DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   General HD (720 / 1080) Acquisition (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/general-hd-720-1080-acquisition/)
-   -   How soon before SD dies? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/general-hd-720-1080-acquisition/55737-how-soon-before-sd-dies.html)

Simon Wyndham December 25th, 2005 05:23 AM

No, as per always people read things wrong. I did not say to stick your face up against the screen. I said that if you cannot see the pixel structure you are not gaining any benefit from HD resolution. That is to say that at the distance most people watch their telelvisions from they can't even distinguish the pixel structure of SD, unless of course you know someone with superhuman eyesight? They might get a perceieved sharpness increase, but that isn't due to more resolution but to many other factors instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale
Some will even lie to avoid embarrassment, while others just display anger in the hope that their visual failings will seem less of a problem than their angst.

WTH?! Anger? Visual failings? ROTFLOL!! Steve, I'm speaking basic facts. Ignore what I have said, fine, but there's no denial or anger excuses going on here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale
don't care about "gloss" because they actually can't see it, and what they really need is good optometrists.

Fraid not. But we have been used to watching 16:9 PAL for a long time now so the HD jump simply isn't as great. Steve, I simply cannot see your arguments. You might own a 50" set but that is NOT the average sized television set in peoples homes now is it? Perhaps you are lucky enough to have a circle of friends with money to throw away and hence they all own sets that big. But it certainly isn't my experience. I've spoken about HD again and again to people and the vast majority of them say they DO NOT CARE. Thats not me making it up. Thats not me exagerrating. Thats not me trying to kill HD (I happen to like HD and own a HD set myself. Not that there is much to watch other than downloaded demos though). It is simple fact.

If someone owns even a 28" widescreen set, at the distance most people watch they are NOT gaining much benefit from HD resolution at all. The optimum distance to watch a TV is three times the height of the screen away. How many people watch their TV's like this though? They simply sit far too far away from the set. What most people over here care about is the content. Give them a crappy programme in HD and a great programme in SD and they'll take the latter each time. Further to this much more can be gained from SD digital broadcasts by vastly improving the compression. Have you ever watched Super Speedway on a really good set and progressive DVD player? If not, you should. It shows just how incredible SD can look, and if SD digital broadcasts all looked as good as that there'd be even less use for HD.

At the end of the day people want to know what HD really gives them. Thats why HD is not exploding despite the hype that is thrown out there. Video games look great when the resolution and framerates are higher. But would you play a rubbish computer game just because it was able to display at a higher resolution? Of course not. So why on earth would you expect the general public to be more concerned with their TV set resolution than the actual quality of the programming itself? If you place the importance of HDTV higher than improving current programming and vastly improving the compression of existing digital broadcasts you have your priorities completely wrong.

Quote:

Enough with the levity... If you cannot see the difference in quality between 1080i and 720p on a monitor you are viewing - then it's either your
Where in the hell did I say anything about not being able to see differences between HD resolutions? Hellooooo Steve? Did you actually read my original post? If you had you would notice that I said I first saw HD on a hugely expensive production monitor and that it looked amazing, but that the HD I saw on a consumer plasma was less impressive. It still looked very good, but it certainly didn't justify a huge expenditure.

However it is also a fact that the perceived resolution of interlacing is 30 percent less than the same number of lines in progressive scan. So 1080i gives the same perception of resolution as 720p. Thats one big reason in fact why the figures are defined as 720p and 1080i. 1080i also has problems such as line twitter due to the interlacing.

Quote:

eyes or a crappy monitor/screen. To not see noticeable enough difference between HD and SD on a monitor/screen indicates something is seriously wrong - not just with the viewing device or the eyesight of the
Your insults are getting ridiculous now. I can't believe people get so emotional just because some basic factual info conflicts with someones desire to watch HDTV! You are obviously talking about viewing a large screen in fairly close proximity. That IS NOT the situation in many peoples living rooms. It is a FACT, complete and utter FACT that beyond a certain viewing distance you will not gain anything from HD resolution. As I said earlier at the distances most people view their TV's they can't see the pixel structure in SD. If you can't distinguish the pixel structure the extra resolution isn't gaining you anything. However what you are referring to is percieved sharpness which is down to other factors, and is not neccesrily exclusive to HD. See the Super Speedway DVD for a good example.

Quote:

about coming to have a look at my HD setup to "check out HD at one of the major retailers - they've got plenty of HDTVs to look at"... I know they
Yes, I do the same. In fact I tell them to go and see HD in the major electronics stores not so that they can go google eyed over it, but so that they can see through the hype for themselves. In all of this you forget one thing. You are a techie whose major interest is video. Most other people in the world don't give a rats arse about it, and THOSE are the people that have the buying potential to make HD take off. In fact we've already had people on these forums who love HD saying that they rarely watch it anymore. The novelty has worn off and they are more likely to watch a channel with good content than the HD one they are paying a premium for!

Quote:

think I'm being elitist and arrogant and downright unfriendly, but I'd much rather they make their minds up without passion or malice or any other emotional input.
You are. And if you are implying I have some kind of malice or emotional input into what I am saying, you are so incredibly wrong. I am speaking lucid fact from my experience. I know people who eat, drink, and sleep HD want everything to be HD. But there is an almost religious fanataticism going on here whereby any idea that HD might not be all it is cracked up to be, or that it won't change peoples lives is jumped upon. Steve, take your evangelist head off and put on your 'real world outside your doorstep' hat instead and start looking at things from a more level headed perspective. Conversation will be a lot more constructive as a result.

Merry Christmas :(

Steve Crisdale December 25th, 2005 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham
No, as per always people read things wrong.
Merry Christmas :(

Indeed!! So let's straighten some things out.

I ain't no HD evangalist!! Cynicist more likely... I don't believe HD is going to be killing SD in any sort of a hurry, and if you've read my previous posts in this thread you'd know that. My mentioning in a post above about the cut-off point for analogue broadcasts should have made that clear. It's not the cut-off of SD. SD will be broadcast alongside HD for many years to come.

Perhaps I was being a bit too obtuse in the wording of my response to your post, because the meaning between the lines seems to have been lost.

Allusions to the high resolution and the fineness of each light emitting element on the latest LCD panels seem to have been missed. They are so fine that viewing from very close to the screen is required to spot them. Does this mean that I must be short sighted to have too get that close myself to see them? Maybe... and I'm sure I'd not be the only person who has ever been to see a movie with friends, and whilst watching the main attraction, turned to ask a companion "do you think it's a little out of focus?"... only to find they think it looks fine? Every individual on the planet is just that - an individual with individual perceptions of the things we come to believe as being common and immuteable to all... the senses: smell, taste, touch, hearing and eyesight aren't common. One man's red is another's orange. Another's big is small to someone else - one woman's plasma is another's LCD...

The whole point is that HD is going to be a "so what" experience for quite a few people, while others will go "Wow"!!

The fact that I liked the quality of image from the 720p JVC HD10u was the reason that I bought it. The reason that I bought a 1080i Sony FX-1e a year later, was the comparison I was able to do between both formats on a 76cm CRT HDTV and 83cm LCD HDTV. I know you may not agree with my appraisal of 720p HDV compared to 1080i HDV, but the reason that I got into HD/HDV was to enjoy the best possible image at the lowest possible price available at the time, and for me - that was the right choice. Do I still use my 720p JVC? You bet ya!!

The so-called HD/HDV 'revolution' is an opportunity provided by opportunists. That's the nature of life.

A guy I knew once told me "the reason a building is demolished when it's been paid off, is because not enough people are making money out of it any more". I wouldn't mind betting that concept is behind the "push" for HD. If folks had TVs that would last for many decades... they had to come up with something to keep sales rolling over!! I can see both sides. I decided to put both feet onto one side because I could.

It seems the biggest difficulty is accepting that some people will like HD and buy into it - whether you or I think that they're nuts or not is beside the point. Anyone deciding to stay with SD until their screen goes blank because there's no more SD broadcasts is fine with me... heck, they'll probably die before the last SD transmission.

Brian Duke December 25th, 2005 08:30 AM

I didn't know SD was still alive =)

Steve Crisdale December 25th, 2005 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Duke
I didn't know SD was still alive =)

Good one!!

Thank God (or whatever non-corporeal, totally omnipotent, trans-dimensional, genderless deity, one is either forced or chooses to believe in) for a bit of humour!

So much deadly earnestness. Whatever happened to the enjoyment of life and acceptance of the responsibility for the choices that we make.

Humanity is truly a very strange and mixed up little beastie. When are the Japanese corporations going to replace us with totally compliant cyborgs? Maybe once HD dies... Bring it on!!

Brian Duke December 25th, 2005 05:57 PM

I cannot cumpute SD. I repeat. I cannot compute SD. I repeat. I cannot compute SD. Malfunction. I cannot compute SD. Brain overload... Get ready to evacuate.. DANGER DANGER!!

Michael Wisniewski December 25th, 2005 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Duke
I cannot cumpute SD. I repeat. I cannot compute SD. I repeat. I cannot compute SD. Malfunction. I cannot compute SD. Brain overload... Get ready to evacuate.. DANGER DANGER!!

So you're saying the time lords had HD?

Brian Duke December 25th, 2005 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Wisniewski
So you're saying the time lords had HD?

Sowwie no SD english....

Steve Crisdale December 25th, 2005 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Duke
I cannot cumpute SD. I repeat. I cannot compute SD. I repeat. I cannot compute SD. Malfunction. I cannot compute SD. Brain overload... Get ready to evacuate.. DANGER DANGER!!

I've often wondered what a Cyborg evacuation would be like? Would it be a solid evacuation or more fluid? Aromatic perhaps?

Would Cyborgs be concerned about mopping up after a particularly severe evacuation? They'd probably be programmed to tackle any evacuation scenario with aplomb... unlike humans. They'd be dull, boring, tedious and blissfully unaware of any human emotions - lucky buggers!!

Brian Duke December 25th, 2005 10:34 PM

Very lucky indeed... ignorance is bliss...

David Kennett December 26th, 2005 10:46 AM

My wife is faaaar removed from a TV techie, and still does not understand why I spent perfectly good money on MY HDTV. She watches it with me though, without a comment about the superior picture. Let a substandard picture appear though, and she complains.

Aha! I guess she CAN tell the difference.

Arguing about better pictures (or better sound) versus program content is like asking if you want your food to taste good, or do you want it to look good. Obviously, it's both.

Travelogues take on a whole new excitement in HD. I'm THERE!

Technology has improved pictures and sound over the years: many would argue that the same has not occurred in programming!

Dan Euritt December 26th, 2005 09:25 PM

>>>It is a FACT, complete and utter FACT that beyond a certain viewing distance you will not gain anything from HD resolution.<<<

that is exactly right... "A principal advantage of HD over SD video is the ability to view larger images from closer distances....The design goal for HDTV was to facilitate viewing at a distance of three picture heights from the screen as opposed to the five- to seven-picture-height design goal for NTSC." - http://www.tvtechnology.com/features...features.shtml

now consider that nearly all of the so-called "hd" tv sets on the market today are not capable of displaying the full hd resolution... what you are left with is a population that really only wants a big screen tv, period.

a classic example of that is my neighbor, who got himself a big 16:9 plasma tv... unfortunately, most of what he watches is 4:3, stretched to fit the entire screen... that is your typical consumer.

Steve Crisdale December 27th, 2005 01:35 AM

Homers big dream...
 
BIG... Mmmmmm...

Doh!! Are we talking about TVs or donuts?!!

Who cares as long as it's BIG!!! It'll keep the kids and women happy if it's BIG...

Georg Liigand December 27th, 2005 03:47 AM

LOL.

But actually it's correct - a typical consumer (and let's say 35+ years old) does not even know today what HDTV is and when they go to the shop, they most probably choose the TV set by the size, by the price and by the look. As the slim LCD and plasma televisions look very neat and fit well to the home, they might buy one in case it's affordable for them, but often not because of the HD capability which the most slim TVs anyway support now. People simply have so much else to do in the life in today's busy world that they don't have time to concentrate on all kinds of TV features.

Michael Wisniewski December 27th, 2005 07:26 AM

Truthfully, the only reason I care about HD is for acquiring video. As a Homer Simpson consumer, I just want a bigger screen, good sound, and some donuts and beer. The traditional SD delivery formats work just fine for me. If I can save some living room space by hanging a flat screen on the wall, great!

I still think consumer HD in disc form is going to end up like S-VHS. Great for the acquisition side, but just confusing & annoying for consumers. Remember owning an S-VHS recorder? How many commercial S-VHS movie tapes did you actually own?

As a consumer I want easily accessible media, with lots of content choices. HD just doesn't deliver anything in that department that is substantially better than the current delivery channels for SD. In fact, consumer HD's main claim, the higher resolution, makes it less accessible, with less content choices.

I'll bet if you ask the majority of consumers they'll tell you they didn't realize there was even a problem with DVD delivery. They think it's the cat's meow.


The next big consumer delivery format, will need consumer features that are superior to any disc based format: CD, DVD, or HD. The iPod gave consumers the ability to carry around a huge selection of content, that was easy to acquire, and easily accessible. When I see a video device like an iPod that can pull content off cable or iTunes and can display the video on an HD display, then I'll know HD has arrived.

Steve Crisdale December 27th, 2005 08:10 AM

So those of us who actually took the time and effort to research the step on from analogue video, because;

a) we do understand language both written and verbal and
b) we aren't merely existing in mundane existences that numb the senses and annihilate any idea of what is happening in the world,

should;

a) feel very smug and superior compared to the vast seething mindless mosh of humanity because we know that regardless of anyone's opinion about SD vs HD, the one certainty in all of this is that HD IS here and it isn't going away now that it is, or;
b) just keep watching superior HD quality images and ignore all the banter and rhetoric regarding what's going to happen, or;
c) use any extra cash we have to get a frontal lobotomy so we'll blend right in with the vast mindless mosh and still enjoy watching our HD without knowing why it looks better... nor care why it looks better, and just get the mindless but loving (even though she doesn't know why) missus to give us another beer and donut.

I do wish education wasn't a compulsory thing in this country. It's so much easier to not know anything.

Brian Tori December 27th, 2005 12:11 PM

I agree with the side which believes that SD will be a continuing production and distribution method. The biggest and most obvious reason being that once the digital transition is complete, there is no obligation on the part of broadcasters or producers to provide anything in high definition. Once the additional bandwidth is divided and provided to various producers, they have the option to do whatever they deem necessary to create revenue. Whether this is one high def channel or 4-5 SD channels. Secondly, how many of the smaller markets can afford to redesign and upgrade there already profitable SD production tools?

My prediction for the future of high definition is that it will coexist for many years with SD production and delivery. I think some people are under the false assumption that once the Blue Laser or HD DVD format is available that it will instantly replace the DVD format. I believe that the two formats will live peacefully with one another as did VHS and Laserdisc for many years. VHS was a cost friendly consumer format, while Laserdisc was a more costly Videophile format, requiring a specialized player with more expensive media.

David Kennett December 27th, 2005 03:40 PM

Brian,

There will certainly be much 4:3 SD around for years, But I think that in the not too distant future every producer must seriously consider HD. I think the best analogy goes back to the conversion to color TV, or the conversion to stereo audio.

B&W pictures are pretty much used only for effect. No serious audio would be done in mono - heck, you better be thinking about 5.1 surround!

That doesn't mean there aren't many folks out there who could care less about HD or stereo sound.

I guess we'll have to wait a few years to know for sure.

Glenn Chan December 27th, 2005 04:32 PM

The majority of TV viewers still effectively hear mono sound. It's either:
A- Their speakers aren't far enough apart.
B- Because of their setup's wiring scheme, they only get a mono signal.

And if you're sitting too far from your TV (which is a lot of the case), then you don't get the benefits of the higher resolution.

Ash Greyson December 27th, 2005 05:55 PM

I think the middle ground that is oft missed in this entire debate is the period of coexistence. Did B&W TVs vanish over night? No... there was a period where both B&W and color TVs co-existed. Eventually, the final tipping point became when cost was not an issue. It eventually made no sense for a consumer to buy a B&W TV when a color TV was the same price.

The same thing will eventually happen with HD but the dynamic is a little different. Color vs B&W was revolutionary...HD vs SD? If we were talking holographic 3D, then maybe, but more lines of resolution for exactly the same content? Nah... It is kind of like music, once we got to stereo, that was good enough for most people. They just wanted a more convenient delivery... first CD and now MP3... quality, oddly is actually REGRESSING. There is no compelling reason for most people to go out and get an HDTV... will they like "Lost" better? Prolly not.

Most people will upgrade as their old sets die off and even the most aggressive estimates only have an HDTV in 20%-25% of homes by the end of next year (there is some debate on how these stats were gathered because there are some people, like me, with 4 HDTVs and some of the stats dont seem to factor that in). I think you will REALLY start to see HDTV sales take off when 32" LCDs hit $499 and believe it or not, I bet MANY of those upgrading will be doing so for the form factor as much as the resolution.

HD is coming...eventually... but HD and SD will co-exist for quite some time...



ash =o)

Dan Euritt December 28th, 2005 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Kennett
I think the best analogy goes back to the conversion to color TV, or the conversion to stereo audio.

when people made the switch from b/w to color, all they had to do was replace the tv... they did not own any content, everything they watched was broadcast over the airwaves.

these days a whole lot of people own the content that they watch, and they want full control over it... don't expect 'em to spend big $$$ to automatically replace all those sd dvd's for hd dvd's... legacy content will carry sd for a really long time.

so none of the old paradigms are applicable here... that's why it's all about delivery formats... and since software sells hardware, hd is dead, because there is no software delivery format for it.

Steve Crisdale December 28th, 2005 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt
so none of the old paradigms are applicable here... that's why it's all about delivery formats... and since software sells hardware, hd is dead, because there is no software delivery format for it.

Good. So now you know that, get on with things and go and frequent the SD sub-forums rather than coming to the HD sub-forums.

SD proponents seem to have this unswerving need to come onto the HD specific forums and make their pronouncements with what they think is the sort of conviction that will stop SD waverers from becoming turn-coats.

So Yay!! HD is dead... for you. Go and enjoy SD.

It's a bit like going to a restaurant really. If you don't like the food when you've tried it, go somewhere else. Don't expect to walk in the door and tell everyone enjoying what they're eating that "the food here is lousy and there's no way you can carry it home - so this place is dead"... though I dare say there's some bozzos that would!!

Georg Liigand December 29th, 2005 03:43 AM

Actually everyone just say out their opinions in this thread and I don't think that one has the right to publically decide who should stop writing here :) It has turned out into a rather interesting discussion.

I would add that the very large DVD projects like Hollywood movies will probably stay on SD for a long time, because if only a few percent of the people own HD DVD players, it is necessary to go with the format the majority can watch. Certainly new technology spreads quickly, but right now it's pretty hard to estimate about HD DVDs, because they aren't even out yet.

Bob Zimmerman December 29th, 2005 03:49 AM

Maybe we should say "how soon till 4:3 SD is dead" I see more and more shows 16:9 or letterboxed or something. Even more commericals are 16:9. I don't know if it's HD or SD, but I sure see a trend going to the widescreen look and I think people will be look at a widescreen TV and see a show tape on SD 16:9 and say,,,"That looks really good"

Boyd Ostroff December 29th, 2005 09:30 AM

Actually I'm wondering..... how soon before this thread dies? ;-)

Leigh Wanstead December 29th, 2005 01:56 PM

I tried to watch panasonic hvx200 1080p video on my amd xp 1800+ pc with 2GB RAM. The computer can't play it properly due to not enough cpu power. I do get nice video from 720p.

Based on that, I guess hd consumes far more resource than sd.

I agree that my computer is five years old. But I have not planned to buy a new computer now.

Base on the common sense that it is not camera make a difference on video, I think I will stay with sd.

Regards
Leigh

Bob Safay December 29th, 2005 04:10 PM

Question, since the Canon HD-1 will do both SD and HD wouldn't it make sence to go with that camcorder, that way you can still do SD now and you will have HD when you really need it and are ready for it. Bob

Dan Euritt December 29th, 2005 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale
Good. So now you know that, get on with things and go and frequent the SD sub-forums rather than coming to the HD sub-forums.

the title of this thread is "How soon before SD dies?" ...perhaps you should ask to have it moved to an sd forum, since it makes you feel so uncomfortable ;-)

better yet, please tell us what, if any, hd-specific r.o.i. that you have been seeing from those "hd" cameras that you bought.

not footage that ends up being down-rezzed to sd, mind you, but real honest-to-goodness specific payment for hd content that stays in an hd delivery format.

in other words, give this forum some proof that sd is dead.

Georg Liigand December 29th, 2005 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Safay
Question, since the Canon HD-1 will do both SD and HD wouldn't it make sence to go with that camcorder, that way you can still do SD now and you will have HD when you really need it and are ready for it. Bob

Absolutely correct. However, electronics are something you should buy for today's needs, not for future. If you want the new and expensive camera for SD and are not sure when you will move over to HD, then maybe it's better to buy XL2 for a much cheaper price and then add some accessories for the price difference.

Leigh Wanstead December 29th, 2005 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georg Liigand
Absolutely correct. However, electronics are something you should buy for today's needs, not for future. If you want the new and expensive camera for SD and are not sure when you will move over to HD, then maybe it's better to buy XL2 for a much cheaper price and then add some accessories for the price difference.

I think this is an honest answer.

Regards
Leigh

Rick Steele December 29th, 2005 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale
Good. So now you know that, get on with things and go and frequent the SD sub-forums rather than coming to the HD sub-forums.

Now *where* did this come from?

And no, I don't agree that HD is dead.

Rick Steele December 29th, 2005 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Zimmerman
Maybe we should say "how soon till 4:3 SD is dead"

Another good question as I normally shoot in 4:3 SD. And as much as I would like 4:3 to stick around to accomodate my VX2100 even I see it going by the wayside.

I'm seeing more and more 16:9 broadcast content every month and a lot of commercials now too.

4:3 will be truly "dead" when the NFL makes the official jump with total disregard for the die-hards who complain about missing 12 inches of screen real estate. :)

Konrad Haskins December 29th, 2005 08:53 PM

The NFL not the networks shoot evey game to film not video.

Steve Crisdale December 30th, 2005 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Steele
Now *where* did this come from?

And no, I don't agree that HD is dead.

Where?!! From all those posters who come to this thread (which probably shouldn't have been here in the first place) with this or that fact or opinion on something that none of us have any real control over.

Those with the obvious intelligence to declare HD will "die" because "Joe Bloggs next door doesn't own a HDTV so there's no interest in HDTV" or "there's no way or means to distribute HD" or "HDV cameras aren't capable of matching the best SD camcorders" etc. etc ad nauseum are pushing a barrow full of as much self opinionated clap-trap as those who trumpet HD as steamrollering every other means of viewing, shooting, recording etc. etc moving images that mankind has ever seen.

HD ain't going away. It's here now, so unless some SD exponents want to try to track every HD camera/HDTV owner down and make them an offer they can't refuse... they'd better get used to it.

On the other hand SD is going to hang around for a while too. Why do you reckon every lower cost HDV/HD camcorder also shoots DV at SD resolutions? If Sony, JVC, Canon and Panasonic truly believed that their own equipment was likely to be the death knell riding on the back of a massive uptake rate of HD/HDTV by the public... do you reckon they'd waste their time adding extra functionality to a camera that would be cheaper to manufacture and sell without it?

They know SD will be around for a while longer still, and can cope with integrating both without any blazing conflict in the hardware that'll threaten to explode because neither mode thinks the other will survive.

Take a lead from the folks who make the equipment every last one of you use, whether it's for shooting, capturing, processing, viewing or appreciating in any way shape or form. You see them "killing" a particular line just because some bright spark oracle of all knowledge reckons "SD will die"... er hang on make that "HD will die!!" er... "better be safe and give the option to do both"

What's the gripe? You want to watch SD on a HDTV - go ahead!! You want to watch HD on an SD tv - go ahead!! It's like watching some little snot-nosed kid getting upset about some bizarrely inane and paltry thing that they feel has hurt them... while every other kid looks at them like they're just some spoilt little twerp who should just bite the bullet and get on with things. There are those out there who know that if you are faced with a problem - solve it!! It's a shame there's hordes who wouldn't know how to solve it even if the solution was plastered to the inside of their eyeballs.

I shall now solve all our problems by not replying any further to this thread.

Rick Steele December 30th, 2005 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale
It's like watching some little snot-nosed kid getting upset about some bizarrely inane and paltry thing that they feel has hurt them

All this angst over something as silly as an HD/SD discussion?

Quote:

I shall now solve all our problems by not replying any further to this thread.
Interesting exit. (in light of your quote above).

Good luck!

Rick Steele December 30th, 2005 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konrad Haskins
The NFL not the networks shoot evey game to film not video.

Ok. So sports venues are forever stuck with 4:3?

Bob Safay December 30th, 2005 07:29 AM

Interesting replys. Right now I shoot with the XL-1s and am doing quit well with it, in truth, I love this mother. At "work" I often do health education videos for the general public. These are done for specific communities, ie, Oak Ridge, TN or other communities around waste facilities. I shoot in SD because the community people we send these to have either dvd or VHS. I don't think there is an HDTV in the community that could play an HD dvd, remember, these are usually not your high income communities. However, as the future moves on I must tell you all that the Centers for Disease Control, the CDC, in Atlanta has a video broadcast department that has gone completely HD. They even have a full broadcast studio in the basement. So if I really have to shoot HD they also have two new Panny HVX-200's on order. Now again for me, when my lovely XL-1s goes to the big repair shop in the sky I will go with the XL-2, as my particular audiance will be using SD for a long, long time. Bob

Boyd Ostroff December 30th, 2005 08:26 AM

Now that everyone has made their feelings more than clear, I think we can close this thread and move on to other things...


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:30 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network