The death of HD?

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Bill Zens

The reason this should scare us is that many of us are making business decisions on equipment purchases based on the assumptions that there will be widespread adoption of these HD players by the general population. What if that doesn't happen?

In my experience HD source material yields better widescreen SD DVDs than you can get from typical 4:3 DV cameras, so it's not a total loss even if HD delivery never takes off. Better source should produce better output regardless of the delivery format, although this will be less noticeable on a web video at 512 Kbps than on an HD DVD at 25 Mbps.

I'm skeptical now that HD delivery will catch on as fast as I'd like, but until it does there's still some benefit to shooting in HD. And for those few customers who want to get HD output I'm ready to offer it to them, which seems sensible given that it is possible to do.

[Wayne Morellini]

OEL printable flat screen is expected to cost a lot less, HD sets have already hit under $800.

I agree with you on the DVD quality issue. Large viewing distance and small screens hide DVD's true quality, like you are watching 18Mb/s Mpeg2.

[Steve Connor]

I've just done a very unscientific test and my 75 year old mother with poor eyesight can spot the difference between HD and SD!

[Wayne Morellini]

:) Ohh, yeah, that's what we need around here, love it.

[Simon Wyndham]

Its all very lovely that some people spot the difference, and others donot. BUt let me ask something. Could you ask said mother whether she would pay money for a new TV, decoder, and Bluray/HD-DVD player so that she could watch HD?

[Richard Zlamany]

My parents and many of their friends care nothing about HD. It seems that videophiles and the companies that produce these gimmicky devices are more excited than a lot of the population.

The quality of TV shows, literature, and movies in general is declining. Most movies are all fight sequences that are self-gratifying to say the least.

So what. HD is offering a sharper image so commercials that are too long and too many can brainwash our children even quicker than SD.

Does the world really need to see the Terminator 2 with a sharper image?

I think not.

[Steve Connor]

Seriously guys, this argument was already played out decades ago with the transition from Black and White to Colour. Same rules applied, new TV sets etc. What will happen is that as people buy new televisions they will buy HD ready ones, then as they update their cable/Satellite boxes they'll move to HD also. In the UK, BBC and ITV are expected to launch Free to Air HD services on Freeview within 2 years.

Do I think people want to see Terminator 2 with a sharper image - Yes I do. Do I think HD will take off quickly - No but that's not the point, if you produce television shows or films that have any sort of shelf life then you are going to want to future proof your investment and that involves HD, so it doesn't matter that there won't be many people who can view it, the broadcasters will demand it.

Take Nat Geo for example, more or less all of their original programming is now done in HD, I expect Discovery will follow and so on down the food chain.

Rupert Murdoch has invested vast sums into slowly moving his Sky Network over to HD, now you may not agree with his politics or the programmes he makes, but he's richer than all of us so he's used to betting on the right Pony

HD is inevitable, if you are any sort of video or television professional you should be welcoming it with open arms. It gives us all fantastic new ways to expand the medium we all work in and to involve our audience even more, it makes beautiful pictures and I love it.

I'm very confused as to why people on this board in particular would be so negative towards it

And to answer Simons question - yes she would!

[Simon Wyndham]

In the UK, BBC and ITV are expected to launch Free to Air HD services on Freeview within 2 years.

Don't hold yer breath! 2010 at the EARLIEST, and then only in limited form. They just don't have the bandwidth yet until all the analogue systems are well and truly off.

They will have a satellite service going perhaps, and maybe a cable one. But Freeview. No chance.

[Charles Perkins]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

Don't hold yer breath! 2010 at the EARLIEST, and then only in limited form. They just don't have the bandwidth yet until all the analogue systems are well and truly off.

They will have a satellite service going perhaps, and maybe a cable one. But Freeview. No chance.

you say that, but there are test streams going out on freeview now. they eve have channels called BBC HD and ITV hd. ots hd wouldn't be hard for the bbc to put on freeview

[Thomas Smet]

This kind of brings me back to a conversation I have with friends.

If some or many (depending on who you talk to) people do not really see the difference between SD and HD then why the heck do we need 1080i or even 1080p?

A lot of people here on these forums talk about 720p as a bad in between form of HD. They look at 720p as a form of a disease. Why is this the case if most people have a hard time telling the difference between 480i and 1080i? Why can't there be a perfect middle ground? 720p gives extra sharp detail for those of us freaks with Superman vision. 720p also gives us a perfectly clean 60p framerate for smooth motion. It seems like this would be the best way to go since the extra pixels in 1080 might be a total waste. If people cannot tell the difference between 480i and 1080i they really will not be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i.

[Mark Donnell]

Another thing to keep in mind is that most of the HD TVs out there are native 720p sets. I'm convinced enough that I'm planning to go to with 720p for now. I saw a great new Samsung 42" plasma TV this weekend - 720p native resolution. 1080 may well be the future, but its not what is out there now.

[Wayne Morellini]

I saw figures, in an industry related article, that something like 40%, or was that more, in at least one of the major markets, of the new sets sold this year would be HD. So, it's here. Maybe you could argue that filming 1080 at this time is a waste of time, because there are so few true 1080 sets, and many 1080 transmissions are shot on 1440 cameras, and that you should shoot in 720p until there is more 1080p sets. Cheaper set technology should accelerate this trend.

[Bob Zimmerman]

Maybe the guy thought it was Bruce Lee that died,,,but that was back in the 70's. People didn't even have VCR's then,,time's have changed and they will keep changing. HD will be standard in a few years. People walk into best buy and see the pictures on the HD sets. It will happen.

[Simon Wyndham]

you say that, but there are test streams going out on freeview now. they eve have channels called BBC HD and ITV hd. ots hd wouldn't be hard for the bbc to put on freeview

They have a limited Freeview trial going on in London with volunteers using special boxes. They are experimenting with all sorts of different compression technology etc. But they will absolutely not be delivering HD via Freeview until after the analogue switch off. There isn't the bandwidth available at the moment. The analogue switch off is not due to finish until 2012.

But you will get it on satellite (well, you already can if you pay Sky their usual silly fees) and cable before then.

[Dylan Pank]

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini

I think he has confused that Christopher Reeves had died. Reminds me of the time I remembered seeing a news article about the guy from the Adams Family had died, yet he was popping up for years after doing appearances etc, then I found out there were two of them ;).

Nah, we are both big Hammer Horror fans, and anyway, this argumant started WAY back, before Reeve even had his accident.