High Definition for youtube uploads
Posted 14 September 2010 - 05:41 PM
Is every hi-definition camera pretty much the same?
As in, are those kodak handheld camcorders able to shoot well enough to get to hi defintion on say a youtube series?
Is high definition the same, is my question?
I see a few for $200, and I wonder if its just all the bells and whistle extras that make a $3000 zooming camera much better performer than that $200 hi definition Kodak. Can someone shed some light on this for us.
And, possibly recommend a inexpensive camera to us.
We will shoot all genres, first will not have too much action as its a teen comedy.
Down the road we have a college boxing short, and a hitman video game sketch we want to post on youtube.
So if you could keep in mind those future projects in your recommendation, it would be very much appreciated.
Thank you for any responses
Posted 14 September 2010 - 08:35 PM
Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:12 PM
Any camera, it seems, qualifies as "HD" if it's final image is 1920x1080, or 12(something)x720, but the differece is how those cameras get there--- in terms of sensors, compression etc... Hence there is a huge difference, often, even between cameras which record the same way; say HDV. That being said, many cameras can producer adequate results, but you'll need to get with someone whose a bit camera saavy and research what'll work for you guys.
Thanks for that. Gave me a few things to consider.
Best being, will produce the same results but how they get there, and frankly, Im just focused on getting there in the most inexpensive way.
If they all will output to the same thing, with some being alittle more cumbersome with say requiring a software app or two, to get to their final destination, so be it.
Right not budget is our main priority.
so is it safe to say, that those $150 kodaks that output to hi def...would be adequate enough once we find out how to properly output it to hi def?
Posted 15 September 2010 - 08:15 AM
Posted 31 October 2010 - 09:54 PM
A signal is made up of many frequencys, from low (blurry signals) to high (sharp) frequencys. Compression algorithms involve storing the low frequency information (blurry signals) using less bandwidth than the sharp signals, because there is less information in the blurry signals that there is in the sharp signals.
Uncompressed signals use the same bandwidth for all frequencys which is simply a waste of bandwidth. Interestingly the sharpest possible signal, across the entire frame, is pure noise (across the entire frame). In other words a signal devoid of any signifcance (notwithstanding the shot of TV snow in Tobe Hooper's 1982 Poltergeist).
By comparison we can imagine an interesting shot, such as a single blade of grass moving back and forth against a featureless, and out of focus, sky. And yet despit this signal having far less "information" than pure noise, can easily have far more significance.
In other words there is no correlation between the ammount of information in a shot and the significance of a shot.
Posted 04 November 2010 - 05:05 PM
Becoming a good videographer involves experimenting with many different cameras and going through years of experimentation and making mistakes. It also involves a great deal of education, whether one is taught or self-taught. If you tried to just pick up a cheap HD "palmcorder" and do it yourself, I can guarantee the results will be terrible. This is not to discourage you, but the great pieces you see on YouTube of Vimeo were done by professionals who know their craft and have years of experience.
You say writing is your craft. If you are any good at it, you will find the right technical people to make your words into images. I suggest aligning yourself with local filmmakers. Somewhere down the road you will find the right people to hook up with. But just being honest, if you go forward with what you are planning right now, you will fall flat on your face, realizing just how little you know about video and cameras.
But to answer your question, there is a WORLD of difference between a $200 camera and a $3,000 camera. And even further, there is a WORLD of difference between a $3,000 camera and a $15,000 camera. A $200 camera is what I would give a 10-year-old to screw around with in the back yard. They are garbage. There really is no point going dissecting HD technology because (again, no offense) the technical stuff would most likely sail right over your head.
Keep writing. The film industry needs more exceptional writers, not wannabe cinematographers or directors. Good luck either way.