HD over SD

[Brandon151]

I need five strong points in illustrating why HD would be better to shoot than SD. Remember the final project will be broadcaste out in SD. Cost is the major factor with the Producers.

 

Thanks

[Michael Collier]

I have one that might sell the producers on it:

 

Shoot HD, produce the finnished cut in SD. Then 5 years down the road when HD is even bigger and the station wants to switch to all HD programming, you can turn to your client and say 'We'll sell you the HD masters....for a price'. They might be able to see a second payment of 25% of the original production price or more with that method. Thats all dependant on the TV station that is airing the show. If its local in a small market odds are slim, but in national basic cable channels with HD partner channels you may stand a good chance.

 

Post houses add upcharges for HD, even though your taking up the same NLE for the same amount of time (more storage obviously, all other overhead is identicle) and for a TV series, as long as the production company retains some rights to original material, then legaly they can sell the HD version for a higher price than the SD. Producers will always put more weight to future gross than the quality of the video, so that approach might put it in their interest, especially if cost is there hang up ('it looks great' is a terrible flip to the objection 'it costs too much')

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Mainly it's about making it worth more money and future-proofing it. You can drag as many points out of that as you like; "it looks better" is unlikely to convince the money men.

 

Phil

[Troy Warr]

A couple more:

 

1. HD properly downsampled to SD looks better than SD shot natively. This is the argument that Michael and Phil warn against, but I think if you're savvy enough to avoid "it just looks better" and rather sell it as a "higher production value" argument that can somehow clearly lead to increased revenue, it might work. Keep in mind that although the project will originally be broadcast in SD, the HDTV markets, as well as high-def formats like HD-DVD and Blu-ray, are growing, and tomorrow the producer(s) may want to think about these other forms of distribution to increase their profit margin from the project.

 

2. HD footage cropped to SD in post allows options for reframing. If you get a great shot in SD, but it clips the actor's head or is otherwise framed awkwardly, you're out of luck. If you shoot HD and pad the edges of the frame well, that risk can be minimized. Obviously this stands opposed to #1, but one or the other might apply better to your particular project.

 

Depending on what flavor of HD that you intend to shoot, cost may not even be a problem - since HDV, for example, isn't that much more expensive (if any) to work with than many SD formats.

 

There may be other selling points depending on what kind of project that you're shooting.

[Frank Barrera]

I need five strong points in illustrating why HD would be better to shoot than SD.

Interesting problem. But I don't think there are 5 reasons to go with HD over SD other than "future proofing" and "it looks better". So, that's 2 reasons. The latter one no one cares about and the former one is speculative at best.

 

If I was a producer of a low budget tv show I wouldn't think twice about it. I would shoot with the SDX 900 4X3 and protect the 16X9 for "future proofing".

[Brian Drysdale]

It depends what's going to fall over the edge when you factor in the extra costs of costing HD. I was DP on some short films last year, which were shot on HDCAM as against the same scheme, with the same budget the previous year shot on SD - both years were for delivery on Digibeta. On the HD series you could really tell that the budgets were being strained and resources that you had available the previous year you could no longer afford.

[Keith Mottram]

Interesting problem. But I don't think there are 5 reasons to go with HD over SD other than "future proofing" and "it looks better". So, that's 2 reasons. The latter one no one cares about and the former one is speculative at best.

 

If I was a producer of a low budget tv show I wouldn't think twice about it. I would shoot with the SDX 900 4X3 and protect the 16X9 for "future proofing".

 

do broadcasters in the US still accept 4:3?

[Frank Barrera]

do broadcasters in the US still accept 4:3?

Yes

[K Borowski]

There are even a lot of pan & scan movies still showing in 4x3, unfortunately. I think 4x3 should stick around, personally. Dullards like to suggest that widescreen is "better" because you "see more" but really, you could make an HD TV with more horizontal ilnes in 4x3 and call that "better than HD". The more ratio options available to a filmmaker the better. Banning a format, or continuing to pan and scan or "jilt and tilt" is just tiring bullshit at this point to me. I think audience ought to be mature enough to realize that both exist and that either cropping or stretching are what silly salesmen came up with to sell more TV sets.

[Andre Labous]

I need five strong points in illustrating why HD would be better to shoot than SD. Remember the final project will be broadcaste out in SD. Cost is the major factor with the Producers.

 

Thanks

[Andre Labous]

I need five strong points in illustrating why HD would be better to shoot than SD. Remember the final project will be broadcaste out in SD. Cost is the major factor with the Producers.

 

Thanks

[Andre Labous]

Oops......first time on forum.

Why shoot film if people don't have film projectors in their living room?

I tell my clients why not use the best electronic originated footage. I can think of reasons why.

 

1. Faster ASA. Most SD cameras are rated around 160 ASA. HD cameras are much faster. My f/900 is around 320 to 400ASA. Translates to better in low light. I often key interview subjects w/ a 300W tungsten light through a full silk and get a good exposure.

 

2.Better latitude. Able to adjust for Highlights w/ the knee, point, slope functions. Blacks can be adjusted for ranges rather than just master.

 

3. Better color control. User matrix, multi matrix, etc.

 

4. Frame rates.

 

5. 125 megabytes/sec. Recording. Translates better to bigger LCD/ plasma's in the home theatre.

 

6. All these are achieved at 12bit at the brain. As opposed to the 8 bit recording.

 

7. 16x9 Frame

 

8. It will always be HD

 

9. Intercuts w/ film better

 

10. It's the latest greatest!

[Walter Graff]

"1. Faster ASA. Most SD cameras are rated around 160 ASA. HD cameras are much faster. My f/900 is around 320 to 400ASA. "

 

About where many professional SD cameras come in too.

 

 

"2.Better latitude. Able to adjust for Highlights w/ the knee, point, slope functions. Blacks can be adjusted for ranges rather than just master."

 

Same controls you could always adjust with any professional camera. Only difference is they told you it's unique to newer cameras.

 

"3. Better color control. User matrix, multi matrix, etc."

 

Matrix is always available and adjustable on any pro camera, SD or HD.

 

"4. Frame rates."

 

More frame rates are available on many HD cameras but most folks don''t really need all the frame rates.

 

"5. 125 megabytes/sec. Recording. Translates better to bigger LCD/ plasma's in the home theatre."

 

Non sequitur

 

6. All these are achieved at 12bit at the brain. As opposed to the 8 bit recording.

 

Many SD cameras such as BVPE30 from Sony (an SD camera) have 14 bit brains.

 

"7. 16x9 Frame"

 

Many professional SD cameras offer 16x9

 

"8. It will always be HD"

 

It could be down converted to SD and many who uprez digibeta and mix it with HD footage can't tell the difference too.

 

"9. Intercuts w/ film better"

 

If you need to, perhaps. BUt then again there are a number of releases that combine film with SD and are mixed indistinguishably.

 

"10. It's the latest greatest!"

 

Probably the only valid personal reason why in this list as I see it

[Andre Labous]

"1. Faster ASA. Most SD cameras are rated around 160 ASA. HD cameras are much faster. My f/900 is around 320 to 400ASA. "

 

About where many professional SD cameras come in too.

Love to see an SD camera capture low light like HD

 

"2.Better latitude. Able to adjust for Highlights w/ the knee, point, slope functions. Blacks can be adjusted for ranges rather than just master."

 

Same controls you could always adjust with any professional camera. Only difference is they told you it's unique to newer cameras.

 

Use them in both SD and HD. HD works better.

 

"3. Better color control. User matrix, multi matrix, etc."

 

Matrix is always available and adjustable on any pro camera, SD or HD.

I'll give you that one.

 

"4. Frame rates."

 

More frame rates are available on many HD cameras but most folks don''t really need all the frame rates.

 

Need vs. want. Spatial vs. Temporal resolution. It's all subjective

"5. 125 megabytes/sec. Recording. Translates better to bigger LCD/ plasma's in the home theatre."

 

Non sequitur

Sequitur??

 

6. All these are achieved at 12bit at the brain. As opposed to the 8 bit recording.

 

Many SD cameras such as BVPE30 from Sony (an SD camera) have 14 bit brains.

Got me there.

 

"7. 16x9 Frame"

 

Many professional SD cameras offer 16x9

Is it real 16x9?

 

"8. It will always be HD"

 

It could be down converted to SD and many who uprez digibeta and mix it with HD footage can't tell the difference too.

 

Can't agree w/ that one. 1080 lines vs. 480 Blown up I think not.

 

"9. Intercuts w/ film better"

 

If you need to, perhaps. BUt then again there are a number of releases that combine film with SD and are mixed indistinguish

 

Don't buy that.

"10. It's the latest greatest!

"

 

Probably the only valid personal reason why in this list as I see it

 

I still shoot SD and after shooting HD it pains me to suffer through a inferior medium.

 

Also your day rate is higher in HD.

Are you using a old computer or a new one?

 

 

Still trying to figure out how to reply properly

[Walter Graff]

Many of yor answers are based on no experience but assumption. I work with this stuff. Have before you even heard of it. Everything I say is real and has been expereinced by me and even you if you watch an HD signal. Hint: A lot of stock footage that was on SD digibeta is line doubled and sold as HD and is indistinguishable. So thanks for the responses but I speak a bit more from experience on the matter.

[Andre Labous]

Many of yor answers are based on no experience but assumption. I work with this stuff. Have before you even heard of it. Everything I say is real and has been expereinced by me and even you if you watch an HD signal. Hint: A lot of stock footage that was on SD digibeta is line doubled and sold as HD and is indistinguishable. So thanks for the responses but I speak a bit more from experience on the matter.

 

 

Many of yor answers are based on no experience but assumption. I work with this stuff. Have before you even heard of it. Everything I say is real and has been expereinced by me and even you if you watch an HD signal. Hint: A lot of stock footage that was on SD digibeta is line doubled and sold as HD and is indistinguishable. So thanks for the responses but I speak a bit more from experience on the matter.

[Andre Labous]

Many of yor answers are based on no experience but assumption. I work with this stuff. Have before you even heard of it. Everything I say is real and has been expereinced by me and even you if you watch an HD signal. Hint: A lot of stock footage that was on SD digibeta is line doubled and sold as HD and is indistinguishable. So thanks for the responses but I speak a bit more from experience on the matter.

 

 

Wow. My first post. Didn't realize it could get personal. Based on your experience I would assume you could be more mature. I have plenty of experience in DigiBeta and own an F-900/3. I don't assume anything. I shoot for clients who trust and respect my knowledge of HD. It has offered me far more lucrative opportunities and creative options, more so than SD ever did. Congrats on assuming you are the sheriff of experience.

[Michael Nash]

Some of the points here are obviously subjective, while others are more quantifiable.

 

The "look" of something uprezzed or quality of a display technology can be subjective. You could claim something as being better or worse and not be "wrong."

 

There are many SD cameras that perform very well in low light, and HD doesn't automatically have more sensitivity, depending on the camera. Sony D-35's and the Panasonic SDX-900 for example often perform close to the 640 ASA range at 0db. There are both SD and HD cameras less sensitive than that. You could make the argument that an HD camera "sees" into the shadows better by virtue of resolution, but that's not the same as sensitivity. At that point it's subjective again -- HD could be "better" because it sees finer detail in shadows, even though that lumiance might be the same in SD.

 

Saying the knee and black stretch controls are "better" in HD is kind of spurious though -- it depends on the model of the camera(s) you're talking about. Of course a newer HD camera would have more/better control than an older SD camera, but really that's a function of the camera and not the format.

 

I'm not trying to take sides in an SD vs. HD debate. They're two different formats with their own unique qualities. Producers and DP's can choose a format based on the qualities that work best for them.

[Andre Labous]

Initially responded to why HD over SD. Not as science but as a way of getting budgets. Not from other DP's but from agencies. If now into theory... what about recording at 125-140 megabits on HDCAM as opposed to 50 mbs on the SDX 900? Also SDX 900 640 ASA? I've shot w/it numerous times. Did not notice it being twice as fast as F/900. My silly LCD/Plasma in the home reference refers to what I see when I watch television. Lower mbs more squares (digital info) I see. Thus when I'm messin w/ black gamma's, y gamma, knee, color, etc., my recording rate is handling that information. It's there before the downconvert. Lines of resolution no longer a factor but the look I manipulated is getting there. Yes downconverted. Again I don't have a film projector in my house. Why shoot film?

I do agree they're are amazing SD cameras out there. I still have to use them. I think panasonic has totally kicked butt in that department. And although the SDX is a sweet camera, it's time to trade it in for the HDX 900. I shot recently 2 weeks at the Daytona 500. Think I saw a hand full of SD cameras. HD cameras everywhere.

[Michael Nash]

If now into theory... what about recording at 125-140 megabits on HDCAM as opposed to 50 mbs on the SDX 900?

 

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. You're comparing HD at 125 megabits to SD at 50 megabits. I could just as easily point out that DVCPRO50 is 4:2:2 and HDCAM as 3:1:1, or that the Sony F-900 uses 10 bit DSP vs. 12 bit in the SDX. But all those numbers are relative to the image being compressed, and don't tell the whole story.

 

Again, I'm not trying to defend SD as we're all moving toward HD anyway. I just think if we're going to make legitimate arguments to producers as to why one format is "better" than another, it needs to be factual and avoid misinformation or bias.

 

The original post was about convincing producers of SD material to switch over to HD. Cost and efficiency are paramount to producers, and image quality is only part of the equation. Since HD cameras don't necessarily produce better SD images, the initial quality of the HD image may not warrant the expense or changeover in format.

[Andre Labous]

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. You're comparing HD at 125 megabits to SD at 50 megabits. I could just as easily point out that DVCPRO50 is 4:2:2 and HDCAM as 3:1:1, or that the Sony F-900 uses 10 bit DSP vs. 12 bit in the SDX. But all those numbers are relative to the image being compressed, and don't tell the whole story.

 

Guess I'll have to buy the F-23 to get away from that darn 3:1:!.

 

Again, I'm not trying to defend SD as we're all moving toward HD anyway. I just think if we're going to make legitimate arguments to producers as to why one format is "better" than another, it needs to be factual and avoid misinformation or bias.

 

I respect your point of view. So I'm a little biased......

 

The original post was about convincing producers of SD material to switch over to HD. Cost and efficiency are paramount to producers, and image quality is only part of the equation. Since HD cameras don't necessarily produce better SD images, the initial quality of the HD image may not warrant the expense or changeover in format.

 

At this point the gap between expense is not as great as it once was. My apologies if I strayed from the meat of this discussion.

[Walter Graff]

This post is not directed at anyone, just my comment about the trend that really brings many of these pro-boards down, so please do not think I am addressing anyone in particular.

 

Forgive me for being so flippant but I'm just sick of hearing this endless dribble about how HD is "better". I'm also tired of hearing the constant rehash of manufacture marketing and technical talk that in some strange way seems to validate folks as filmmakers, or at least they think it does. Funniest thing of all, most folks I see having discussions about technical talk have little experience with what they talk about, yet rehash what they read as if they do, and more importantly, as if it really makes a difference at the end of the day. I see countless post after post all spewing numbers and specs, all decreeing that HD has changed the world, but little actual filmmaking.

 

Okay, HD is great, now how about making something with a story, more than shooting charts all day trying or out your basement window in a lame attempt at validating one camera or format or hanging out on amateur sites all day patting each other on the back because they know the term matrix, or black stretch. Or convincing folks to switch to HD because you bought a $5k camera and have to make a credit card payment this month, not because they actually need HD for any particualr reason. The real filmmakers are out writing scripts, hiring actors, and making movies, whether it be for their own satisfaction, or to enter it into competitions, or for the few that have the outlet, distribution. The rest (about 80% of people who own these cameras but have little use for them) think that if you have a prosumer HD camera with a matte box that you carry under your arm everywhere you go, and you can spew specs at anyone who asks, and by the process of 'knowledge', you are a filmmaker.

 

In the end it maters little if one camera is 'better' than another, or if one format produces better color according to the specs. I'll tell you why I say this. Outside of sitting down tinkering all day with the inner workings of a camera, at the end of the day if I showed you a great feature and asked you which camera or which format it was shot on, 99.9% of us wouldn't know, and I say, at that point who cares? A great feature has little to do with what camera was used, or if FCP was used to edit it, or if the color sampling was 4:2:2. A great feature has to do with people and talent, not hammers and nails. But this new generation of wannabe filmmaker is missing chapters in the book, namely the chapters on creativity, and the steps to taking an idea and expressing it in film. What many of their books are left with is only the Index and Supplementary A - definitions chapter.

 

Here's an example of how little all the techno babble has to do with filmmaking:

 

http://www.kampfansage.com/downloads/index...9ad4727d3f0a235

 

So what camera was used in that example? What format is it? How big was the CCD? How much compression does the format have? How fast does the tape travel in the camera? Is it a "real" 16x9 chip? Is the detail on or off?

 

Here is another example. Pick your choice for playback and ask yourself, is this HD, SD, real 16x9, filtration, maybe film, was the CCD 1/3 or 2/3, is it color corrected, could it be shown on a40 foot screen, is it 4:2:2, and was it recorded on P2?

 

http://www.lumieremedia.com/tomorrowistoda...morrow_trailer/

 

I say when you have a story that is compelling and a visual treatment that matches that look, then all these ad nauseum discussions about 4:2:2, HD/SD, pixels, etc mean little. They actually always have meant little, but somehow the new bread of wannabe filmmaker has substituted talent for web acquired knowledge and tech talk which is the equivalent of whose penis is bigger rather than who knows how to make love to a women. It's getting to the point of absurdity and really separates the pros from the amateurs.

 

Marketers have put out a line and most folks have a huge hook in their mouths as a result. That first link above by the way is a bunch of amateur filmmakers who are into martial arts who wanted to express themselves. They didn't have much more than an Xl1 but made something that is higher caliber than some stuff I see in theaters. And that second link was a film shot with an off the shelf HDV camera, with nothing more but a simple tripod.

 

And at the end of the day all the gallant talk about whose HD is bigger means little. Equipment is a tool, it never made anything good, only people do. Could they have used better equipment? Sure but no one interested in the story ever cares.

 

This new breed of person who buys a camera because it's the latest coolest thing is like a new type of Scrabble player. Scrabble is a board game in which 2 to 4 players score points by forming words from individual lettered tiles on a 15-by-15 game board. The words are formed across and down in crossword fashion, and must appear in a standard dictionary. Each letter has a point score and the complexity of your word based on the letters scores gives you more points depending on what word you can come up with. But this new breed of therapeutic filmmaker is less interested in making words and would rather discuss only how much each letters is worth, how big the actual pieces of wood the letters are printed on, and what shade of black the letters are. So at the end of the day their board has no words because they forgot the essence of the game for some techno babble. But they are proud because they know that the letter 'x' is worth a much-prized eight points so who needs to make actual words. Those people often frustrate the ones who are trying to discuss or play the actual game.

 

I think many people today who ten years ago never knew anything about filmmaking except that it looked cool and if they could have the same equipment, then they too could be filmmakers, now have access to equipment that allows them to think they are cool and to access their inner fantasies and express themselves visually are missing a major part of being a cinematographer or filmmaker.

 

Rather than taking a course on writing, or a course on cinematography, or even one of the great books on the art, they would rather troll the web looking for others like themselves, people who know little about cinematography or the real art of filmmaking, but who maxed out their credit card on a camera they really didn't need, but a camera that has an HD label on the side. And if it's HD that must mean it is good, and hence "anything I do with it means I am a real filmmaker. Now If I could just get folks to switch, just because. Heck just owning it makes me special. But since they have no formative training, nor any interest in actually getting any, they simply spew numbers everywhere they can, masking the fact that the camera they wasted their money on, will never do much more when it comes to telling a story than tape some kids birthday party. But you'll be able to count the hairs on their head when they blow.

 

And you know how they will justify it all, telling you that their camera was able to shoot him blowing out the candles in near darkness. And if it wasn't for the camera having a rating of 500ASA (an incorrect term in video) they'd never have gotten the shot. And hence why we all 'need' HD. Now that is filmmaking!

 

So now the need has translated into convincing the world that they too need to shot HD. If they do their work will somehow be better. It doesn't matter that most all of the stuff they do will be seen in a way that will utilize little if any the headroom HD offers, you just got to do it because everyone else is and everyone will be one day so jump on the boat or sink.

 

As a boater, I use a boat appropriate for what I am doing. For deep sea fishing I use a larger, faster boat with sleeping capacity. For river touring, a smaller boat with a smaller motor and shallow draft. I take a cruise ship to sail to Europe. But many of these new fangled "filmmakers' think that you need a passenger liner to play in your bathtub because it's the only way to play, or so they read somewhere on the web.

 

My suggestion is to learn how to shoot. Learn lighting, composition, read a few books on the art, get a DVD on technique, visit the websites that offer articles on the art of cinematography, go down to a local museum and look at painting. Heck if you realize what's more important to making pictures count you'll realize how silly it is to argue why everyone should switch to HD or whose HD is 'bigger'.

 

:)

Edited March 10, 2007 by WALTER GRAFF

[Rodrigo Llano]

in Producing terms and simple words

 

HD footage or programs open a big market wideworld..

 

all the best

 

Rodrigo Llano

[Walter Graff]

As D. Goulder posted recently in the RED forum, another useless thread where people have to pinch themselves constantly to make sure they are still cool and on the cutting edge of I don't know what. Imagine, eighteen pages in a thread and nothing discussed except egos and marketing hype:

 

"Seeing that this is a cinematography forum, where people generally either ask for help, or share their experience with others seeking advice, it's no wonder that people become so annoyed with those that would use this forum merely to endlessly promote their fantasy camera. Consequently, they've offered nothing useful to those on this forum who want to learn more about cinematography, but have instead merely wasted space trying to pummel us into sharing their excitement (with barely concealed desperation). No wonder people get annoyed, and would like these obsessed crusaders to give us a break. Who is it you're trying so desperately to convince...us or yourselves?"

 

Sad that this board is quickly becoming more noise and less signal like most other boards. Yet another place not worth looking for information, sharing, and discussing cinematography.

Edited March 10, 2007 by WALTER GRAFF

[David Mullen ASC]

Sad that this board is quickly becoming more noise and less signal like most other boards. Yet another place not worth looking for information, sharing, and discussing cinematography.

 

I've been on this site for at least eight years, Walter, and the signal to noise ratio has always been the same on average, with good and bad periods. This is a very mixed group of people on this site, unlike the CML, with some teenagers, film students, pros, and just interested amateurs. That's its strength and weakness.

 

Some subforums are particularly info-low, like the RED subforum, for obvious reasons -- there's no camera out there yet! Almost anything anyone adds to that subforum at this point, including me, will mainly be for the purpose of adding more noise and because we like to pontificate.

 

You've always been very cynical of HD and 24P, but not everyone shares that cynicism. Your experience is priceless here so I hope you stick around, but there is room for (polite) disagreement even among professional video shooters regarding the value of HD.

 

I think we should all just recognize that there are no definitive right or wrong answers here once you get beyond technical facts. Uprezzing lower-resolution material and intercutting it into a higher-resolution format, whether film or digital, has been done forever, and the viability of that approach, how seamless it looks, is always going to be questionable -- sometimes you get away with it, sometimes you don't. I'm not sure if I am ultimately agreeing with you are not, but SD material will be with us for a long time, for better or worse depending on your perspective. But that's not the same thing as saying that therefore it doesn't matter which format you shoot.