Why all the HD demand now?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

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.

[Cemil Giray]

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.

[Tom Roper]

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!

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Laurence Kingston

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.

[Glenn Chan]

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.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

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.

[Glenn Chan]

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.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

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."

[Peter Ferling]

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.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Glenn Chan

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.

[Chris Hurd]

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.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

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.

[Barlow Elton]

Originally Posted by Mark Grant

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.

[Peter Ferling]

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

[Glenn Chan]

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.