Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn (Post 13084780)

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.

Originally Posted by GUNNER (Post 13086706)

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.

Originally Posted by Why (Post 13086863)

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.

Originally Posted by FrancaMsM (Post 13081314)

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

Originally Posted by Elli (Post 13122960)

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

Originally Posted by Star 69 (Post 13147910)

Are you talking about those type of cameras?
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...ics/HDCAM1.jpg
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...ics/HDCAM2.jpg

Originally Posted by vidvicious (Post 13151437)

next time read the thread too

Originally Posted by vidvicious (Post 13151437)

Umm not exactly .. I mean yes those are HDCams ..look like 900's how ever those cameras run roughly about 80 000 to 120 000 depending on where in the world you are. Not exactly your average Porn use camera.

but your on the right track ... keep on it :thumbsup



next time read the thread too

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 13333093)

I can definitely say that working with HD is a pain in the ass. I'm a 3D animator, and just as computers have become fast enough to rip through 720 by 480, now HD comes along.

When I get an HD job, I can't really chrage that much more, but the rendering time is tripled, or quadrupled in some cases....file sizes are way bigger. Now the computer is back to 1999 standards. Unless the CPUs make a HUGE jump in the next couple of years, HD can kiss my black ass.