Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
My point is...it doesn't really matter what you use to shoot with or what resolution you shoot at. In the end you are going to compress it. My raw .avi footage runs 8 to 10 gigs for a 20 minute scene. Obviously if I were shooting HD it would be a lot bigger than that. But just at my "normal" resolution nobody could have thousands of 10 gig scenes on their website. And your members wouldn't be able to watch them anyway because it would take forever to download. So I would have to say that all the "true" HD site claims on here are bogus. What you have are scenes that are perhaps shot in HD. But then they end up as a .wmv or a compressed .avi or some other compressed web media. The very second that is done...it's no longer High Definition. It's a compressed 16:9 web media scene. Am I off track there? How can anything be "High Definition" (in the true sense) if it has even the slightest compression. Even that big picture up there that Eman-PG posted to "prove" that he has "true HD" is just a compressed jpeg. I don't even put up an uncompressed picture, much less a video. Hell, my uncompressed images from my Cannon EOS 5 D are damn near as big a file size as the typical 20 minute .wmv!
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there is no true HD on the internet. Maybe on tape. But not on your website.
|
The distinction that you are making is irrelevant for the end user. Obviously, for web distribution one has to compress the video files to something manageable like a WMV or Quicktime file. BUT, if you film it with a HDV or HD camera in 16 x 9 and light it very well (most importantly), the perceived quality is very much higher than a 4x3 standard WMV or Qucktime video file that was shot with a standard DV camera.
That's why it makes sense for sites to advertise as shot on HD or HD quality or however the sites are wording it on their tour. Because the encoded video files that the end users will be watching are normally much higher quality than a standard def video if they were shot correctly.