This content has been marked as final. Show 37 replies
0 - 100.
Harm, the next question is this: do you expect that to change in the near future? Knowing your clients, what do you anticipate in the future?
What is near? 6 months? No change. People are reluctant to buy BR players as shown by the decreasing sales figures. They are on hold, so to speak. Sure they invest in HD TV's, but not in delivery systems. Maybe after Christmas things will improve, but IMHO not for the next 6 months.
Mine is the same. 0% HD and 100% SD. My jobs are primarily event work, with the occasional corporate job thrown in.
Given the government's changeover to full DTV next February, I expect things may start to swing towards HD delivery sometime next year. Though it could be several years before the stats swing completely.
Agree, Jim. Next year when HDTV is implemented perhaps we'll see more demand from corporate types, etc. My work is completely corporate/non-profit. HD has never come up in a conversation. In fact, sometimes when I gauge their preference for SD 16:9 over 4:3 I get dear-in-the-headlights.
My work is all corporate training. I work in 100% HDV for them, and they all have DVD players attached to big screen HDTVs in training rooms. All except one that has an HD projector.
Unusual? Sure. But I sold the idea of an HDTV and a DVD player to them over three years ago and I have kept their business. It helps that I am both the videographer/motion graphics guy, and the subject matter expert. (Telecommunications)
Steven, I potentially have a similar scenario. My corporate client has HDTV's but DVD players. They also plan to sent out a marketing DVD which will have to be SD. I wonder if they'd be willing to upgrade their set-top players.
With no one asking for HD, is it worth it to me to upgrade my editing workstation to HD. I have a panny HVX-200 which I bought so I can easily go SD and HD. But my system isn't HD ready...will require additional expenses. Of course, I'm familar (and agree) with the idea of building an HD library of footage now. But I have to weigh demand and expense.
Anyway, thx everyone for your responses. I'm interesting in hearing more.
If you don't need HD for your customers (but make sure to offer it so they don't look elsewhere) then stay away from HD. Unless you are getting a lot of shots you plan on using over and over again for years to come. Then capturing HD and editing SD might make sense.
I went HD for myself, the customers came later.
Steven is obviously pushing HD where he can and his customers (and Steve) reap the benefits. People buy what you sell them - make a compelling enough case and they will jump. Then comes the tipping point. There are plenty of compelling arguments in history why colour will never replace B&W and why movies are best without sound.
>With no one asking for HD, is it worth it to me to upgrade my editing workstation to HD.
You'll have to at some point. The trick is to work out all the kinks before clients start asking.
Jim, I agree. Just waiting on the right cost-effective moment.
>Just waiting on the right cost-effective moment
In agreement with all this...cost effectiveness is a biggie.
I've had customers ask about HD options. None of them, however, were interested in actually getting their projects done in HD, they just were sort of quizzing me I think.
I have some sub-contractors who are ready with their HD equipment whenever I need them, but for my in-house capabilities, I'm all SD. In that regard, I've a sort of built-in scalability by not depending upon myself for all my production needs. I just have to compensate my subs when/if I need that ability.
I really like the new HMC150 that's coming from Panasonic...it's got some things to consider, and the price should be very attractive. Plus, unlike the P2 option, SDHC cards are relatively cheap (not nearly as good as the P2 options, but like I said - CHEAP).
That camcorder isn't due 'til late this year, and I probably still won't pick one up until early-mid 2009 at the soonest.
Blu-Ray is sittin' and spinnin' right now. People have only one choice now that HD DVD is a goner, but that doesn't make them any more interested in spending a couple hundred bucks for the opportunity to replace their entire DVD collection. We'll have to wait a little while longer to see how this whole thing shakes down to the event/corporate production market.
My take is somewhat different.
I am gearing up at all levels for HD because to me its about the best image capture quality I can achieve. (ie.photography stage)
My basic mode now is 720p for 16:9 FHA (full height anamorphic broadcast). Previously these mid end TVCs that I produce were shot on SD (dv)or 16mm. High end TVCs I shoot 35mm but I do mix and match the footage at times.
For FX work (ie AEFX)I shoot Higher rez HD modes.
The output quality reflects the quality of the original source material.
BTW: My clients dont ask what we are shooting but I tell them sometimes.
Full Height Anamorphic. That sounds like a misnomer when applied to HD, as there are no HD anamorphic broadcast specs. It's either 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080, both of which use square pixels to fill the screen, rather than 'cheating' with a stretched PAR and lower resolution to get the job done.
Note - this not HD Broadcast in the true sense
Misnomer: Thats just the way it is with the Panasonic HVX202. (Native 16:9 chip)
DVCPro HD 720p is an oddball one but it works effectively as 1280 x720 and is true HD
Not sure I consider the PAR 1.333 has any inherent resolution issue or even "cheats" to get the job done.
The FHA thing is interesting in that we can and do deliver 16:9 FHA on a Digibeta or D1/D5 or mpeg files to broadcasters. The image is unsqueezed on broadcast. We shoot and post produce with a "protected SD" centre frame.
Our post house are well geared to delivering this from the material (sub masters) we supply.
This will all change over time as HD becomes the broadcast standard (if it ever does) but for now I shoot HD to retain highest image quality no matter how its viewed by mom and pop in the 'burbs.
For same reason, I shoot 35mm film as well knowing that it is not going to be seen projected by mom and pop either.
Here's my take. Disc based playback will always have its place, but downloading is the present and future. The incorporation of h.264 in Flash is a big deal, allowing anyone with a relatively fast connection to view decent HD quality at lower bit-rates. It will only get better.
Meanwhile, Blu-Ray will languish. BD player, ~$300. Recordable Blu-Ray disc, ~$10. The look on your client's face when you tell them how much it will cost to have their BD replicated, priceless. A crime story only Hollywood could love.
As the fence sitters nervously await, hoping their clients never broach the subject, ponder this. If they have to ask, it's already too late. I will have already sold them (insert sfx: Vincent Price evil laugh/reverb).
Seriously, sticking with SD is smart. Really.
>Not sure I consider the PAR 1.333 has any inherent resolution issue or even "cheats" to get the job done.
Sure it cheats. 960 at 1.3 PAR (used for DVCPro HD at 720p) is in fact lower resolution than the standard 1280 at 1.0 PAR. You get fewer pixels because they're wider than they should be to make the overall picture fit. You get cheated out of those extra pixels.
Granted, for SD media, the anamorphic thing was used to increase resolution, allowing full picture height on widescreen displays where the delivery format (DVD) only allowed a standard 4:3 picture resolution. But in the world of HD, where the screen is inherently widescreen and the pixels exist to cover it in full, anamorphic techniques only lower the overall resolution, cheating the viewer out of Full HD picture quality.
That is one advantage AVC-I and even AVCHD have. They both can record the full raster at 1.0 PAR.
Just an aside here. I've been really impressed with the Windows Media 720p 24p output. I have a 96-minute documentary that fits on a 4 gig flash drive. It looks a lot better than an NTSC DVD on a big screen.
Another aside: I prefer display on a big screen to display on a flash drive. BTW, what flash drive has a display?
I think he meant the media on the Flash looks better on a big screen that it would have if burned to DVD.
Another alternative for big screen HDTV viewing that looks a lot better than I ever expected is the inexpensive HDMI "upscaling" DVD players (e.g. Sony: $80.00 @ Costco).
Using well shot 1080x1920 acquired footage and good m2v compression software (Procoder 3 for me)- straight from the timeline, I'm getting DVDs that display almost like HD on these players, certainly in the ballpark with hardware encoded Hollywood movies, and certainly the absolutely best looking HDTV images I've ever been able to achieve from DVD.
I've read speculation that these inexpensive players are good enough that they may well postpone the "BluRay revolution" once discovered by the average consumer. They are surely cheap enough for any corporate budget.
Right, Robert. Some DVD players scale better than others, but there's no doubt that high quality HD compressed with great tools like Procoder produce the best SD. The fact is, most people (in my experience, mostly women for some reason) don't see enough improvement to warrant the expense of Blu-Ray, at least for now.
The ability to put up to an hour of HD on a $.35 DVD for Blu-Ray playback can be appealing if navigation is not required. I rarely produce anything over 20 min.
That's very clever. You encode as Blu-Ray, burn up to an hour of HD programming as "first play" on an SD DVD, and the BD player will play it as HD? I didn't know that. I don't mind forking out for a BD player and burner, but $10-$15 per blank disk was the deal breaker for me. This puts a different spin on the whole topic.
Thanks for the heads up!!
When I get a moment I will try to post some particulars, but in the meantime, search around for the exact procedure. I've not actually done it yet, but reportedly, it works. Basically encode your video (h.264 or mpeg-2?) and burn it to a DVD-ROM using Toast or similar.
Do you ever combine HD and SD footage in the same project, then encode as blu-ray, burn on DVD-ROM? Can you distinguish resolution in the SD and HD portions?
Haven't tried it, but it should be as obvious as the difference between an apple and a pineapple.
With Adobe Premier CS3, it is possible to import SD footage into an HD project and vice versa; although cannot capture HD into SD project or reverse. If I import the footage it is noticeably different and does not work well. The HDV footage is jerky in the SD project, and the SD footage has bad edge artifacts in the HD project. I like to shoot with 2 cameras. Am wondering if I can capture footage from an 30i HDV camcorder into an HD project with 60i HDV footage, burn it as an SD DVD and not see a difference in quality between frames shot at 30i and 60i. Thanks
>see a difference in quality between frames shot at 30i and 60i
30i and 60i are essentially the same thing. The first denotes frames (as it should be), and the second denotes fields (adds confusion).
The full denotation for HD would be 1080i/30, meaning 1080 interlaced lines at 30 frames per second.
For SD resolutions, the full denotation would be 480i/30, meaning 480 interlaced lines at 30 frames per second.
60i can actually refer to either of the above, both of which use 30 full frames/60 interlaced fields per second, which is why using the full denotation can be helpful when talking about both HD and SD in the same paragraph.
Other specs include...
480p/24 (This is what many mean when they say "24p"
1080p/24 (This is also sometimes abbreviated as "24p")
720p/24 (Another "24p" option.)
P.S. I'm not even going into the whole 29.97 thing.
There is no difference. 30i indicates a frame rate of 29.97, or 30 interlaced frames per second.
60i indicates a frame rate of 29.97, or 60 interlaced fields (2 per frame) per second.
They mean the same thing. There really is no such thing as 30i.
>There really is no such thing as 30i
I disagree with that one. I think talking in fields only makes things worse. Specs should always and only list frame rate.
So OK, then there is no such thing as 60i.
The point is that interlaced is interlaced fields, not frames. So call it what you want.
>call it what you want.
Ah, but that's how Nugent got confused. People do have a tendency to incorrectly list specs in fields rather than frames. Even camera manufacturers do this.
Call it 30i only, I say.
I was just saying that I don't care what it is called as long as everyone agrees on a terminology. So since 30i makes sense to me more than 60i then I agree with you.
Nugent did get it wrong. The HV30 shoots 30p while the XH-A1 shoots 60i. So will the footage from the 30p and the 60i cameras match if I burn in SD? If I burn in HD. Thanks
I'm guessing they will probably not play nice on the same timeline together. 30p and 30i are different presets. They are also likely to have different looks to them, so cutting back and forth, there's a good chance you'll notice.
I suppose I would deinterlave the 60i footage (30i) and then use it in a progressive project.
Will they look the same? No likely, but it depends on how the footage is deinterlaced and how the camera creates the 30p.
Probably it isn't really 30p. It is probably two identical fields so it can be stored to tape like interlaced footage. But I haven't done the research on that camera.