Jump to content


Photo

Standard Definition vs. High Definition


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 clyde villegas

clyde villegas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Director

Posted 04 November 2007 - 10:11 AM

Around here, broadcast is SD, TVs are SD, DVD players are SD. One could buy an LCD TV capable of HD but there's no HD video available at video rental shops. Aside from being prepared for the future of video, what advantage does an HDV camera has over an SD camera? If my videos are going to be viewed on SD players, is there still a reason for me to upgrade to HD? God bless.
  • 0

#2 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 04 November 2007 - 01:34 PM

Around here, broadcast is SD, TVs are SD, DVD players are SD. One could buy an LCD TV capable of HD but there's no HD video available at video rental shops. Aside from being prepared for the future of video, what advantage does an HDV camera has over an SD camera? If my videos are going to be viewed on SD players, is there still a reason for me to upgrade to HD? God bless.


The biggest reason to switch is because others will just assume you offer HD when they hire you. Other than that, I agree with you.
  • 0

#3 Walter Graff

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

Posted 04 November 2007 - 01:52 PM

There really is no need for most people to buy HD equipment. About 14% of the country has a TV that can see it, but most outlets don't even broadcast in it and will not any time soon. Most of the people you hear on boards who talk about getting HD do so because they have an illusion that it will somehow make them more accepted as professionals. About the only people that need HD equipment are those that create programs for HD broadcast or realistically have options in the motion picture world. Outside of that, it's just status and fascination by most.
  • 0

#4 Michael Nash

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

Posted 04 November 2007 - 04:19 PM

There is still a virtue to oversampling. Just as 35mm looks sharper than 16mm when displayed on SD, downconverted HD can be an improvement over SD for SD display.

The problem is that the optics and chips of many prosumer cameras are barely up to the task of providing enough oversampling to make a visible difference. A broadcast SD camera and lens can often produce SD images that equal a prosumer HD image, when viewed in SD. And both will usually look better than the image of a prosumer SD camera that barely matches the display resolution. But step up to a professional HD camera and optics and you will start to notice the difference even on SD.

Of course it's a matter of degree, not to mention your skill in using the chosen format.
  • 0

#5 Walter Graff

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

Posted 04 November 2007 - 04:44 PM

step up to a professional HD camera and optics and you will start to notice the difference even on SD.


Not necessarily, and especially not on a web video that one needs to compress substantially to make viable for download.

http://www.bluesky-web.com/sdhd.html
  • 0

#6 Michael Nash

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

Posted 04 November 2007 - 04:48 PM

Not necessarily, and especially not on a web video that one needs to compress substantially to make viable for download.

http://www.bluesky-web.com/sdhd.html


As I said, it's a matter of degree. And the question was about SD/DVD etc., not the web. In my other post about HD for the web I supported SD...
  • 0

#7 Walter Graff

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

Posted 04 November 2007 - 04:53 PM

As I said, it's a matter of degree. And the question was about SD/DVD etc., not the web. In my other post about HD for the web I supported SD...


Oh, I didn't read that right. I think I'm confusing another thread. I'll restate then. You will normally gain a slight visual advantage from shooting and editing in HD to standard def DVD depending on the quality of the edit system you use. But like Michael said, it will depend on a lot of things and even then it will not be night and day. In fact just trying to get the same quality DVD that you see in a commercial rental is impossible as these companies that dub use expensive stand-alone devices designed to make DVDs of far better quality than any current system you use at home could.
  • 0

#8 Marcel Beck

Marcel Beck

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Producer

Posted 03 August 2008 - 05:26 PM

Well to some extent i must agree.

I think its most affordable to use SD cameras (Less expensive) and in your editing program, make sure you can filter the video for its crisp quality (if needed).

If someone asks you to shoot a HD video, always remind them that the quality of SD and HD are not huge. So its is cheaper to rent out an HD camera (if requested to shoot in HD) and use tapes suited for HD cameras.

peace
  • 0

#9 Andy Joyce

Andy Joyce
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 September 2008 - 10:02 PM

What do you guys think of up-rezzing apps like Topaz Enhance and Instant HD?

I paid a lot for my XL2 and I hope to get more out of it. I'm not ready for native HD yet.

I don't even have a damn HDTV!
  • 0

#10 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 September 2008 - 06:07 PM

About 14% of the country has a TV that can see it, but most outlets don't even broadcast in it and will not any time soon.

Per the FCC, there were 1427 digital stations on the air back in April. There are 1798 in all. The satellite and major cable companies have HD available (usually more $$).

http://www.fcc.gov/m...s/dtvonair.html

Even in the New York DMA, where the major broadcasters lost their transmitters and personnel seven years ago today, all 23 are on the air in digital, 13 of them using their final post transition equipment.

http://www.fcc.gov/D...OC-283818A1.txt

http://www.necrat.com/NYCTV.html





-- J.S.
  • 0

#11 Yasir Hasby

Yasir Hasby

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 September 2008 - 03:29 PM

What about me?
I use PD170 and someone told me XH A1 is much better. Since I tried (with vegas 7 and firewire link) to make filmlook on my wedding video, would HD provide better filmlook?
  • 0

#12 K Borowski

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

Posted 27 September 2008 - 06:58 PM

Oh, I didn't read that right. I think I'm confusing another thread. I'll restate then. You will normally gain a slight visual advantage from shooting and editing in HD to standard def DVD depending on the quality of the edit system you use. But like Michael said, it will depend on a lot of things and even then it will not be night and day. In fact just trying to get the same quality DVD that you see in a commercial rental is impossible as these companies that dub use expensive stand-alone devices designed to make DVDs of far better quality than any current system you use at home could.


Walter, by your definition, shooting 35mm for SD broadcast is a complete waste of time then. Surely, future-proofing and using the best format that you can reasonably afford is not unreasonable.

I think that we as an industry all have a compulsion, fascination being milder but less accurate, to control the world, capture it, and originally the two urges were to shoot as much as you could or shoot the highest resolution that you could. Now there's a further trend to manipulate your image or adjust it to make it look as "good" as you can.

It's an impulse that draws all of the moths to the flame. The flame or the type of flame isn't the problem, the inability to control the impulse is.
  • 0

#13 Nicholas Jenkins

Nicholas Jenkins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Student
  • Missoula, MT

Posted 27 September 2008 - 11:50 PM

There is something to be said, especially at this stage, of "Future Proofing". I know that something will come along in ten years (or so) superior to HD, but the projects I'm working on now (for Ad Agencies) are REQUIRED that I shoot in HD even for web content because eventually they'll need to upgrade things here or there.
  • 0

#14 Steven Adams

Steven Adams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Student

Posted 17 January 2009 - 02:26 PM

Around here, broadcast is SD, TVs are SD, DVD players are SD. One could buy an LCD TV capable of HD but there's no HD video available at video rental shops. Aside from being prepared for the future of video, what advantage does an HDV camera has over an SD camera? If my videos are going to be viewed on SD players, is there still a reason for me to upgrade to HD? God bless.




Love your 8mm stills! I'm starting Academy of art U in San Francisco in June. S8mm part of my program. Thanks for sharing!!!
  • 0

#15 Albert Wood

Albert Wood
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 January 2009 - 03:07 PM

Hello All, Similar problems over here in 'Blighty' (England). "Not necessarily, and especially not on a web video that one needs to compress substantially to make viable for download" actually means you need to record in the best resolution you possibly can so that compression does least damage.
However I think the problem is really the same as when I was using 'professional' SVHS cameras & capturing via a superb analogue/digital converter. The finished product was indistinguishable from a digitally recorded product. But when a client asked "are you using digital cameras?" & you answered no, they did not listen any further & someone else got the job. Despite that problem I am not dashing out to get an HD camera & definitely not an HDV camera. Once the HD/HDV confusion clears & HD cameras are at a price I may be able to afford then it may be worth the change. I agree there are too many people that use the line "I must be good, look at the camera I am using". When I was shooting on SVHS cameras I thought of putting a label on the cameras saying the same line. Only I was meaning for it to be humorous by the inverted reference to the camera. My wife talked me out of the labelling!
As a side note I think your new president is going to be good for us all.
Best wishes, Albert.
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Opal