The death of HD?

[Charles Perkins]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

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.

granted, i'm in london. but i dont have a special box, i have an eye TV for DTT. i am reciving these signals, they take a huge amount of processing power to decode it though.

and i'm not trying to argue with you, or saying your wrong or anything. i'm just stating what i know.

[Gene Brockhoff]

I think of the film Tarnation as a good example to kick around for this discussion. Tarnation, made by Jonathan Caouette, had filmed his life with low rez grainy 8mm home movie cameras, as well as early VHS, and then somehow pulled it all together with an I-mac, and I-Movie into a beautiful masterpiece. This plays into my wifes argument that "You don't need all this HD-this and HD-that!" But Tarnation could not have worked any other way. Some stories just don't need a higher resolution to be enjoyed, just as the evening news doesn't need 35mm to be effective. But most stories and I'll take a rough guess, oh 75%, do benefit from higher resolution in the making, and watching of them. The choices that you can make with film or HD means more artistic freedom. More stories can be told without the disbelief that accompanies artifacts. The problem happens when we start making decisions on what to film with, based on how many homes can watch. Shouldn't we base those decisions on the weather it serves the story. Of course, we all know that you shoot with the highest resolution one can afford.

[Dave Ferdinand]

I own a plasma HDTV and anything I watch in SD looks horrible, compression is highly noticeable and everything is pixelated. However, someone I know has a HD projector and HDTV and his DVD stuff looks beautiful... Why? I use a standard DVD player and he uses a hi-end PC with PowerDVD to watch his films. The software seems to do a lot of tricks making the SD images look way better than when played in a standard DVD player.

Of course it's not a miracle worker and some DVDs still looks kinda fuzzy, but something like Batman Beginning or Spiderman 2 looks nothing short of amazing.

The point is, maybe we don't need new costly equipment as we could do very nicely with DVD players carrying 'smart' software that improves image quality.

Having said that, watching HD broadcasts on a HDTV looks quite sharper than SD broadcasts on a SD CRT. But I wonder how many people will notice that, or even care?

[Simon Wyndham]

I own a plasma HDTV and anything I watch in SD looks horrible, compression is highly noticeable and everything is pixelated.

Woah there cowboy.

Compression artefacts and pixelisation are not part of standard def! I think you'd be very, very surprised at how good standard def can look. For example a direct projection of nicely graded Digibeta.

The problem isn't with standard definition being rubbish. The problem is with crappy compression methods and colour sampling.

The point is, maybe we don't need new costly equipment as we could do very nicely with DVD players carrying 'smart' software that improves image quality.

I agree. High definition is very, very nice. Yeah, I like it a lot. But at the same time standard definition hasn't been pushed to anywhere near its capabilities and is often limited by the delivery methods.

But high definition is here to stay. Nowadays I think the easiest thing would be for it to become standard as quickly as possible. These halfway points of development are not good for anyone, and I often feel that high definition was pushed well before it was actually ready for mass consumption.

[Dave Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

Woah there cowboy.

Compression artefacts and pixelisation are not part of standard def! I think you'd be very, very surprised at how good standard def can look. For example a direct projection of nicely graded Digibeta.

The problem isn't with standard definition being rubbish. The problem is with crappy compression methods and colour sampling.

Yes, sorry, I was refering to the SD broadcasted stuff (I have digital cable = compression) and DVDs, not to SD itself.

[Mike Tesh]

As others have said, it's just a matter of time. Personally I'm waiting until I can walk into a store and buy a 32 inch 1080p LCD for around $1000 give or take. Right now that is possible with 720p sets, but I'm holding off for full HD. I figured it will only be a couple of years. By then there should be more HD content on cable TV and we'll have a better idea of how the blu-ray and HDDVD formats work out.

But I admit for a little while there I was also skeptical of the HD craze. I figured it might very well become a niche market like Laserdisc was. But I'm sure now that over the next ten years HD will become very popular as sooner or later those are the only TV's you'll be able to buy.

Honestly though I think what is getting people to buy them more then anything right now is not the higher resolution but the fact that you can get thin LCD/plasma TVs that hang on your wall. And they just look nicer even if they are only EDTV's. Kind of like people swiching to LCD computer monitors over CRT tubes even though they are both capable of the same resolutions. The LCD's are thin and brighter and crisper looking.

[Ron Evans]

I think your problem is the scaler in the plasma set. I have the same issue with my Sony HiScan showing cable TV, poor, very poor. But my JVC I'Art SD set is lovely with the same input. I have the same effect on my Dell 24" monitor. When I playback my FX1 video on the Sony HiScan it is just beautiful. I have come to believe that one needs to use compatible displays with source material. Trying to scale inputs to pixel resolutions is difficult and usually ends up not very good. That leaves you with the possibility of three sets!!!! Cheap 4x3 for local TV, 16x9 SD for DVD's and 16x9 for HD!!!!!!!! You could possible get away with one 16x9 but for local 4x3 I think one is better off with a normal 4x3 SD set.

Ron Evans

[Stephen Armour]

I've been in this business many years now, and there is something way down deep in me saying "this HD stuff is risky at best. Be careful to keep your bases covered". It seems to me the "next big thing" is not HD at all, but something else...

I also bought HD equipment to test and try to peer down the murky future road, but it sure seems like the pace of change leads to "3-D", not "HD".

I believe that, my dear friends, is so HOLLYWOOD will try to re-assume what they see as their rightful-hi-buck-true-professional-position again as the "keepers of the visual media". We have invaded their space and they do not like it.

Prepare thyselves...3-D cometh...don't bet all your hard-earned bucks on HD or any variations. Keep your investments under control...

If you don't believe me... Google "3-D" and "Hollywood" in the same search...

That's why the terabyte/petabyte storage developments, multi-core processors, and rabid broadband transmission research is so important to the industry gurus. Only those with BIG PROCESSOR POWER and DEEP POCKETS will be (are) in the inner circle of 3-D, surround-sound, total immersion media experiences. It's the control thing again.

My doom and gloom 2-bits,

Stephen Armour - Brazil

[Bob Zimmerman]

that is a good point stephen, but still Hollywood can't stop the internet. The internet has changed everything. movies, music, news. They can't do it all. They might try and get more people back in the theaters, but TV and DVDs are a different story.

Maybe Sony will come out with a Z1/3D soon!!

[Bob Zimmerman]

I ask my 19 kid about 3-D. He said he doesn't want to wear those goofy glass to watch a movie. That has always been the problem with 3D.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Stephen Armour

I also bought HD equipment to test and try to peer down the murky future road, but it sure seems like the pace of change leads to "3-D", not "HD".

More likely the future is portable 'video everywhere,' using low bandwidth compression for most copies with an HD option for home and theater viewing. Once people get used to that then we can talk about 3D holographic projection, but that sounds like something for another generation or two from now. HD looks good for at least the next 10-20 years, as it will probably take that long for most people to upgrade their home viewing equipment.

[Steve Connor]

3D for the cinema screen perhaps but domestically it'll be years off, it certainly isn't going to slow the growth of HD. How many people are going to say "I'll hold off buying an HD set because 3D total immersive TV is just around the corner."

[Stephen Armour]

Having said all that above, as someone stated earlier, we'll always shoot with the highest res possible or attainable.

Do I use HD? Absolutely! Will I continue to use it? Absolutely! But do I believe it has a very limited, near future technology run? Most assuredly. The pressures that drive our industry are inexorably pushing it to emulate real life in all it's aspects. Over the long term, that precludes continuing to use a 2-D technology that's had a 100+ year run already! Good grief, we're just now starting to use electonically transmitted images with resolution of the 1st film reels of 100 years ago!

I whole-heartedly agree with the "no glasses" idea! I will never use them either. But is 3-D coming on fast? I believe so. At least on a level we won't be able to compete with for many years to come. For most of us, that means investing in equipment and tech allowing us to continue to put bread on the table, yet be creative, without trying to do what Hollywood does with huge budgets. Maybe we should mostly be doing what Hollywood can't or doesn't want to do: ... concentrate on showing real life with it's high's and low's, to people that really don't care much about the resolution or aspect ratio (or it's underlying technology). Use what works best and easiest, to do what we do best.

(up to 4 bits now),

Stephen Armour - Brazil

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Originally Posted by Stephen Armour

I've been in this business many years now, and there is something way down deep in me saying "this HD stuff is risky at best. Be careful to keep your bases covered". It seems to me the "next big thing" is not HD at all, but something else...

In a certain way, you're right... More than you know, I think. :) HD is here and here to stay, but it's not the "next big thing". It's simply the evolution of digital video and the next logical stepping stone. Computer monitors and TVs are essentially becoming one in the same and higher resolutions are finally available to the masses, but in the end, it's not the major jump that a lot of people make it out to be. Within the next few years, there will hardly be a TV available that isn't HD (at least not in the 26" and larger category) and most consumer video cameras and whatnot will become HD. It's a no-brainer... The discontinued Sony HC1 can be had on eBay (brand new in a sealed retail box) for less than $1K. Another couple years, such HDV camcorders will be commonplace in the $350 price range that so many people find attractive for that simple home video camera.

I also bought HD equipment to test and try to peer down the murky future road, but it sure seems like the pace of change leads to "3-D", not "HD".

I'll definitely agree with that. However, I think that the others who've pointed out the issue being the glasses are also correct. Currently the technology has been demonstrated (in limited capacity) by various companies to create 3D images without the need for special eyewear. It essentially works by targeting multiple beams of laser light or other high-intensity particles or by focusing high intensity beams to a very small point in space. This space is super-heated very quickly, causing miniature gas explostions or moisture bursts, creating a flash of light. All of this happens in about 1/100th of a second or even faster. Combine the technique with intense laser light and you can create a colored pixel floating in 3D space. This technique or some derivative of it is probably the future of cinematic 3D imagery. I believe that someday, we will go to the "movies" and have a 3D world projected around us rather than watching a flat screen in front of us. But there's a good bet that 3D is a good bet for the future.

In the meantime, HD is just a progression. Just as theatre systems are progressing to 4K digital projection. While 35mm film has approximately 4K to 6K resolution, most film distribution prints are only the equivalent of 1000 lines due to the generational loss, distribution stock, etc.. People will see a noticeable increase in detail at the theatres when 4K or higher film and digital sources are delivered on this medium and then we will have a smaller digital home version in the form of HD-DVD and/or BluRay. Eventually 4K will probably come to the home theatre... And at that point, massive 3D infrastructure will be making its way into the local cineplex.

The industry will continue to evolve and for those of us who work in the industry, any of these events can be "the next big thing" if we approach it in the right way and market it to our customers in the right way.

I believe that, my dear friends, is so HOLLYWOOD will try to re-assume what they see as their rightful-hi-buck-true-professional-position again as the "keepers of the visual media". We have invaded their space and they do not like it.

It's always this way and this is one of the key factors driving the evolution of how Hollywood delivers their goods. Home projectors and eventually television was perceived as a threat by Hollywood... They brought us widescreen formats and color, oh, my! Home video and the VCR brought about predictions of the Hollywood's death and the promise that anyone can be a movie star... Yet Hollywoood soon found that home video only gave them one more means of incresing profits. Hollywood panicked over DVD, but soon found that not only was the visual quality a lot better than preceding tape formats, but the level of profits was significantly higher too and a new interest in home video distribution was rekindled. Now we're hearing the same doom and gloom over HD and electronic distrubution... In the end, Hollywood will find a way to adapt and make its money and they will complain about the next evolutionary step that comes along. I can see it all now... In the year 2086, Hollywood will be predicting their own demise and doing everything they possibly can within the court system to stop a small startup company that is about to release a 390 TPixel whole-room 3D environmental display system that surpasses what's at the local cineplex.

Prepare thyselves...3-D cometh...don't bet all your hard-earned bucks on HD or any variations. Keep your investments under control...

Perhaps that is true, but with HD as an evolutionary step, someone has to invest. Oh, too late... Nearly 6 million HDTVs were sold in 2005 with predictions that this number will more than triple for 2006. 3D will undoubtedly come, but I don't see it happening without HD already in place as HD provides the underlying digital infrastructure, the resolution and bandwidth to open the door.

That's why the terabyte/petabyte storage developments, multi-core processors, and rabid broadband transmission research is so important to the industry gurus. Only those with BIG PROCESSOR POWER and DEEP POCKETS will be (are) in the inner circle of 3-D, surround-sound, total immersion media experiences. It's the control thing again.

Yep...

[Thomas Richter]

Isn't 3D a movie directors nightmare? Isn't it all about selection what's in the frame, how it's lit, FOV and DOF? Most IMAX feature films I've seen were very impressive but did not carry the emotions as well as traditional cinema.

I think HD helps to capture the miniscule details that makes features even more gripping. But, of course, the display has to be big enough to allow the eyes of the spectators to ingest it all (like a cinema, for example).

IMHO 3D is a gorgeous effect but will not surpass traditional 2D HD. It will merely complement. Like black and white imagery complements colour film.