K do a slow pan of a high detail image, when we go to DVD the DVX will produce the superior image?

I just want to make sure I understand that this is your assertion.

No, the color in the Red easily give you a better look than DVX (or in my case XL2). But for resolution, if you encode in Vegas, yes, the SD footage blown up probably would have better detail. Encoded in QuEnc, I doubt you'd see the difference. But I don't have a Red. I do have an XL2 and a HFS10, and there are probably a whole range of factors why the XL2 footage looks better on DVD (even though the HFS10 footage looks vastly better on HDMI). I have to admit the difference on DVD is minor. Most people don't see any difference, but if you know what you are looking out for it can be annoying. In theory algorithmically squeezing a large number of pixels into a smaller number of pixels is going to lead to some pixels going to the wrong place, and I think this applies in practice. Yes, (dang) properly produced Hollywood DVDs do look better than mine, maybe throwing a few hundred thousand more at the conversion and replication process does make a difference (I'd like to think it doesn't). All this also justifies why I can keep shooting jobs with an XL2 (this largely is an XL2 fan forum after all).

Then it should also stand to reason, that movies that are currently being shot in HD, say like Avatar, should look positively STUNNING when released on BluRay because there is a 1:1 relationship and no rescaling. Right?

So maybe that's another benefit of HD broadcast. Those who invest the time, effort, and money in HD production will be able to produce vastly superior footage.

As for your HFS10. It looks better through HDMI because it's an uncompressed HD signal. However, take that signal, put 10x better sensors on it, and 100x better glass, and now you're staring at a digital cinema HD camera. And when THAT signal is properly compressed, it will look better than anything you and I are doing.

But I'll tell you what. I'd bet real money that a properly shot, and compressed HD image from a pro camera (and not a consumer HD handycam) will look vastly superior to ANY prosumer SD camera at DVD levels. I do exactly this every time I shoot multicam. And I get to see what that footage looks like at every step of the process.

The problem is the scaling. Most rescalers are AWFUL. And they scale from HD to SD in a terrible fashion. I've done example after example of this on this forum and elsewhere. Doing a bicubic spline or Lanczos or Mitchell, or other high quality downscale will produce stunning results on footage. I've done this with SI2k footage, RED 4k and 2K footage, and HD footage down to 720p or 480p. Done properly, it absolutely blows away SD.

But it's easy enough to show. Get 2 seconds of 4K footage of a res chart, and get 2 seconds of the same chart with whatever SD camera you choose. I'll recompress the 4K footage to match the frame size of the SD footage, and we can compare them here.

Open challenge to anyone who wants to do it.

You can exactly duplicate it in HD by replacing the XL2 with its HD version, the Canon XL H1A. When the XL2 was new back in 2004, it carried a suggested retail price of $4999. Today the suggested retail price of the XL H1A is $5999, a difference of only an additional 20%. I would not call that an arm and a leg, sorry.

All other components of that test could easily remain the same for HD, although I should point out, that particular Sigma 70-300mm is a very cheap lens and it suffers pretty heavily from chromatic aberration.

I wrote that article in November 2004, so it is more than five years old now.

I was going by the date on the bottom of the page which said 2008. Thanks for clearing this up.

I'm not arguing against HD, Perrone, but I can't agree with the above.

Over here we started with 405 line B & W VHF TVs, then in the early '60s we went over to 625 line UHF, then colour came in the mid/late 60's. In th 1950's prerecorded inserts and news footage were filmed on 16mm and early repeats were filmed from a TV screen then telecined, then came video tape. Cameras changed from tubes to solid state, TVs changed to LCD, plasma etc and recordings went digital. All that is no change??

OK it changed in several overlapping stages but broadcast TV today has had massive advances in technical quality and is almost unrecognisable from 50 years ago. I participated in my first live tv broadcast more than fifty years ago so I can remember what it looked like then!

Colin,

When I say "didn't change" I mean only that if you had a television (in the US) that was purchased in say 1955 and it was still operational, you could plug it in in 2009, and you'd get live TV. Of course, many, many innovations occurred during that time, but fundamentally, you'd still have a working set.

I do get your point and agree with it.

A little test
 

Since we were talking about this subject, I decided to try a little test.

Just some garbage footage I had laying around uncorrected.


Downscale Test By Perrone Ford On ExposureRoom

That is certainly not true when both are compressed to fit around 1-hour of highest possible quality mpeg2 files on a DVD disc.

That is why I MUCH prefer to use an XL2 compared to an XL-H1 if the final material is only for DVD disc (and I produce and sell thousands of DVDs, so always try to produce highest possible quality).

In terms of original footage, of course the HD files are far better...but certainly not when HDV and SD Avi raw files are finally compressed on to a DVD disc.

If HD Blue-Ray is your final end product, then the HD cameras such as XL-H1s etc will produce a far higher quality compared to the SD. - (Although XL2 footage uprezzed to 720P can still look very good indeed).

Chris is also of course right in that all the SLR/DSLR lenses available to fit the SD XL2 via an adapter will also fit the HD XL-H1 line of cameras using the exact same adapter.

Thanks Tony, me too (apart from selling thousands of dvds). What I do not understand is how (all else being equal) downresd footage can look better than footage shot at the delivery resolution. I can readily understand why downresd footage would not look as good. If anyone has an objective rational explanation I would really like to hear it.

Right, I see - we lost the VHF TV service in the mid 1980's, so it was different over here. People had to get a new telly then!

Interestingly enough, I found the following link from a photography forum, which probably is one of the reasons why we're seeing this scaling problem with certain/most software.

Gamma error in picture scaling

The worse case scenario image here is certainly a problem on Adobe PSE 7.0, it goes completely gray when I scale it down by 50%. On Premiere Elements 7.0, it gets _ugly_ with pink and green stripes when scaled down to 50%.

It would seem that the same algorithms are still in use.

Demystifying Additional Information

Part #2 and Part #3.

How did you test it? I am still an engineer at heart and I am curious what your methodology was.

And the reason I have doubts from a practical perspective, is that based on your statements, and the assertions of others, the higher the resolution of the source, the worse the DVD should be. And yet, when I look at material captured on 65mm or 70mm, and watch the DVD derived from that material, it looks better that material derived from S35, 16mm, HD, HDV, or SD.

Similarly, Material sourced from 4k or 6-8K scans should show similar issues when 1080p is the delivery medium, and quite frankly, the IMAX sourced material I have seen on BluRay is just STUNNING. As I would expect, but which runs counter to your assertion.

SO I don't know. My observation of these downscales done with professional, high quality tools, seems to run counter to your assertions, but your observations of materia done with whatever equipment you have available seem to support your assertions.

It's an interesting circumstance, no doubt.

hi Perrone, there seem to be assertions based on subjective observations on both sides. It does not follow that higher resolution leads to poorer quality when downsized, the higher the resolution, the better the approximation (but its still an approximation). I'm thinking the chroma has substantial impact on the viewing experience, and if you can retain this, which you probably can with good encoders, you get more with HD. As to image definition, my analysis tells me you can't improve it by downresing (but if you can someone really should come up with an explanation or test this more scientifically).

I don't think it can be improved whatsoever. BUT I do believe it can be preserved. If you are shooting with a camera that can resolve 1300lpi (say a Viper) and on the other hand you are shooting with a camera that resolves 400 lines (like the DVX) then by my testing and my eye, the downressed Viper image is going to look superior at 720x480.

The problem(s) I see in this chain is that you've got two really weak areas in the consumer space. The first is that the NLEs typically do a poor job on the downscale. And the second is that the mpeg2 encoders are generally rather poor as well. Combine the two, and it's very easy to conclude that downscaling HD to DVD is not as good as starting with SD. Get both those things in order, and the efficacy of shooting HD for SD delivery starts to show.

Perrone, on this note we'll just have to agree to disagree.

If I thought there was any sense in me using my HD equipment to produce higher quality SD movies on normal SD DVDs then I would definitely be using HD files all the time as the main source.

Not only is it easier to use and edit from main SD source material but the end result to my eyes and most others that I know in the field of producing DVDs, is that well-shot footage from an XL2 is about as good as you can get for widescreen 16:9 at 720 X 576 that is compressed to fit on to a DVD disc.

The maximum length of quality XL2 SD 16:9 Pal footage that can fit on a DVD is about 1-hour 10mins, so that makes 1-hour long edited sections perfect for DVD discs without loss of quality. For example, 1-hour 8mins of raw XL2 Avi sound & video files rendered into a video clip is approximately 14.5GB. To fit onto a disc allowing a maximum file size of only 4.7GB, that 14.5GB file is compressed to mpeg2.

Now take an hour long section of full rez HDV footage as a huge digital file and squeeze all that information through a narrow hole via Mpeg2 compression until it is downgraded enough to be no larger than around 4.7GB (most DVD discs actually don't allow full 4.7GB of information to be burned on the disc and so around 4.3-4.5GB is maximum size of file). That drastically downgraded footage is now only SD and bears no relationship to its former HD glory.

Taking away the obvious facts of ease of workload during post-editing, it all comes down to what the human eye sees on a TV screen at a normal comfortable viewing distance when they slot a DVD disc into the DVD player then sit back and enjoy the movie in standard definition. In this respect, providing that movie content is interesting, 100% of the purchasers and viewers of a DVD disc-full of XL2 footage would be happy with, and not question, the actual visual quality.

So in this respect, if I were about to buy equipment solely to produce 16:9 Pal footage that is destined only for normal SD DVD discs, then I would look no further than an XL2 camcorder.

I certainly have no issues with this at all. I'll address your points here and leave it alone.

Understood. And it seems clear that using your end to end methodology, it may not be possible for you to create better material with your current equipment.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

Do you realize that HDV is recorded at the same bitrate as DV? Thus the 1hr long file from both cameras will be essentially the same size? This is why HDV uses the same tape as DV. A 1hr DV tape is a 1hr HDV tape, because they are recording the same amount of matieral.

Well, I don't know that the "ease of workload in post" is obvious. That is quite dependent on what you edit with. On any of my edit machines there is no difference between editing HDV or DV. Both move at real time, and both render at ~2.5x real time. This is logical to me because both are using the same bandwidth. But your point about watching the footage from normal viewing distances is not lost on me. I rather agree. If it is more painful for you to edit and produce SD DVDs from your equipment, and you have no compelling reason to do so, then it seems a waste to do it that way.

There are those who would say that for the purposes of being able to provide HD versions in the future to the same client, it might be nice to have the highest quality master available, but that's a call for you alone to make.

A logical conclusion.

Tony - IMO, you logic is somewhat flawed.

You haven't taken into account the economics of HDTV's dropping in price - thus providing a larger screen to magnify your lowered resolution SD content as compared to an HD signal being played thru the TV.

Blu-Ray players are predicted to come down in price substantially this year - some to within $150 USD by Christmas 2010. Add to that the falling prices of BLu-Ray burners and media, there is no compelling reason to stay with SD unless you're delivering 720x406 Web rez content.

I'd much rather have to throw away pixels than try to uprez SD footage to HD - which looks like crap in most cases.

Even single chip AVCHD/HDV cameras provide superior rez to any 3 chip SD camera - like the analogy of 35mm film to 4x5 -blow them up to 16x20 - which one will have superior image quality at normal viewing distance?

The viewing public is becoming more visually literate - we are a video generation now.

Staying with SD IMO is career suicide

I gotta side with Perrone. The rest of youse is comparing apples to rutabegas.

Perrone specifically mentions what type of downsizing he is using. The other guys?

I'll agree it is a totaly mystery that most (all?) commonly available programs don't offer high quality downscaling--especially Canopus who built their reputation on high quality codecs. And quite ironic that the program that does it well is shareware. Some kind of consipiracy to make pure HD delivery look better?

Cliff, nowhere have I mentioned that I or others should ignore HD. I work with HD and own HD equipment.
What is in discussion is the fact that when I want to produce highest possible SD DVDs, I don't need to use my HD equipment, because the XL2 matches anything a HD camera can produce on a 1-hour long DVD.

For Blue Ray discs, I most certainly use my HD cameras and lenses.

A neat summary. On which I think we now have general agreement. And I can't help saying this was my initial point. And as to the price of Blu-ray and media being affordable next Christmas, maybe. I can recall similar comments relating to last Christmas, and the Christmas before, and (my memory is getting hazy but probably) the Christmas before that. I guess it must come one day, just noting that it isn't here yet.

I am not sure what "affordable" is. Maybe if you could quantify what pricing is affordable.

I was looking around today for a friend who's interested in Blu-Ray production and the prices I found looked like:

Samsung Blu-Ray player $89.
LG BluRay Burner $108
25GB BluRay discs $2.75

I wasn't able to buy a DVD player under $100 until quite recently. None of the DVD burners I purchased have EVER been below $150, and 25GB BluRay discs are cheaper than the miniDV tapes I last purchased. I adopted BluRay in mid 2008. My current costs to produce a BluRay are cheaper than my costs to produce a DVD when I made the move in mid-2008.

So, at what point do you call it "affordable"?

What's more, Blu-Ray remains expensive in some countries. In Australia, for example, everything, including both Blu-Ray and DVD, is a lot more expensive than here in the United States (even when accounting for the currency exchange rate between the two countries). So, instead of $150 for a good consumer Blu-Ray player here in the US, if we were in Australia we would have paid the equivalent of around $400 USD for that same player.

As for good consumer Blu-Ray players, we found some that do a poor job of deinterlacing 1080i content when the HDMI output is set to AUTO or 1080p. The only to fix that would be to manually force 1080i output - and most of the players which deinterlace 1080i incorrectly also do not automatically enable 24p when 24p-mastered Blu-Ray content is played with the player's output set to the 1080i mode (but will instead remain at 1080i, which will produce very noticeable judder when 24p content is played even through a 24p-capable set).

Hi Guys,

Well this has all turned out most interesting. It's only natural we've all looked at the topic from our own perspective. The issue of cost is relevant as to what country we're in and what we're trying to do.

I failed to explain at the outset that I played a part in a group who launched a tv channel via satelite here in NZ. It was a huge team effort. I played a small part in studio production from camera to set construction, which included a live thirty minute nightly news. Then to a lesser degree field work and also outside live broadcast when needed over the past ten years. I recall in the early days I along with a group of volunteers made twentysix half hour shows on three Canon Xl 1 cameras, and Adobe Premier 5.6. Which seems a bit of a laugh now. We then made fifteen cafe type music shows on four xl 1 cameras.

So now as soon as we get on our feet we're faced with HD. Other channels are converting, so eventually so must we. As to extra cost. Studio sets need to be made to a higher standard as does makeup and lighting. There is the cost of a studio three camera conversion, plus ancillary equipment from control, to the editing suite.

As Randall Leong pointed out costs are higher 'down under'. Maybe that's why my remark at the outset Perrone why I said HD didn't look that 'crash hot' for what it involves. Householders and us are probably using cheaper gear.

I wonder if HD has really caught on that big here. Compared to say conversion to colour which was widely embraced. Sure some channels have gone HD and sales of consumer HD tv's is up. Because of the cost factor coupled with the economic downturn maybe we are not as quick on the uptake as you guys in the U.S.

Tony Davies-Patrick, loved your carp and under water material. And Perrone your footage looked great, loved the Perpetual Motion promo.

Thanks Tony and Chris for confirming that with the EF adaptor the full Canon lens range is available for HD use. I'd always thought so, but even alot of the sales people here say you can't. But then many seem to plug Sony now. Maybe Sony give them a bigger markup margin than Canon. Who knows? I've always been a loyal Canon fan going back as far as super8 film. I must admit the Sony I use from work produces a sharper image especially under low light. I'm a bit reluctant to jump ship, but then I guess Canon has never given me a big hug and said 'Thankyou" either.

Ooh yeah................
 

You better believe it.

As of Sep 2009 (latest figures available) Freeview HD had 113,936 boxes walk out of the stores, not bad considering there's only 177,917 Freeview Satellite customers and that includes many who simply cannot get Freeview HD as they're not in a suitable reception area.

With the recent roll out of the TivoHD/ Telecom service and their Digital HD PVR, things are cooking.

I must admit, Owen, I was gonna jump into this thread on a number of occasions, as I really disagreed with some of your opening post.

However, when it descended into the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" format, I thought better of it.

Interesting to hear your personal story tho', sounds like you've done some fascinating stuff.


CS

Ironic. It was downresed, motion stabilized, and slowed down in VirtualDub. Then compressed in h264 at 6:1.

Thanks Chris. I stand corrected on this one. We go up on Freeview Satellite 1st of April I think. We've been on Sky about eight years.

Interesting read....
 

Hi Everyone,

I've just read the whole thread and found it to be quite interesting and emotionally charged in places....

Some background info....

I started shooting with a XL1 quite some time ago, I still own it, don't shoot with it any more but can't bear to part with it. I now shoot with two XL2's, each rig has it's own full compliment of lens's including a prime and telephoto EF lens so I'm able to shoot 2 camera shots with the same lens setup. I also have a Gates housing and at present have a couple of lights.

All my tapes are archived. I've yet to edit any sizable quantities even though I have an editing deck for viewing. This will be done when I'm too old to do the activities I do now. I'm 49. I sea kayak, explore remote areas by bicycle, hike and travel extensively by 4WD.

For the past year or so I've been watching, with interest, the growth, acceptance and perceived / real advantages of HD. The burning question, "Do I jump on board?"

Having been a bit of a 'Gear Head' most of my life, I can remember at 10 years of age, studying torches prior to a purchase!!!, one of the things I've learnt is that any new technology that hits the market, if robust, will only travel in one direction, forward.

I feel HD is robust, but still in it's infancy, I'm not being condescending, I just see this as a fact. I have no doubt you all have project experience of some description, be it Engineering, Mechanical, Film or simply chopping the firewood for the next week! All of these things have a common point, they start with all the work and planning stretched out in front of them, some seem truly humongous, however, systematicly they come together, and when completion approaches, it is often a collapsing entity, it's an exponential curve, I feel we're now at the start of the 'HD Project'. I believe, given another 5 years HD will hit that 'Exponential curve' and will move to heights none of us can imagine, it'll be truly exponential, feeding on it's own developments at an increasing rate. I feel Blu Ray will benefit in the same manner and will move to truly mass market proportions thus driving the features of the components up and the price down. The two need to be 'in sync' for the total package to be complete. At present I feel we're in the 'Grey Area', some of the public want, some don't, and most, at present, don't care. However, as with anything that is an improvement, those that don't care, will, and then the move will be on, because the corporations will see the financial sense of making the investments and we, the enthusiasts and professionals, will benefit. The truth, sadly, is that we're tied into the profit margins of the corporations... :(

Like all cutting edge technology, when it's first released, it's only in the very high end equipment, some of this equipment's customers are the likes of the worlds Military and Space Agencies, however, as advancements are made, even on the cutting edge, the "Lower edge" are moved into the public arena. There will be some that dispute this but in the late '80's a certain cigarette packet name on a beach in Western Australia could be read from a satellite!!

As an average individual who only uses his cameras for his own purpose, i.e. not for an income, I have to be mindful of the cost of upgrading my whole system. Whilst I will bite the bullet one day in the future I feel the time isn't quite right at present but I'm eternally grateful to those of you who embrace and purchase the new concepts, as it's you who get it out there to the viewing public and move it from the 'Grey area' to a definite 'Black and White'

This is written from an Australian perspective but I suspect applies worldwide, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it

As an aside, the Mayan calendar ends on December 21st of 2012, some feel it'll be the end of the world. If that's the case, I reckon HD will be the way to capture it 'cuse it'll be specko, so I'm hoping that exponential curve I was talking about gets a move on..... Personally, I reckon the calendar writer dropped dead on the 22/12/? didn't turn up for work, and the younger generation had moved to beads or something else more trendy.......

Al

Just a quick post to say I am with Perone on this one. While there are many ways to reduce HD to SD poorly (and using many of the major NLEs and encoders would be among those ways) it is certainly possible to do it well and end up with less noise and other artifacts than are present in native SD.

I remember "way back when" the discussion was about VHS vs. S-VHS camcorders, and the next new thing was laserdisc. The more things change ...

So far I think everyone has been "right", but everyone is just looking at different parts of the elephant. In the end though, we're all trying to do the same thing. I think this quote sums it up nicely.

Michael,

I can remember the VHS, lugging the camera AND the deck unit around, I don't think I could do that today......it was my first video camera, although, for the life of me I don't remember the make, the first tape shot on it was of ants, I still have that video tucked away....and I remember laser disk.... we've come a hell of a long way....Seems like light years ago.....

Al

slightly off thread but definitely related:


If you want to see blu ray at its best (HD) see the movie, North by Northwest. Its an old hitchcock movie and when see how it has been improved to HD, one has to step up to HD viewing after that!!! It is just amazing. I will never see SD the same after that experience.



Dale