Jump to content


Photo

HD over SD


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Brandon151

Brandon151

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 February 2007 - 07:49 PM

I need five strong points in illustrating why HD would be better to shoot than SD. Remember the final project will be broadcaste out in SD. Cost is the major factor with the Producers.

Thanks
  • 0

#2 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 09 February 2007 - 08:03 PM

I have one that might sell the producers on it:

Shoot HD, produce the finnished cut in SD. Then 5 years down the road when HD is even bigger and the station wants to switch to all HD programming, you can turn to your client and say 'We'll sell you the HD masters....for a price'. They might be able to see a second payment of 25% of the original production price or more with that method. Thats all dependant on the TV station that is airing the show. If its local in a small market odds are slim, but in national basic cable channels with HD partner channels you may stand a good chance.

Post houses add upcharges for HD, even though your taking up the same NLE for the same amount of time (more storage obviously, all other overhead is identicle) and for a TV series, as long as the production company retains some rights to original material, then legaly they can sell the HD version for a higher price than the SD. Producers will always put more weight to future gross than the quality of the video, so that approach might put it in their interest, especially if cost is there hang up ('it looks great' is a terrible flip to the objection 'it costs too much')
  • 0

#3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 February 2007 - 09:08 PM

Hi,

Mainly it's about making it worth more money and future-proofing it. You can drag as many points out of that as you like; "it looks better" is unlikely to convince the money men.

Phil
  • 0

#4 Troy Warr

Troy Warr
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Other
  • Austin, TX, USA

Posted 09 February 2007 - 09:33 PM

A couple more:

1. HD properly downsampled to SD looks better than SD shot natively. This is the argument that Michael and Phil warn against, but I think if you're savvy enough to avoid "it just looks better" and rather sell it as a "higher production value" argument that can somehow clearly lead to increased revenue, it might work. Keep in mind that although the project will originally be broadcast in SD, the HDTV markets, as well as high-def formats like HD-DVD and Blu-ray, are growing, and tomorrow the producer(s) may want to think about these other forms of distribution to increase their profit margin from the project.

2. HD footage cropped to SD in post allows options for reframing. If you get a great shot in SD, but it clips the actor's head or is otherwise framed awkwardly, you're out of luck. If you shoot HD and pad the edges of the frame well, that risk can be minimized. Obviously this stands opposed to #1, but one or the other might apply better to your particular project.

Depending on what flavor of HD that you intend to shoot, cost may not even be a problem - since HDV, for example, isn't that much more expensive (if any) to work with than many SD formats.

There may be other selling points depending on what kind of project that you're shooting.
  • 0

#5 Frank Barrera

Frank Barrera
  • Sustaining Members
  • 464 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 09 February 2007 - 09:59 PM

I need five strong points in illustrating why HD would be better to shoot than SD.

Interesting problem. But I don't think there are 5 reasons to go with HD over SD other than "future proofing" and "it looks better". So, that's 2 reasons. The latter one no one cares about and the former one is speculative at best.

If I was a producer of a low budget tv show I wouldn't think twice about it. I would shoot with the SDX 900 4X3 and protect the 16X9 for "future proofing".
  • 0

#6 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 February 2007 - 05:17 AM

It depends what's going to fall over the edge when you factor in the extra costs of costing HD. I was DP on some short films last year, which were shot on HDCAM as against the same scheme, with the same budget the previous year shot on SD - both years were for delivery on Digibeta. On the HD series you could really tell that the budgets were being strained and resources that you had available the previous year you could no longer afford.
  • 0

#7 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 February 2007 - 11:29 AM

Interesting problem. But I don't think there are 5 reasons to go with HD over SD other than "future proofing" and "it looks better". So, that's 2 reasons. The latter one no one cares about and the former one is speculative at best.

If I was a producer of a low budget tv show I wouldn't think twice about it. I would shoot with the SDX 900 4X3 and protect the 16X9 for "future proofing".


do broadcasters in the US still accept 4:3?
  • 0

#8 Frank Barrera

Frank Barrera
  • Sustaining Members
  • 464 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 10 February 2007 - 01:59 PM

do broadcasters in the US still accept 4:3?

Yes
  • 0

#9 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 19 February 2007 - 12:47 PM

There are even a lot of pan & scan movies still showing in 4x3, unfortunately. I think 4x3 should stick around, personally. Dullards like to suggest that widescreen is "better" because you "see more" but really, you could make an HD TV with more horizontal ilnes in 4x3 and call that "better than HD". The more ratio options available to a filmmaker the better. Banning a format, or continuing to pan and scan or "jilt and tilt" is just tiring bullshit at this point to me. I think audience ought to be mature enough to realize that both exist and that either cropping or stretching are what silly salesmen came up with to sell more TV sets.
  • 0

#10 Andre Labous

Andre Labous
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Neptune Beach, FL

Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:27 PM

I need five strong points in illustrating why HD would be better to shoot than SD. Remember the final project will be broadcaste out in SD. Cost is the major factor with the Producers.

Thanks


  • 0

#11 Andre Labous

Andre Labous
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Neptune Beach, FL

Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:45 PM

I need five strong points in illustrating why HD would be better to shoot than SD. Remember the final project will be broadcaste out in SD. Cost is the major factor with the Producers.

Thanks


  • 0

#12 Andre Labous

Andre Labous
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Neptune Beach, FL

Posted 09 March 2007 - 01:03 PM

Oops......first time on forum.
Why shoot film if people don't have film projectors in their living room?
I tell my clients why not use the best electronic originated footage. I can think of reasons why.

1. Faster ASA. Most SD cameras are rated around 160 ASA. HD cameras are much faster. My f/900 is around 320 to 400ASA. Translates to better in low light. I often key interview subjects w/ a 300W tungsten light through a full silk and get a good exposure.

2.Better latitude. Able to adjust for Highlights w/ the knee, point, slope functions. Blacks can be adjusted for ranges rather than just master.

3. Better color control. User matrix, multi matrix, etc.

4. Frame rates.

5. 125 megabytes/sec. Recording. Translates better to bigger LCD/ plasma's in the home theatre.

6. All these are achieved at 12bit at the brain. As opposed to the 8 bit recording.

7. 16x9 Frame

8. It will always be HD

9. Intercuts w/ film better

10. It's the latest greatest!
  • 0

#13 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 09 March 2007 - 03:24 PM

"1. Faster ASA. Most SD cameras are rated around 160 ASA. HD cameras are much faster. My f/900 is around 320 to 400ASA. "

About where many professional SD cameras come in too.


"2.Better latitude. Able to adjust for Highlights w/ the knee, point, slope functions. Blacks can be adjusted for ranges rather than just master."

Same controls you could always adjust with any professional camera. Only difference is they told you it's unique to newer cameras.

"3. Better color control. User matrix, multi matrix, etc."

Matrix is always available and adjustable on any pro camera, SD or HD.

"4. Frame rates."

More frame rates are available on many HD cameras but most folks don''t really need all the frame rates.

"5. 125 megabytes/sec. Recording. Translates better to bigger LCD/ plasma's in the home theatre."

Non sequitur

6. All these are achieved at 12bit at the brain. As opposed to the 8 bit recording.

Many SD cameras such as BVPE30 from Sony (an SD camera) have 14 bit brains.

"7. 16x9 Frame"

Many professional SD cameras offer 16x9

"8. It will always be HD"

It could be down converted to SD and many who uprez digibeta and mix it with HD footage can't tell the difference too.

"9. Intercuts w/ film better"

If you need to, perhaps. BUt then again there are a number of releases that combine film with SD and are mixed indistinguishably.

"10. It's the latest greatest!"

Probably the only valid personal reason why in this list as I see it
  • 0

#14 Andre Labous

Andre Labous
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Neptune Beach, FL

Posted 09 March 2007 - 06:30 PM

"1. Faster ASA. Most SD cameras are rated around 160 ASA. HD cameras are much faster. My f/900 is around 320 to 400ASA. "

About where many professional SD cameras come in too.
Love to see an SD camera capture low light like HD

"2.Better latitude. Able to adjust for Highlights w/ the knee, point, slope functions. Blacks can be adjusted for ranges rather than just master."

Same controls you could always adjust with any professional camera. Only difference is they told you it's unique to newer cameras.

Use them in both SD and HD. HD works better.

"3. Better color control. User matrix, multi matrix, etc."

Matrix is always available and adjustable on any pro camera, SD or HD.
I'll give you that one.

"4. Frame rates."

More frame rates are available on many HD cameras but most folks don''t really need all the frame rates.

Need vs. want. Spatial vs. Temporal resolution. It's all subjective
"5. 125 megabytes/sec. Recording. Translates better to bigger LCD/ plasma's in the home theatre."

Non sequitur
Sequitur??

6. All these are achieved at 12bit at the brain. As opposed to the 8 bit recording.

Many SD cameras such as BVPE30 from Sony (an SD camera) have 14 bit brains.
Got me there.

"7. 16x9 Frame"

Many professional SD cameras offer 16x9
Is it real 16x9?

"8. It will always be HD"

It could be down converted to SD and many who uprez digibeta and mix it with HD footage can't tell the difference too.

Can't agree w/ that one. 1080 lines vs. 480 Blown up I think not.

"9. Intercuts w/ film better"

If you need to, perhaps. BUt then again there are a number of releases that combine film with SD and are mixed indistinguish

Don't buy that.
"10. It's the latest greatest!
"

Probably the only valid personal reason why in this list as I see it

I still shoot SD and after shooting HD it pains me to suffer through a inferior medium.

Also your day rate is higher in HD.
Are you using a old computer or a new one?


Still trying to figure out how to reply properly


  • 0

#15 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 09 March 2007 - 07:18 PM

Many of yor answers are based on no experience but assumption. I work with this stuff. Have before you even heard of it. Everything I say is real and has been expereinced by me and even you if you watch an HD signal. Hint: A lot of stock footage that was on SD digibeta is line doubled and sold as HD and is indistinguishable. So thanks for the responses but I speak a bit more from experience on the matter.
  • 0

#16 Andre Labous

Andre Labous
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Neptune Beach, FL

Posted 09 March 2007 - 08:15 PM

Many of yor answers are based on no experience but assumption. I work with this stuff. Have before you even heard of it. Everything I say is real and has been expereinced by me and even you if you watch an HD signal. Hint: A lot of stock footage that was on SD digibeta is line doubled and sold as HD and is indistinguishable. So thanks for the responses but I speak a bit more from experience on the matter.



Many of yor answers are based on no experience but assumption. I work with this stuff. Have before you even heard of it. Everything I say is real and has been expereinced by me and even you if you watch an HD signal. Hint: A lot of stock footage that was on SD digibeta is line doubled and sold as HD and is indistinguishable. So thanks for the responses but I speak a bit more from experience on the matter.


  • 0

#17 Andre Labous

Andre Labous
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Neptune Beach, FL

Posted 09 March 2007 - 08:48 PM

Many of yor answers are based on no experience but assumption. I work with this stuff. Have before you even heard of it. Everything I say is real and has been expereinced by me and even you if you watch an HD signal. Hint: A lot of stock footage that was on SD digibeta is line doubled and sold as HD and is indistinguishable. So thanks for the responses but I speak a bit more from experience on the matter.



Wow. My first post. Didn't realize it could get personal. Based on your experience I would assume you could be more mature. I have plenty of experience in DigiBeta and own an F-900/3. I don't assume anything. I shoot for clients who trust and respect my knowledge of HD. It has offered me far more lucrative opportunities and creative options, more so than SD ever did. Congrats on assuming you are the sheriff of experience.
  • 0

#18 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 09 March 2007 - 10:31 PM

Some of the points here are obviously subjective, while others are more quantifiable.

The "look" of something uprezzed or quality of a display technology can be subjective. You could claim something as being better or worse and not be "wrong."

There are many SD cameras that perform very well in low light, and HD doesn't automatically have more sensitivity, depending on the camera. Sony D-35's and the Panasonic SDX-900 for example often perform close to the 640 ASA range at 0db. There are both SD and HD cameras less sensitive than that. You could make the argument that an HD camera "sees" into the shadows better by virtue of resolution, but that's not the same as sensitivity. At that point it's subjective again -- HD could be "better" because it sees finer detail in shadows, even though that lumiance might be the same in SD.

Saying the knee and black stretch controls are "better" in HD is kind of spurious though -- it depends on the model of the camera(s) you're talking about. Of course a newer HD camera would have more/better control than an older SD camera, but really that's a function of the camera and not the format.

I'm not trying to take sides in an SD vs. HD debate. They're two different formats with their own unique qualities. Producers and DP's can choose a format based on the qualities that work best for them.
  • 0

#19 Andre Labous

Andre Labous
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Neptune Beach, FL

Posted 09 March 2007 - 11:34 PM

Initially responded to why HD over SD. Not as science but as a way of getting budgets. Not from other DP's but from agencies. If now into theory... what about recording at 125-140 megabits on HDCAM as opposed to 50 mbs on the SDX 900? Also SDX 900 640 ASA? I've shot w/it numerous times. Did not notice it being twice as fast as F/900. My silly LCD/Plasma in the home reference refers to what I see when I watch television. Lower mbs more squares (digital info) I see. Thus when I'm messin w/ black gamma's, y gamma, knee, color, etc., my recording rate is handling that information. It's there before the downconvert. Lines of resolution no longer a factor but the look I manipulated is getting there. Yes downconverted. Again I don't have a film projector in my house. Why shoot film?
I do agree they're are amazing SD cameras out there. I still have to use them. I think panasonic has totally kicked butt in that department. And although the SDX is a sweet camera, it's time to trade it in for the HDX 900. I shot recently 2 weeks at the Daytona 500. Think I saw a hand full of SD cameras. HD cameras everywhere.
  • 0

#20 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 10 March 2007 - 01:44 AM

If now into theory... what about recording at 125-140 megabits on HDCAM as opposed to 50 mbs on the SDX 900?


That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. You're comparing HD at 125 megabits to SD at 50 megabits. I could just as easily point out that DVCPRO50 is 4:2:2 and HDCAM as 3:1:1, or that the Sony F-900 uses 10 bit DSP vs. 12 bit in the SDX. But all those numbers are relative to the image being compressed, and don't tell the whole story.

Again, I'm not trying to defend SD as we're all moving toward HD anyway. I just think if we're going to make legitimate arguments to producers as to why one format is "better" than another, it needs to be factual and avoid misinformation or bias.

The original post was about convincing producers of SD material to switch over to HD. Cost and efficiency are paramount to producers, and image quality is only part of the equation. Since HD cameras don't necessarily produce better SD images, the initial quality of the HD image may not warrant the expense or changeover in format.
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

CineTape

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery