|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 29th, 2006, 07:42 AM | #31 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
|
|
March 29th, 2006, 09:32 AM | #32 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,589
|
Quote:
|
|
March 29th, 2006, 11:05 AM | #33 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 621
|
Quote:
To do HD well, the cost of the equipment is nothing to sneeze at. If I want to maintain my current SD workflow but produce an HD-resolution product, I need to not only buy a new camera, but a new deck, a new dual-core editing workstation, and an HD-resolution monitor. Even if I go with the cheapest decent HDV option, that's still pushing $10,000. I'm probably going to also need new extra batteries, battery charger, a wide-angle adaptor and a carrying case. It's quite possible I may also need to get a portable digital audio recorder to make up for the loss in audio quality of HDV, additional lights to make up for the lower light sensitivity, and a portable HD monitor to provide accurate focus. That could easily add up to another $10,000, or more. So, after spending $20,000+ on a complete HD setup (to say nothing of learning new equipment and workflow), I'm still going to be delivering a Standard Definition DVD to the customer -- something I can do now, quite well. That strikes me as kind of silly. For folks who are catering to a niche market who can afford HD-everything, by all means, jump into HD with both feet. For folks like me, it makes more sense to let the Blu-Ray / HD-DVD / H.264 WMV delivery format issue get settled, let those kind of decks get some percentage of market penetration and then look at upgrading to HD. By that time, the second-generation HD prosumer cameras will be out, with more and better features, bug fixes, and probably at a lower price. I'm not entirely sure those cameras will still be HDV, either. They might just as easily be a ported professional HD codec. Or maybe, by then, everyone will be watching 320x240 video on their cel phones, HDTVs will be gathering dust at Best Buy, and the whole argument will be moot. ;-) When I made the move from analog video to DV, that choice worked well for me for 15 years and counting. I expect to get a similar length of service when I go (and I eventually will) with HD. |
|
March 29th, 2006, 01:04 PM | #34 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sherburn, England
Posts: 136
|
Quote:
I don't see myself as locked in to the H1. If I get 3 years use out of it that will be fine, anything extra will be a bonus. Sure better cameras will come along and I'll weigh up their costs and benefits, but my battleground is a sub $10,000 camera with interchangeable lenses and they are not common. |
|
March 29th, 2006, 01:47 PM | #35 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Brian: your assessment is mostly logical but leaves out a few key points.
(1) Shooting in SD essentially forces you to decide up front whether to produce widescreen or 4x3 output, with limited ability to convert to the other ratio while maintaining decent quality. So most videographers are still defaulting to 4x3 ratio because they figure that's the safest thing to do, but it's the worst choice if you want footage which will look good on HDTVs. Shooting in HD solves this problem nicely now for all customers for both SD and HD delivery, in a way inherently better than you can do with any SD camera. (2) If you know you plan to upgrade to HD and you know it's going to cost real money, does it make more sense to wait until the last possible moment to start buying new gear and then do that all at once, or maybe get started sooner and do it gradually? Granted you'll get better gear the longer you wait, but that will always be true so at some point you just have to take the leap and get started. I've noticed several videographers buying the least expensive HDV cameras for their own personal use and to get some early HD experience, and those same cameras will still be useful as "B" cams well into the future when HD acquisition is required for most projects. (3) As several of us have noted, you can't build up HD sample material if you don't have an HD camera. You also can't come back in time and shoot today's events in HD for future viewing pleasure unless you have a retrofitted De Lorean with a time flux capacitor and a 1.21 Jigawatt power source. :-) (4) Some of your customers and competitors are already buying inexpensive HD cameras, so it's going to get harder and harder to justify not offering some sort of HD option. If you set a price for an HD upgrade and no one wants to pay it you're off the hook, but at least offer customers a choice! (5) You can't learn the ins and outs of HD production if you don't do it. When the day comes that someone really wants to pay you something to shoot in HD, will you be ready? |
March 29th, 2006, 01:53 PM | #36 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
|
|
March 29th, 2006, 03:49 PM | #37 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 621
|
Quote:
|
|
March 30th, 2006, 08:29 AM | #38 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
|
|
March 30th, 2006, 08:32 AM | #39 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
|
|
March 30th, 2006, 09:34 AM | #40 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 621
|
Quote:
I wish I had the money to buy a new camera every year, but I don't. |
|
March 30th, 2006, 10:41 AM | #41 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
March 30th, 2006, 01:11 PM | #42 | ||
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Carlsbad CA
Posts: 1,132
|
Quote:
Quote:
btw, what are you using for an hdv playback deck while editing? let's not forget to add the expense of a deck into the cost of switching to hdv. paul, i'm with you on the h1, it has real lens options, and soon there will be battery-powered hd recorders that you can plug into it, so you'll have options other than hdv... i think there could also be ways to monitize wildlife footage on the 'net, and you don't need hdv to do it... hi-8 or whatever would look great! |
||
March 30th, 2006, 01:17 PM | #43 |
Trustee
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,589
|
"...IMHO, the logical approach to use today is to shoot 16:9 HD or HDV..."
Yes, Steve, this is what most of us have been saying...but as Brian so rightly mentions - "...For many of us, especially those of us who are doing independent moviemaking on our own projects rather than work for hire, a camera represents a significant investment...(including related accessories etc)..." That is why many of us choose to continue using the 4:3 & 16:9 SD cameras (that we already own, or can afford to buy)...because they provide the best possible quality - within our own price range - to enable us to provide the best end product for present and future sales to our intended audience. |
March 30th, 2006, 01:29 PM | #44 | ||||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
March 30th, 2006, 03:10 PM | #45 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|