HD Video - Is It All It's Cracked Up To Be?

[DeanCapture]

Some of the clients are asking about HD video so it looks like I'm going to have to start doing the research...and buy an HD video camera. Who is shooting HD these days? Is it all it's cracked up to be? What cameras are you using???

[Vegas Ken]

This should be an informative thread.
Can't wait to see everyones thoughts and opinions.

[DeanCapture]

Originally Posted by Vegas Ken

This should be an informative thread.
Can't wait to see everyones thoughts and opinions.

I agree Ken....

I'm really looking for two things here. Either a nice debate on why HD is over rated and why I should try to talk my clients out of using it "or".... why HD video is the bomb and some recommendations on an HD camera

[just a punk]

I thought all studios do that already. It's 21th century outdoors!

[jonesy]

Sony FX1 - wont break your bank and does the job

[MikeVega]

I don't shoot but I've spoken to a few people that do and I feel after talking with them, it's better to shoot in HD. Even if your not going to render it in HD now you may want to in the future as more and more people have the ability to watch HD on their PC's. You may also want to use it on HD DVD at some point. It will give more shelf life to the content.

That's just the way I see it and it will be interesting to see what others think.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by MikeVega

I don't shoot but I've spoken to a few people that do and I feel after talking with them, it's better to shoot in HD. Even if your not going to render it in HD now you may want to in the future as more and more people have the ability to watch HD on their PC's. You may also want to use it on HD DVD at some point. It will give more shelf life to the content.

That's just the way I see it and it will be interesting to see what others think.

+1 for that opinion!

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by jonesy

Sony FX1 - wont break your bank and does the job

thanks I am going to look into that.

[tony286]

There was a article I had posted here from a mainstream publication, that hd is not catching on as expected no matter how hard they are trying to ram it down our throats. They stated that with youtube being so popular and the video quality is shit.That content is more important than quality. If you are going to make the move go hd not hdv. Like the the panny hdx200, also red is coming out with a prosumer within the next yr that will blow everything else away.. I think the adult industry grabbed on to it because since most shoot the same old tired shit, it gives them something new to say. Look our content is crap but its crap in HD lol

[tony286]

Originally Posted by jonesy

Sony FX1 - wont break your bank and does the job

if your going to use hdv new cameras have come out that blow this one away and they look alot better.

[BobG]

Originally Posted by tony404

if your going to use hdv new cameras have come out that blow this one away and they look alot better.

Yep, and also be careful with the FX1, the on board mic pics up LOTS of body noise. Not sure if this is something that they have fixed or not.

[Star 69]

Dean get the Sony HDR FX-1. It's a great camera with really high quality lens. Or buy something like Canon XLH-1 - but it cost over $8k.

[Allhdreview - Jasin]

I've noticed a lot of sites that claim and advertise that they do High Definition, but in actuality they do not have any highdef vids available in their members area.

So, there are still people confused about HD, and sadly some of them are High-Def paysite owners. :/

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Star 69

Dean get the Sony HDR FX-1. It's a great camera with really high quality lens. Or buy something like Canon XLH-1 - but it cost over $8k.

thats not true its old one of the first and sony has better ones out there and hdv is a suckful format.Hd is much better and longer lasting.

[Masterchief]

www.red.com best camera hands down

[MarkTiarra]

From what I can see monitoring stats over sites with and without, it's just something that helps sales. What you get online is rarely true HD anyway (people take it and compress it down and don't use the full size) but it still often looks nicer than the stuff shot standard. If you keep the original DV you can always post up the higher quality version of the file that is for real HD when that becomes a viable option too (kinda what Mike said about better shelf life).

At the end of the day if it helps sales it's the way to go and every indication I have is that it does. Forget the arguments about whether it's worth it or not. Webmasters know far more about the minutia than their surfers do and they can think themselves out of a profitable choice because of it sometimes.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Masterchief

www.red.com best camera hands down

The only hd footage I ever saw that blew me away.they are going to be coming out with a fixed lens prosumer cam between 5-7 grand that will blow all others away I hear,unfortunately it will be a year away.

[Jim_Gunn]

Dean, it's senseless to film anything in standard definition anymore. Every company I produce content for- both online and for offline wants hi-definition. It's mostly for marketing purposes, since they can all advertise "High Definition" on their tours for example. And don't forget, surfers will start to expect hi-def more and more, even if they only know by the wide screen aspect ratio.

Going forward, you or your clients will be able to repurpose those videos for HD-DVD, Blue-Ray or tv broadcast which you won't easily be able to do with SD footage.

The most economical way to get into hi-def is with an hdv camera like the the Sony FX-1. There are many easy desktop editing solutions for HDV. And a fast computer like the Core 2 Duo series will at let be able to encode the finished video files at a reasonable pace, although still much, much slower than than standard def.

True HD cameras that record to P2 cards or hard drives are starting to become much more affordable, but it takes a LOT more computer processing power and hard drives like Raid setups to edit and render these files. There is a very small difference in the attributes of HD vs hdv, such as the 4:2:2 colorspace but its hardly worth it for the extra expense and trouble just to film porn, especially for the web since the end product is extremely compressed anyway. So unless you are producing something that is really high end or you have a lot of money and time to spend on mastering the technology ,an hdv is probably the way to go, like the Sony or newer Panasonic cameras.

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by BobG

Yep, and also be careful with the FX1, the on board mic pics up LOTS of body noise. Not sure if this is something that they have fixed or not.

Yes, unlike the standard def Sony VX2100 that preceded this, The FX-1 built in mic really sucks. You have to use an external mic of some kind.

[SinisterStudios]

The question i have asked ever since the HD debate started, do people really want to see porn in hd. Although everyone keeps saying everyone is shooting in HD, i just cant see it being a huge thing in the porn biz. For high budget productions i can see it, but for gonzo i just cant see it.

[vidvicious]

Let's put it in lamen photography terms .. Dvd = a 170$ 70- 300 lense
HD = 1500$ 70 - 300 Lense .... Color is enhance, detail, definition, resolution ... the list goes on and on ...

The first question you need to ask yourself is ... What's my final product and budget. Approach this the way you approach photography and you'll be on the right track.

I started shooting HD back in 98, when sony introduced the 700 (tv lens) quickly followed by the 900 24p (star wars) ... Hd can be hell .. But it also can be a hell of fun and saticifing.

As usual Call on me any time Dean .. it's been awhile since we've chatted

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by MikeVega

I don't shoot but I've spoken to a few people that do and I feel after talking with them, it's better to shoot in HD. Even if your not going to render it in HD now you may want to in the future as more and more people have the ability to watch HD on their PC's. You may also want to use it on HD DVD at some point. It will give more shelf life to the content.

That's just the way I see it and it will be interesting to see what others think.

Originally Posted by MarkTiarra

From what I can see monitoring stats over sites with and without, it's just something that helps sales. What you get online is rarely true HD anyway (people take it and compress it down and don't use the full size) but it still often looks nicer than the stuff shot standard. If you keep the original DV you can always post up the higher quality version of the file that is for real HD when that becomes a viable option too (kinda what Mike said about better shelf life).

At the end of the day if it helps sales it's the way to go and every indication I have is that it does. Forget the arguments about whether it's worth it or not. Webmasters know far more about the minutia than their surfers do and they can think themselves out of a profitable choice because of it sometimes.

Originally Posted by jim_gunn

Dean, it's senseless to film anything in standard definition anymore. Every company I produce content for- both online and for offline wants hi-definition. It's mostly for marketing purposes, since they can all advertise "High Definition" on their tours for example. And don't forget, surfers will start to expect hi-def more and more, even if they only know by the wide screen aspect ratio.

Going forward, you or your clients will be able to repurpose those videos for HD-DVD, Blue-Ray or tv broadcast which you won't easily be able to do with SD footage.

The most economical way to get into hi-def is with an hdv camera like the the Sony FX-1. There are many easy desktop editing solutions for HDV. And a fast computer like the Core 2 Duo series will at let be able to encode the finished video files at a reasonable pace, although still much, much slower than than standard def.

True HD cameras that record to P2 cards or hard drives are starting to become much more affordable, but it takes a LOT more computer processing power and hard drives like Raid setups to edit and render these files. There is a very small difference in the attributes of HD vs hdv, such as the 4:2:2 colorspace but its hardly worth it for the extra expense and trouble just to film porn, especially for the web since the end product is extremely compressed anyway. So unless you are producing something that is really high end or you have a lot of money and time to spend on mastering the technology ,an hdv is probably the way to go, like the Sony or newer Panasonic cameras.

agreed - i think mike and i had this convo a yr ago

[tony286]

Originally Posted by SinisterStudios

The question i have asked ever since the HD debate started, do people really want to see porn in hd. Although everyone keeps saying everyone is shooting in HD, i just cant see it being a huge thing in the porn biz. For high budget productions i can see it, but for gonzo i just cant see it.

Most gonzo in hd just looks bigger nothing more. Sd is much more forgiving to the shooter who knows very little. We assume everyone is on the newest and best, most surfers are on old computers with shit monitors. Adult ran to Hd as a new thing, .My friend makes a over 6 figure living shooting betacam for mainstream tv.That should give you a idea.One more time if your looking to the future dont go with hdv, new formats that are coming out blow it away and I dont think its going to be around forever like hi-8.

[Steve Awesome]

The thing is, if you shoot using HD then you're making an investment in your future. High quality video will keep its luster far longer than video you may shoot with a lower resolution camera. Who knows what's coming a few years down the road? The format may change, but the high quality level is a keeper regardless of the media it's stored on.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Steve Awesome

The thing is, if you shoot using HD then you're making an investment in your future. High quality video will keep its luster far longer than video you may shoot with a lower resolution camera. Who knows what's coming a few years down the road? The format may change, but the high quality level is a keeper regardless of the media it's stored on.

With Hd I agree ,with HDV I dont agree. Also we all forget if the content is really really hot it doesnt matter if you shot it on VHS it will sell.

[MikeVega]

Originally Posted by jonesy

agreed - i think mike and i had this convo a yr ago

I believe we did ...

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by MikeVega

I believe we did ...

great minds think alike

[GatorB]

Oj joy! Ass pimples in HD! Some dude's ball hairs in HD! Ron Jeremy in HD! Thick yelllowish nasty cum from the brothas in HD! I wonder if you can see the herpes virus?

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

Yes, unlike the standard def Sony VX2100 that preceded this, The FX-1 built in mic really sucks. You have to use an external mic of some kind.

I've been using the Z1U it has the same issues even when I add a small parabolic mic, it still transfers sound .. and the Servo is quite loud.
My only option has been to fish pole the shot gun .. so far so good, it just require an extra hand.

[vidvicious]

here's a couple of threads on the subject .. lots of great information

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=683815

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=704036

Also dvinfo.net has a great HD and HDV information board with direct responces from the manafactures.

[Sebastian Sands]

Shoot with a Panasonic HVX-200, I can shoot in MANY different modes. We shoot from SD to HD for clients. However Shooting HD (not HDV) requiers a bit more then just a cheamp computer and Premier 6.5 you might want to get capture cards or a deck (to transfer to tape) in order to get everything where you want it to be. Then the next thing your client will do is downconvert it for the web because he doesn't like the big file sizes.

Shooting in HD is great and it looks awesome, get some good filters etc and the "pimpel problem shouldn't be as bad anymore either, The Panasonic HVX-200 let's me shoot straight on to a P2 card or an external HD called a FireStore. No more capturing, no more dropped frames and winning a lot of time. You will need a deck to make HD tape back ups tho. Or external HD's.

If you list it all out and you want to shoot real HD (not HDV) then it can be costly and most people here will say that it is over the top for porn.

Panny HVX-200 about $5k
Capture card about $2k
P2 cards, 8 gig $900.00 at the end of the month. (the 16 gig is coming)
FirStore external HD capture drive, close to $2k

And that's just the stuff you NEED, if you want to get some extra flashy stuff to make it all extra neat you will be out a lot more.

I personally love it all, then again I am a geek like that.

Sebs

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by MikeVega

I don't shoot but I've spoken to a few people that do and I feel after talking with them, it's better to shoot in HD. Even if your not going to render it in HD now you may want to in the future as more and more people have the ability to watch HD on their PC's. You may also want to use it on HD DVD at some point. It will give more shelf life to the content.

That's just the way I see it and it will be interesting to see what others think.

I concur.

I can also add that I have shot HD for some clients and the feedback I have received is that the members don't really give two shits about HD.

[D]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<error>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[mikesouth]

OK If you dont know how to shoot to begin with HD will just make your shit look shittier. If you dont know how to properly compose HD is going to make you even worse.

Nobody is delivering true DVD bit rates right now (besides me of course) so you think HD is going to make that shitty rendered 500 mbit/sec video look better...not

Now truth is you should be shooting HD because its going to have value over time that SD wont have, but if you cant shoot SD...if you dont know the rule of thirds or if you think POV is good composition...you may as well shoot SD because it makes you look a little less like an untalented hack.

and whoever recommended the FX1....is an idiot...only an idiot would buy that camera right now when Panasonic has a 3 CCD full HD HardDisk Camera for less than half the price.

If you dont know the difference between HDV and HD LEARN it before you buy...also know that editing either one is a whole new ballgame...you wont do it quickly

[nikooo]

HD...or High Definition......are great becouse of greater clarity in the picture.....

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by nikooo

HD...or High Definition......are great becouse of greater clarity in the picture.....

Thank you for your insightful observation.

[aico]

It's great for DVD production, worthless for the internet.

[JP-pornshooter]

i am gonna watch how the battle turns out before making the investment. but if a client is willing to up the pay, i will make the investment, but so far not the case, and they still buy the SD. btw, many are not even ready to deal with HD or HDV.

[shuki]

We have a panasonic HVX and it is amazing.

I will be looking into the www.red.com too

[King Adam]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

and whoever recommended the FX1....is an idiot...only an idiot would buy that camera right now when Panasonic has a 3 CCD full HD HardDisk Camera for less than half the price.

If you dont know the difference between HDV and HD LEARN it before you buy...also know that editing either one is a whole new ballgame...you wont do it quickly

Which Panasonic are you referring to?