Let's Talk REAL HD (HIGH DEF)

[vidvicious]

Hey all,

I'm researching HD broadcast presently for an article I'm writing on the State of HD, for a Videography magazine for which I'm a usual contributor ...

I figured I'd bring my research here for those of you interested in this change that will be happening over the next couple of years.

in the US the FCC has put a deadline for HD convergence for 2009 .. Canada is closely following 2 years later in 2011. By these dates most analog (only small and very local short wave stations will remain) stations will be a thing of the past ...

presently, and mostly due to how the convergence from analog to SD over the last ten years, it's very hard to track the size of the HD market. But according to the lastest figures form US based Consumer Electronics Association who's been tracking DTV and HDTV sales since the 1990s and other sources in Canada, it is estimated that about a quater of people that buy HD ready Televisions are actually subscribed to an HDTV signal/set-top box.
In Canada ( Since I'm Canandian, these are the sources I watch regularly) the estimates are as follows: approx. 3 -3.5 Million HD-ready monitors are in Canadian homes, it is estimated that approx. 700,000 - 750,000 Households have actually enabled they're monitors with HD set-top boxes. They expect that number to reach 1 million by years end. In Fact, 15 % of poeple that buy HD ready sets, think they are watching HDTV by virtue of buying an HDTV ready TV.

Lastly an Important piece of imformation to keep handy, is that HD channels take apporx 6 times more bandwidth then SD channels .. and as things are presently our Cable and satelite providers can not handle this load.

So with this said, you can be sure that Broadcasters will no longer accept SD programing by the end of the year 2008. In canada by mid 2010. Also most Broadcasters are Boycotting any HDV content. That's right, HDV is not HD and most are refusing to broadcast HDV for HD.



So, What does this mean for us ?

I have Experience shooting HD and converting it to HDV or SD .. however it's become apperent to me that the Compression Ratio is too grand and the final product is actually Suffering from it (darker images, Less saturation and a fucked up frame rate) ... Should we be gearing up for HD. It would be more fisable to shoot SD 16:9 (anamorphic) rather then HDV and Up convert the signal to HD for Broadcast. Or plainly shoot in HD Downcover your edits to SD for Web ... with another edit in HD for broadcast. Should this even be one of our conserns? I say yes.. mostly for the simple and often over looked "Maximise your Content" aspect of bussiness.
As it turns out, by the next decade people will not be able able to watch tv without paying for a premium HD package, period. In my opinion this will inicrease the amount of Webusers for VOD and PPM looking for quality content without paying outrages cable/satelite fees.

We should ready ourselves for a new workflow where you double up your efforts to put out an SD compression and a HD non compressed clip. One for web and the other for Broadcast .. since broadcasters will be scrabbling to find HD adult production.
Personally I've already been contacted by Some local Networks that are now looking at funding HD Adult production in anticipation of the BIG SWITCH in 2011 (for Canada)


What are your Opinions on this subject and where do you see HD going online ?

[sltr]

i'm not an expert but is not Real HD shot in HDVPRO or some other format that records in progressive scan- i.e. minimal compression and full data on each frame?

that way there is no real editing issues in your NLE.

not for sure though

[vidvicious]

HDVpro .. are you sure about that name ?

[Jim_Gunn]

Well I can say this. When I switched from filming adult movies and custom web content from SD to HDV- which is mostly what I use now- the amount of lights I needed to set up and the amount of storage space, editing,rendering & encoding time more than doubled. It also required a large investment in new computers, hard drives and software. And now most clients just expect at least HDV shot content, but aren't willing to pay that much extra for it, if anything at all because hdv became the new baseline for companies that want to market their footage as hi-def.

I can't imagine cranking out as many scenes as I do now for the same money if I have to start filming the same type of scenes that I do now in uncompressed HD and make another large investment in equipment and software and accessories.

So while I love to stay on top of technology, and think of this as an opportunity; I also look at it as a major pain in the ass because it will take that much more work and time to produce a scene or a movie for pretty much the same return.

[vidvicious]

You can have both Progressive and non Progressive when recording HDCAM or DVCPRO-HD .. the first is a sony product, whilst the second is a panasonic product ... let me dig out some info on HD recordinf formats that might help shed some light on the subject for ya

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

Well I can say this. When I switched from filming adult movies and custom web content from SD to HDV- which is mostly what I use now- the amount of lights I needed to set up and the amount of storage space, editing,rendering & encoding time more than doubled. It also required a large investment in new computers, hard drives and software. And now most clients just expect at least HDV shot content, but aren't willing to pay that much extra for it, if anything at all because hdv became the new baseline for companies that want to market their footage as hi-def.

I can't imagine cranking out as many scenes as I do now for the same money if I have to start filming the same type of scenes that I do now in uncompressed HD and make another large investment in equipment and software and accessories.

So while I love to stay on top of technology, and think of this as an opportunity; I also look at it as a major pain in the ass because it will take that much more work and time to produce a scene or a movie for pretty much the same return.

I agree .. for me the same thing happened .. Clients expected to pay the same as SD .. I tryed to conform to they're needs but in the end I came out losing and in some cases so did the client .. where we had to change the format to SD 16:9 ... and just keep larger files with less compressions .. in turn they're members did not see a difference ..

so this actually makes the statement of Real HD or HDV mute for web delivery

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by sltr

i'm not an expert but is not Real HD shot in HDVPRO or some other format that records in progressive scan- i.e. minimal compression and full data on each frame?

that way there is no real editing issues in your NLE.

not for sure though

Ok here you go .. maybe this will help ya understand HD formats better

HDCAM. The Sony HDCAM format supports 1080 resolutions at frame rates of 24p, 25p, 50i, and 60i. HDCAM stores the video at 1440 x 1080, which is a 33 percent reduction horizontally from 1920. It also uses a unique color sampling of 17:6:6, which means that HDCAM has only half the color detail of other HD formats. HDCAM is 4.4:1 compressed and is 8-bit, but supports 10-bit input and output.


D5-HD. The Panasonic D5-HD format uses the D5 tape shell. Unlike HDCAM, D5-HD can do 720/60p, 1080/24p, 1080/60i, and even 1080/30p. D5-HD compresses at 4:1 in 8-bit mode and 5:1 in 10-bit mode, and supports 8 channels of audio.


DVCPRO-HD. This Panasonic HD format, sometimes called D7-HD, is based on the same tape shell used for DVCAM and DVCPRO. D7-HD does 720/60p and 1080/60i, with 1080/24p in development. It uses 6.7:1 compression, and supports 10-bit input and output per channel. DVCPRO-HD supports 8 channels of audio.


HDV. This format is one of a number of emerging formats that are being used in lower-cost cameras. HDV was introduced with JVC's groundbreaking professional consumer (prosumer) HD camera, the JY-HD10, which records highly compressed MPEG-2 on a mini DV tape.
HDV is a MPEG-2 transport stream that includes a lot of error correction. Its video uses interframe-compressed MPEG-2, at 19 megabits per second (Mbps) for 720p and 25 Mbps for 1080i. Audio is encoded with 384 Kbps MPEG-1 Layer 2 stereo. The interframe encoding enables HDV to achieve good quality video at lower bit rates, which means much more content per tape, but it increases the difficultly of editing the content. The next article in this series will provide additional details about interframe encoding.

Get the general Idea ? There is a difference even when using the same format form different manifactures .. which in the end doesn t help anyone .. but thats how manifactures think .. the more formats they can throw at you the higher they're overall sales will be .. it's the same as putting out a camera with all the same cababilities as it's bigger brothers but just not making those functions available till the second and thrid generation of those cameras come out

[sltr]

Originally Posted by vidvicious

You can have both Progressive and non Progressive when recording HDCAM or DVCPRO-HD .. the first is a sony product, whilst the second is a panasonic product ... let me dig out some info on HD recordinf formats that might help shed some light on the subject for ya

yes, yes, DVCPRO-HD is the format i was thinking of and the other, HDCAM, too.

i think sony is coming out with it's proprietary codec- Xcam or something not sure-

but all record in progressive, which i thought was part of the HD protocol established.

[tony286]

I read yesterday where the big money is now for shooters is hd stock footage.There is a big shortage, it might motivate me to buy the hvx200.I would still continue to shoot my web stuff with dvx100a, sd is more flattering than hd and it works for us.

[sinclair]

Great thread and as much as I appreciate the knowledge, I do have a hard time believing that many in this industry will care. With the exception of some of the higher end productions houses who have the budgets to shoot in HD, I think most will choose HDV.

Shot is HD is the tag line they are after. Not shot is REAL HD. Until my clients decide paying for true HD is worth it for them I will continue to shoot in HDV for adult and HD for mainstream.

Sinclair

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by tony404

I read yesterday where the big money is now for shooters is hd stock footage.There is a big shortage, it might motivate me to buy the hvx200.I would still continue to shoot my web stuff with dvx100a, sd is more flattering than hd and it works for us.

Defentitly .. The DVX100 has an awesome color redintion .. however if you buy the HVX200 you'll find that it's CCDs for SD are the same as the 100 .. so If i was you plan on selling your 100 once you get the 200 ...

As a matter of fact I'm working on a quote for a Web and Digital broadcaster that needs to movve to HD. And I'm finding that the most cost effective Package would be the HVX200 . it will allow of a comfortable growth to HD.. Ie: starting with SD for web, and having the same gear with additions (ie: P2 cards and FS100s) for broadcast ... however the only draw back is that it's in capable of doing a simultanious record on SD Tape. this would be the perfect siniario. Imagine having a SD back up on tape of an HD prod (on HDD) ... you could actually cut two pieces one for web (SD) the other for broadcast(hd) and Archiving. Allowing for full maximization of your content !!

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by sinclair

Great thread and as much as I appreciate the knowledge, I do have a hard time believing that many in this industry will care. With the exception of some of the higher end productions houses who have the budgets to shoot in HD, I think most will choose HDV.

Shot is HD is the tag line they are after. Not shot is REAL HD. Until my clients decide paying for true HD is worth it for them I will continue to shoot in HDV for adult and HD for mainstream.

Sinclair

Your right not many will find this thread informative or Important . but the fact of the matter is we are going thru a change in the comming years .. and only those that prepare for it now will reap the benifits.

Maximising your content is the wave of the future for online providers. The web is changing and it's users are changing too .. remember it's a different user that buys VODs or PPM on Broadcast TV then that who enjoys web viewing .. So why lose out on iether user ? The DVD Adult Industry is starting to realize this themselves and are just now maximising they're content for Web distribution .. just look at all the DVD web deals that have been going thru as of lately .. Gammacash with Famedollars (devil films), Smashbucks with Caballero Classics , Redlight District, Braincash with Elegant angel, Ghetto Fab and DVSX ...etc Just to mention a very Few.

Times are changing people .. and if the DVD industry can see .. then why aren't we doing the same ?

[sltr]

the hvx200 is an amazing cam

i love the cine gamma and 4:2:2 color space

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by sltr

yes, yes, DVCPRO-HD is the format i was thinking of and the other, HDCAM, too.

i think sony is coming out with it's proprietary codec- Xcam or something not sure-

but all record in progressive, which i thought was part of the HD protocol established.

XDCAM .. it's not HD it's a DVD record with very little Compression at 4;2:2 i think but am not sure what so ever. I've only shot a few contracts with XDCam .... and it's awesome product that is quickly taking over Digi Betcam, BetacamSP and DVCam. However not the right format type of camera or workflow that could be optimised for Web or adult.

Xdcam has been around fro several years . My first shoot on XDcam was 3 years ago at least.

[sltr]

sony XDCam is pure HD

http://thetechnofile.com/2007/09/07/sony-pdw-ex1/200/

[AllStar]

98% of companies that work in Adult do NOT need HD.

SD is great. USe the Panasonic and compress at the same ratio as you do the HD stuff and you will get a better looking product for the web.

I have said this for years.
The codecs for HD or HDV or HD Cam are not good enough yet to work for the internet.

[CE_Rashaan]

Originally Posted by AllStar

98% of companies that work in Adult do NOT need HD.

SD is great. USe the Panasonic and compress at the same ratio as you do the HD stuff and you will get a better looking product for the web.

I have said this for years.
The codecs for HD or HDV or HD Cam are not good enough yet to work for the internet.

Been shooting in HDV with the Sony Z1U since 2005 for ourselves and our exclusive clients. Im sure you have seen the stuff around

Is it REAL HD? NO....Does it pass for real HD on the web yes. I don't think you could even view REAL HD on the web? I am far from a expert, quite the novice actually.

The only options for TRUE HD is to shoot with a TRUE HD camera similar to what they use for broadcast on MNF, right? We also where checking out that RED camera around the begining of this year but haven't seen anything new on it yet.

Thought of renting a REAL HD camera from some studio rental companies for a feature.

[tASSy]

Originally Posted by AllStar

98% of companies that work in Adult do NOT need HD.

SD is great. USe the Panasonic and compress at the same ratio as you do the HD stuff and you will get a better looking product for the web.

I have said this for years.
The codecs for HD or HDV or HD Cam are not good enough yet to work for the internet.

most of the fantasy i want in porn i don't want to see in hi-def. it makes it less of a fantasy.

[tony286]

Good point about the hvx200, I will them sell the dvx100a before it becomes worthless.
What sucks about freelance in adult compared to mainstream. My friend who shoots mainstream(corp,news, reality) is shooting for one of those turn around a house and sell it shows. He needed a small hd cam for a bunch of the days, he went out and bought that new smaller sony. Since in mainstream they pay per day for your equipment then your fee. The shoot will pay off a third of the camera right off the bat. Where it seems in adult its the small old flat rate.

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by sltr

sony XDCam is pure HD

http://thetechnofile.com/2007/09/07/sony-pdw-ex1/200/

Correction I did not know they came out with the PDW EX1 in HD.. Don't know much about this cam .. thanks for the heads up ..

HOWEVER .. I still stand un corrected since Broadcast XDCAM is an sd camera and ones I have experience with


more info can be found here
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan..._cameras.shtml

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by tony404

Good point about the hvx200, I will them sell the dvx100a before it becomes worthless.
What sucks about freelance in adult compared to mainstream. My friend who shoots mainstream(corp,news, reality) is shooting for one of those turn around a house and sell it shows. He needed a small hd cam for a bunch of the days, he went out and bought that new smaller sony. Since in mainstream they pay per day for your equipment then your fee. The shoot will pay off a third of the camera right off the bat. Where it seems in adult its the small old flat rate.

True tony .. My Betacam SP day rate was 850 - 1200 a day including gear .. Based on a 8 hour day.

I end up getting much less in adult.
Mind you the gear cost is way lower too ...

[sltr]

yup, didn't mean to sqaure off or anything, lol, thanks for tht link.

maybe you can help with a question-

i know there is no right answer per se, but which camera would record a better image-

a cam with 1/2" CCDs recording at 25MBs in a 4:2:0 color space or a cam with 1/3" CCDs recording at 100Mbs in 4:2:2

everything else being equal

Originally Posted by vidvicious

Correction I did not know they came out with the PDW EX1 in HD.. Don't know much about this cam .. thanks for the heads up ..

HOWEVER .. I still stand un corrected since Broadcast XDCAM is an sd camera and ones I have experience with


more info can be found here
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan..._cameras.shtml

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by sltr

yup, didn't mean to sqaure off or anything, lol, thanks for tht link.

maybe you can help with a question-

i know there is no right answer per se, but which camera would record a better image-

a cam with 1/2" CCDs recording at 25MBs in a 4:2:0 color space or a cam with 1/3" CCDs recording at 100Mbs in 4:2:2
everything else being equal

without even thinking twice

1/3" CCDs recording at 100Mbs in 4:2:2 which is Panasonic's DVCpro 700 and 900 series

Now the type of ccd will also have an impact, Mind you there is only HAD CCDs in 1/2" though I don't think they are made anymore ... The last half inch CCD camera I know of was the BVW 100 (mind you there could be others, I just don't know them) Today you'll find two major CCDs in use .. CMOS and HAD ... you'll find HAD on broadcast cameras, SD or HD ... CMOS are much cheaper to produce and ate the CCDs you'll find in HDV cameras, Even the less expensive Canon 300D (Rebel) or Nikon D40 (digital photo SLRs). CMOS are also used for lots of Point and shoot cameras. I can't rrealy get into the techonlogy of it. Let's just say they are less expensive to produce (this doesn't mean a lesser image) .. Hense why your able to get 3 hd cameras at under 1500$ or D-SLRs under 1000$, For the d-slrs other things come into play to reduce the cost. Such as Body sturture and material and the type of prism used.

Please explain what 4:2:0 color space is .. I've never heard that term before
As far as I know a ratio is used to explain Compression (detailing) not color

[vidvicious]

corection : Hense why your able to get 3 hd cameras at under 1500$ or D-SLRs under 1000$

Should read: Hense why your able to get 3 CCD HDV cameras at under 1500$ or D-SLRs under 1000$

[tony286]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling

[vidvicious]

a quick explaination of 4:2:2 or 4:1:1 more commonly seen in Digital Cameras In the mid to high end range

4:2:2
The two chroma components are sampled at half the sample rate of luma, so horizontal chroma resolution is cut in half. This reduces the bandwidth of a video signal by one-third with little to no visual difference.

Many high-end digital video formats and interfaces use this scheme:

DVCPRO50 (50 mhz) and DVCPRO HD
Digital Betacam
HDcam
XDcam

4:1:1 is used for minidv, DVcam and DVCpro (25 mhz) A single sampling of Lumance and Chromance ... in lamen terms .. less Detail then 4:2:2 you can put more information in less bandwidth

[FrancaMsM]

Awesome thread Vid !!!

if HD or HDV is the new formats for video, higher quality i guess.

What woul dbe the equivalant for photography? if there is one

[sltr]

Originally Posted by vidvicious

without even thinking twice

1/3" CCDs recording at 100Mbs in 4:2:2 which is Panasonic's DVCpro 700 and 900 series

Now the type of ccd will also have an impact, Mind you there is only HAD CCDs in 1/2" though I don't think they are made anymore ... The last half inch CCD camera I know of was the BVW 100 (mind you there could be others, I just don't know them) Today you'll find two major CCDs in use .. CMOS and HAD ... you'll find HAD on broadcast cameras, SD or HD ... CMOS are much cheaper to produce and ate the CCDs you'll find in HDV cameras, Even the less expensive Canon 300D (Rebel) or Nikon D40 (digital photo SLRs). CMOS are also used for lots of Point and shoot cameras. I can't rrealy get into the techonlogy of it. Let's just say they are less expensive to produce (this doesn't mean a lesser image) .. Hense why your able to get 3 hd cameras at under 1500$ or D-SLRs under 1000$, For the d-slrs other things come into play to reduce the cost. Such as Body sturture and material and the type of prism used.

Please explain what 4:2:0 color space is .. I've never heard that term before
As far as I know a ratio is used to explain Compression (detailing) not color

good info, thanks vid!

when doing my research on my cam purchase i thought i had come across someone saying the new sony cam recorded in 4:2:0.

i must be off though.

so many technical components to consider when making the decision to go HD, it's hard to keep it all straight. lol.

[sltr]

Vid-

here's the quote on that colorspace, thoughts?

Recording Algorithms & Bit Rates

The PDW-EX1 supports the two main data rates found in Sony?s other, more expensive, XDCAMs. ?HQ?, which most people will choose, records 1920 x 1080 (and 1270 x 1080) at a data rate of 35MB/s VBR, while ?SP? records 1440 x 1080 at a data rate of 25MB/s CBR, both use 4:2:0 sampling and MPEG 2 Long GOP compression. The lower 18 MB/s data rate found in the PDW F-350 & PDW-F330 is not supported. Neither, unfortunately is Sony?s new 50MB/s 4:2:2 algorithm

[pigbait75]

I agree with tassy hd is not a good medium for adult it really does ruin it when you can see every stretchmark and tear on some tore up ass with zits, and stuff you wouldnt really notice otherwise unless your shooting true virgins only then stick with a normal camera and in some cases just leave the lens on cause the girls are just nasty looking and dont need to be seen.

[DaddyHalbucks]

HD is a major pain in the ass from the content production side --but the surfers seem to enjoy it.

[AllStar]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

HD is a major pain in the ass from the content production side --but the surfers seem to enjoy it.

HMMM... sufers like the wide format not the HD.

Thats why films are shot in wide format. It has to on how our perception of sight is. Anyway shoot in SD in wide format, for the internet it is the same quality and way easier to handle.

[JP-pornshooter]

a better picture is a better picture is a better picture...but how about the average porn consumer, do they have the equipment to watch HD? what is the resolution on a standard pc set monitor? i recall something about photos need not be more than 70 ppi for photos as that is the max detail most pc systems display on the monitor, how does that correlate with video?
Its a given for TV broadcast and HD DVD there is a big difference..

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by AllStar

HMMM... sufers like the wide format not the HD.

Thats why films are shot in wide format. It has to on how our perception of sight is. Anyway shoot in SD in wide format, for the internet it is the same quality and way easier to handle.

100 % true ..Your better off shooting SD 16:9 then HD. (for web) However the hole point of this thread is to illustrate that in just a few years, your SD content will be worthless in the eyes of broadcasters .. so it broadcast is one of you r options for distribution or extra income form your content .. HD is the way to go.

Being in Canada I don't have as many options to maximise my content . so for me Broadcast is part of my final product ...

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

a better picture is a better picture is a better picture...but how about the average porn consumer, do they have the equipment to watch HD? what is the resolution on a standard pc set monitor? i recall something about photos need not be more than 70 ppi for photos as that is the max detail most pc systems display on the monitor, how does that correlate with video?
Its a given for TV broadcast and HD DVD there is a big difference..

apsolutely 72 dpi is the max you can see.. how ever a 180 or 300 Dpi pic viewed on a PC monitor will seem to be sharper and have more detail . the same is to be said of video .. though your monitor and "internet" can't transmit true HD .. you will have an image that seems sharper and with more detail .. and if it's shot in HD .. you will see that little piece of string hangin off her pussy .. these are some of the downfalls of HD too much detail .. again the major point of this thread is not the quality but the maximazation of your content thru broadcast .. in a few years broadcasters will refuse any content that is not HD

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by vidvicious

100 % true ..Your better off shooting SD 16:9 then HD. (for web) However the hole point of this thread is to illustrate that in just a few years, your SD content will be worthless in the eyes of broadcasters .. so it broadcast is one of you r options for distribution or extra income form your content .. HD is the way to go.

Being in Canada I don't have as many options to maximise my content . so for me Broadcast is part of my final product ...

Vid, for what it is worth, many of the producers here can't or don't license their content to the broadcast market, and although you have a good point about the medium-term future of tv broadcast, it's a mostly a moot point to many.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree however, about 16x9 SD being any kind of better option for web content unless you are just talking about the producer's convenience factor. If one actually takes the time to skillfully light the set of either an hdv or HD shoot really well, the apparent detail that remains in the finished encoded files (like a high bitrate wmv or qt file) is much nicer than SD. Details like the texture of the models hair and eyes really "pop" and if you have some depth in the shot between the foreground and background there is much more of a 3D effect to the image even when viewed on a standard CRT or LCD monitor like most surfers use.

[Eman - PG]

For those who were around in 2000-2001 when adult videos started to become popular on TGPs/MGPs/Forums, you'll recall they were mostly 320x240. Even the video focused programs back then were downscaling their PAL/NTSC from 720x576/720x480 captures. Hell there were even 160x120 videos Back then nobody would even concieve to have 720x480 MPEGs.

Flash forward to today, where to be taken seriously by surfers you must have at least full NTSC/DVD resolution downloadable (see Bangbros, Nastydollars, Deluxepass, Videosz, Videobox etc...) in your members area.

For those saying that Full HD is only for broadcast, bookmark this thread and check back in 1-2 years. History does not repeat itselfs, but it replays fairly close.

[sltr]

Originally Posted by Eman - PG

Flash forward to today, where to be taken seriously by surfers you must have at least full NTSC/DVD resolution downloadable (see Bangbros, Nastydollars, Deluxepass, Videosz, Videobox etc...) in your members area.

those companies do not have DVD full rez video for download, moreover, MANY hugely successful operations don't offer/say their vid is full DVD rez.


just because they say it is does not make it so.

[Eman - PG]

Originally Posted by sltr

those companies do not have DVD full rez video for download, moreover, MANY hugely successful operations don't offer/say their vid is full DVD rez.


just because they say it is does not make it so.

Let me rephrase my post: close to DVD resolution (not bitrate). 640x480. Same number of lines. Less bitrate. Point is, surfers want more quality, higher resolutions, better looking video.

[sltr]

Originally Posted by Eman - PG

Let me rephrase my post: close to DVD resolution (not bitrate). 640x480. Same number of lines. Less bitrate. Point is, surfers want more quality, higher resolutions, better looking video.

i see what you are saying now

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

Vid, for what it is worth, many of the producers here can't or don't license their content to the broadcast market, and although you have a good point about the medium-term future of tv broadcast, it's a mostly a moot point to many.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree however, about 16x9 SD being any kind of better option for web content unless you are just talking about the producer's convenience factor. If one actually takes the time to skillfully light the set of either an hdv or HD shoot really well, the apparent detail that remains in the finished encoded files (like a high bitrate wmv or qt file) is much nicer than SD. Details like the texture of the models hair and eyes really "pop" and if you have some depth in the shot between the foreground and background there is much more of a 3D effect to the image even when viewed on a standard CRT or LCD monitor like most surfers use.

Right Jim .. Muy argument isn't about the quality byt more about the final product .. I ve seen too many programs have horrible Bite rates for HD content ... Hense why my suggestion to go SD 16:9 .. . i remember a conversation early on with a progam owner, when they're first HD clip was ready and they needed to buy the codec to just to watch the clip I cut ... The codec was 300$ .. this was outragious to them and quickly changed they're mind about going HD .. of course today you no longer need special codecs to cut or view HD work.

[GUNNER]

HD is here to stay - embrace it. It's not a buzz word or a gimmick and ignoring it will only cause undue headaches in trying to play catch-up with technology in the very near future. Owners must realize the added expense incurred by producers in creating and distributing the content, and I think this is where Vid's concern lies.

He wants to get in bed with HD, but it's difficult when clients want the increased quality without paying more. You don't get to drive a Ferrari for the price of a Hyundai.

[GUNNER]

[Why]

damn vid, your one of the few people in this biz that actually understands HD and shit.

i really don't understand why they are forcing it on the public, some internet routes are already very loaded, to add that much more bandwidth is going to be a huge problem IMHO.

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by GUNNER

HD is here to stay - embrace it. It's not a buzz word or a gimmick and ignoring it will only cause undue headaches in trying to play catch-up with technology in the very near future. Owners must realize the added expense incurred by producers in creating and distributing the content, and I think this is where Vid's concern lies.

He wants to get in bed with HD, but it's difficult when clients want the increased quality without paying more. You don't get to drive a Ferrari for the price of a Hyundai.

RIGHT ON Gunner .. THanks !!!!

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by Why

damn vid, your one of the few people in this biz that actually understands HD and shit.

i really don't understand why they are forcing it on the public, some internet routes are already very loaded, to add that much more bandwidth is going to be a huge problem IMHO.

So very true ! . most people thing of HD as a new technology ...it's not .. I was learning HD when I was in Broadcast school back in 89-90 ... at that time the only HD in use was for Baseball in Japan. a few years later around 91, the skydome got delivery of the first HD Close curcuit television in Canada .. I think it was some where around 96 or 97 when SOny Canada transmitted the first HD signal form Ottawa to Toronto .. it's was just digital bit stream at the time and the BVW 700 had just come out, quickly followed by the BVW900 24p the first hd camera to take Prime lenses and the camera that was used for the last three Star Wars movies...

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by FrancaMsM

Awesome thread Vid !!!

if HD or HDV is the new formats for video, higher quality i guess.

What woul dbe the equivalant for photography? if there is one

Just as in video, you would use a D-slr with a higher Mega Pixel rating.. For example the nikon's D200 or D80 .. with a Optical stabilizer lens .. this will give more defention to the image and in turn give a feeling of High def. Even those webusers only see a 72 dpi image. the compressed image will have more info in it because the original image was in 10 or higher Mega pixels

compare an Image from a D100 to that of a D200 with a better lens and you
ll see exactly what I mean

[Elli]

I just learned a whole bunch from this thread! Thanks Vid and everyone!

[vidvicious]

Originally Posted by Elli

I just learned a whole bunch from this thread! Thanks Vid and everyone!

glad to have been helpful Eli

[DWB]

When broadcast starts accepting TS movies, I will start shooting in HD. There is ONE outlet as of now, but until there are more, not worth it for me. :-(