The HD Revolution?

[Guest dpforum1968]

Hi All,

 

Ok I think it's time for some serious talk about HD, frankly I'm thinking HD is really a lot of hype and no substance. Big money hype that is so the manufactures of TVs can make a ton of money.

 

I was at the Sony store last night looking once again at HD TV products. They had giant HD plasma and LCD screens there with PBS HD being fed in. I really wasn't that impressed at all. There was lots of artifacting in the screen image and "confusion" over colour levels on both sets. The picture certainly wasn't worth the $15,000.00 CDN price tag.

 

I asked to see a standard CRT HD-TV as I assumed this would be much sharper than a plasma or LCD. It was of course, nice picture. But again, really not that much better than the new flat screen standard def TVs you can buy now. I just don't see what all the fuss is about?

 

Oddly enough I have two friends who bought HD TVs, and a HD cable package. After a few months they both quit paying for their HD cable! I was shocked, I asked them why after spending all that money on the HD TV would they stop the HD cable? They both said they didn't think the picture quality was worth the money.

 

Is it true? The HD Emperor has no clothes?

 

DC

[Jared Hoy]

Hi All,

 

Ok I think it's time for some serious talk about HD, frankly I'm thinking HD is really a lot of hype and no substance.  Big money hype that is so the manufactures of TVs can make a ton of money.

 

I was at the Sony store last night looking once again at HD TV products.  They had giant HD plasma and LCD screens there with PBS HD being fed in.  I really wasn't that impressed at all.  There was lots of artifacting in the screen image and "confusion" over colour levels on both sets.  The picture certainly wasn't worth the $15,000.00 CDN price tag.

 

I asked to see a standard CRT HD-TV as I assumed this would be much sharper than a plasma or LCD.  It was of course, nice picture.  But again, really not that much better than the new flat screen standard def TVs you can buy now.  I just don't see what all the fuss is about?

 

Oddly enough I have two friends who bought HD TVs, and a HD cable package.  After a few months they both quit paying for their HD cable!  I was shocked, I asked them why after spending all that money on the HD TV would they stop the HD cable?  They both said they didn't think the picture quality was worth the money.

 

Is it true?  The HD Emperor has no clothes?

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HD is coming and it's coming strong. Your friends were probably frustrated, as am I, about the lack of possible channels for the HD signal. But 2006/8, i forget which, is right around the bend, when all broadcasts are required by the FCC to output an HD signal.

 

as far as the filmming aspect of HD -- it can have my children. Many will say that it looks wrong and the like. WRONG. It doesn't look wrong, it looks different than what the popular consensus (35mm) should look like. For god's sake man! You can see the small fibers of hair on a blade of grass. gorgous.

 

i say, Embrace HD. Welcome HD, but above all, Respect HD.

[Michael Most]

H But 2006/8, i forget which, is right around the bend, when all broadcasts are required by the FCC to output an HD signal.

 

There is no requirement whatsoever for broadcasts to be HD. There is a requirement for them to be digital after 2006 provided certain criteria are met in terms of consumer acceptance. There are 18 different digital formats broadcasters can use, only some of which are HD.

[David Mullen ASC]

HD just means more lines of resolution than SD. So it's not just hype, it's a practical reality: HD has more resolution than SD. Anyone who shoots both can tell you that. Calling HD hype is like calling it hype when people tell you that 35mm is better than 16mm.

 

Now as to the issue of implementing HDTV for the home, that's a whole other issue, but I don't see why you are shocked that MARKETING is involved in selling TV sets and that hype is a part of advertizing a new product... "Let the buyer beware" should be taught in every school starting in Kindergarten.

 

However, if you feel that standard definition video is good enough for you as a TV watcher, then that's fine because it ain't going away! Only a certain percentage of TV, cable, and satellite broadcasting will ever be in HDTV even after digital transmission is mandated.

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

Ok I think it's time for some serious talk about HD, frankly I'm thinking HD is really a lot of hype and no substance.  Big money hype that is so the manufactures of TVs can make a ton of money.

 

I chase the ad agency TV spot "biness" all over the US. I talk to at least 100 agency folks a week . Most of them still want to shoot film if the have the budget. Another comon statement is: " the HD just looks like very good video" from what they have seen. I call on agencies at all different levels and maybe they aren't exposed to top knotch HD but I find that hard to belief since they get 3 to 4 demos a day and the few who rave about HD coincidently owen an HD package.

 

They just don't buy the hype. When it first came out all of my shooting friends said that film was dead, time to dump that Arriflex and get modern; of course that was the Ikegami EC 35 and a 1' Type C portable deck in 1984. Some things change some things remain the same.

 

The new stocks xfered to HD look great. Every frame of film I have ever shot gets better everyday, while evey frame of video gets worse everyday.

 

I do not shoot video even though we own a Betacam Package, the net effect is to not be offered Video/DV projects from agencies who have low/no budget projects.

 

And a certain level of respect and increased interest because the agency contact assumes if you are shooting film you must know something..... well maybe!

 

The most revealing comment I have heard about HD/Film is from a Kansas City Ad Agency Creative Director who said "HD has no soul"..... nuf said ;)

Edited November 13, 2004 by Andy Sparaco

[Leon Rodriguez]

I don't think it's ever really "either / or". HD is just very good video and it has it's specific place in the spectrum of tools to choose from. It's not about warring tribes congregating to take a stand against the other, but more like a new wrench in the toolbox. If the job calls for it, use it, if it calls for film use that. We can be sure that the inherent weaknesses of the HD formats will get addressed and it will improve. When 4K becomes perfected with 11 f-stops of latitude, It will probably superceed the human eye's ability to discern a difference. Might as well just dig in and learn it. That's the job. No choice. That's my 2 cents.

[Guest Andy Sparaco]

new wrench in the toolbox

 

Yes I agree HD is a new tool and I have used it on projects for some of my established clients where it made sense. Testimonials and three camera projects.

 

Unfortunately we live in a culture which prizes technology over skill and experience. Good, Cheap, Fast pick any two

 

Where the manufacturers are determined to sell everyone the illusion that they are a motion picture professional by simply buying the latest and greatest gee whiz camera.

 

It's bullshit and the considerable amount of prattle exchanged on this forum is a manifestation of that effect of modern commerce.

 

The PHD phenom "Press Here Dummy"

 

Video makes everyone a Director or a DP whether they know their ass from a hole in the pixel. Until they have to use "their product" in a commercial application and it looks like hell. "It looked so good on my monitor....."

 

It is very difficult to develop skill when the camera changes every 15 minutes and is so expensive to rent that you never have time to learn it.

 

"just shoot it we'll fix it in the post"

 

 

Some how after 20 years of hearing "film is dead" I think it is just reall starting to show it's true potential. With new emulsion and Xfer technology which will make it the "practical" choice for a long time to come.

4K becomes perfected with 11 f-stops of latitude

And a pickup truck full of hard drives compared to a 400 ft load of film. There is what's new and there is the elegant solution to the problem at hand. Edited November 13, 2004 by Andy Sparaco

[Annie Wengenroth]

Personally I don't ever think any particular technology will be completely replaced. We will simply refine and add to it. This being said, I try to keep an open mind about whatever the latest "trend" is. I have yet to shoot on HD but I will be soon, and I'm looking forward to it just as I look forward to trying anything new and different.

 

As far as the consumer side of things goes, I guess you could compare it to the whole 5.1 Surround phenomenon. Right now I'm learning how to mix for 5.1 Surround and while part of me wonders if this is just going to be another LaserDisc technology, meaning that it will die out or be [partially] replaced within a few years, another part of me feels that it is definitely an asset to how people hear their audio.

 

But again, it has its place in the world just like stereo does. As both a professional (more or less! heh) and a consumer, I often feel torn because I think part of the professional's job in the entertainment industry is to sell the product convincingly to the consumers. But on the other hand, I am slowly starting to see through all the traps that a lot of people set for your average consumer and from that respect, I almost resent a lot of the hype that occurs.

 

In other words, they are told to invest in things that they don't need or don't have the capacity to appreciate. And I am afraid that that sort of attitude can be counterproductive to the *creative* advancement of this industry, because people will start to want flashy eyecandy that looks good, instead of good stories and memorable characters. Hell, it's already happening, I'm just saying, it could get worse if we place even more emphasis on Bigger and Better.

 

Additionally, I hate to sound arrogant or snobby, but your average viewer won't be able to see a discernible difference between formats. Or they might, but it might not matter. Look at Mp3's. They sound like poop because they're compressed to hell, but people don't care.

 

Sorry for the thesis. I have a lot to say about this because I sort of wrote an essay about it. :shrug:

[Guest dpforum1968]

Another question: Who here is right now shooting, editing, and finishing in HD?

 

It seems that very few people in the desk top video world, ie those using FCP and premiere, are working in HD. I talk to video folks every day on the phone as a part of stock footage sales and I never run across some one willing to chuck out there Canon XL1, editing software, and SD monitors to buy all that stuff all over again for the sake of HD.

 

These guys have made a significant investment by their standards and they want to get the most use possible from their gear. I'm not saying they won't switch to HD, I'm just saying it will be a few years before it happens en masse.

 

Some of you here may work with production houses that are 100% HD already. But I would submit to you that for every production house billing 1 million plus a year, there a thousand guys editing video on their home computers. Part time, full time, or as a second income.

 

Secondly, if you shoot and finish in HD and the end user does not have an HD TV do they get the benefits of HD?

 

I see HD as a similar situation to when colour TVs became available. The TV stations still had to broadcast so that people with black and white TVs could at least watch the signal in monochrome. A situation that still exists today. The early consumer adopters of colour TV jumped on board and overtime every one had a colour TV. But this process took several years to occur.

 

I have heard HD camera sales guys, and HD TV sales guys tell me this BS about not being able to watch TV after 2006 unless I have an HD TV!! We all know that is non-sense so I won't go any further on that point.

 

DC

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

The technical part of a DPs job dicates we stay current and experienced as possible with all image aquisition formats. Different producers are going to have different requirements and the DPs who shun new technology, no matter how new or undeveloped it is, will quikly be passed over in favor of DPs who try to get the best result possible from a given format.

 

If I like a project that for some reason HAS to be shot in HD, I'll make it the best it can be. Would the image quality be better in 35? Yes. In super 16? Depends. But in the end, how well you work with what your given is what your future depends upon.

[David Mullen ASC]

I just shot my eighth HD feature -- so far, they have all been posted in HD and four have had film-outs to 35mm. One was edited by the director at home on his Mac G4 at full HD resolution, the rest editing using downconversions on Avids mostly.

[Brad Grimmett]

But 2006/8, i forget which, is right around the bend, when all broadcasts are required by the FCC to output an HD signal.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There have been many mandates such as this in the past by the FCC in regards to all stations having to broadcast digital. If history is any indication, when the deadline comes around again they will just push it back a few more years like they always do. If memory serves me, one of the first deadlines was for 1996.

Edited November 14, 2004 by grimmett

[Jared Hoy]

There have been many mandates such as this in the past by the FCC in regards to all stations having to broadcast digital.  If history is any indication, when the deadline comes around again they will just push it back a few more years like they always do.  If memory serves me, one of the first deadlines was for 1996.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

stupid fcc.

[Brad Grimmett]

stupid fcc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been hearing that a lot lately, and not just in reference to their digital television deadlines.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I just bought a digital TV decoder in the - doubtless youthfully overeager - hope that it'd allow me to watch higher quality movies in widescreen, from terrestrial broadcast. While "Romeo Must Die" on Channel 4 was gratifyingly sharp and broadcast in widescreen, I also ended up sitting slack-jawed with incomprehension through ninety minutes of block noise behind which was, apparently, "Last Action Hero". Bad C5. Naughty C5. Buy better encoders.

 

Phil

[Guest dpforum1968]

David, with regard to what you say here....

 

"I just shot my eighth HD feature -- so far, they have all been posted in HD and four have had film-outs to 35mm. One was edited by the director at home on his Mac G4 at full HD resolution, the rest editing using downconversions on Avids mostly."

 

I assume that means you shot these HD features using an HD video camera of some kind?

 

This raises an interesting question for me at least. I shoot 100% of my stock shots on 35mm, with the idea being that when HD really does take off, I can re-scan my negs in an HD suite and transfer to D5 or HD Cam or what ever video format is big "that week."

 

Now I assume an HD shot acquired on 35mm and transfered to D5, will look quite a bit different than a shot acquired with an HD video camera? Have you seen the difference in the two side by side, ie inter cut? My assumption is that my 35mm to HD shots could only be used in a production using the same 35mm to HD technique that I am? If the producer wants the stock shot to insert seamlessly.

 

But, like it is today, people often mix film and video in the same production. This is certainly true for many of those travel spots I see on TV and corporate videos, two give just two examples. There's an inurance company in the US that uses whale footage for their spots. The underwater shots of the whales are all 35mm sourced, but the shots where they breach the water are video sourced. And having been on two whale filming expeditions now, I can see why :-) There's no way to tell where in the open ocean a whale will breach. All you can do is point the camera out to sea and hope you catch one, which means just letting the camera roll. An easy thing to do with video, not so with film, a 1000 ft mag would go by pretty quick and then you'd need another and another and another....

 

DC

[David Mullen ASC]

Fictional features don't generally mix HD and 35mm (unless you are Michael Mann) because of the textural differences. Except when the change of look is motivated (the interviews by the white cyc set in "American Splendor" were shot in HD, the rest of the movie in 35mm.)

 

Yes, you are smart to shoot stock footage in 35mm since it will be adaptable to future digital formats, not that HD stock footage is not useful or doesn't look good. I don't think for a nature or travel documentary, it matters so much to mix formats as long as the quality seems acceptable and the changes are not distracting.

 

24P HD looks like 24P HD and 35mm-to-HD looks like 35mm-to-HD. Yes, I've seen plenty of side-by-side tests. 35mm generally looks better all-around unless it was shot badly (but I can't say it is a radical change in look.)

 

But since most fictional films don't mix formats, it's not like a viewer is going to see 35mm side-by-side with HD in the same program, which is why HD-shot shows like "Joan of Arcadia" or now, this season, "Star Trek: Enterprise", do not seem to suffer in quality.

 

With 24P HD, you can either have the response of "I can't believe how close it looks to 35mm" or "It definitely does not look as good as 35mm". Sort of depends on expectations -- it either looks better than you expected or worse. I've sort of come to terms with it, in that I think it looks like what it does, which is 24P HD. And that can look great or it can look bad. When I look at a 24P HD show on TV like PBS's "American Family" series (shot currently by Reynaldo Villalobos, a great DP) I think "it looks nice".

[Max Jacoby]

For god's sake man! You can see the small fibers of hair on a blade of grass.  gorgous.

You obviously haven't seen the scene with the corny waterfalls in the background in Episode 2' then,. That was one instance where the limitations of HD became painfully obvious as the grass looked like anything but grass. The limited resolution of video just couldn't deal with all the fine details that you have in a meadow.

[Guest dpforum1968]

Thanks for that info David. Normally when out shooting we always take a three chip DV camera as a back up to the 35mm gear, and because some people working in DV actually prefer a DV stock shot over a film sourced one for matching purposes.

 

That would be nice if I also had a high end HD video camera as well, so that people who want the HD Cam "look" can have that. But those cameras are impractical to pack around from a cost perspective. And we get into some pretty rough areas, ie very damp or very cold, hot, etc.

 

Any whoo, it would be nice if the hourly rates in 35 to HD suites would come down a little. Currently the cheapest I can find is $550.00 hr Canadian dollars ($458.00 US).

 

Every time I do a SD transfer the colourist says in wonder, "this would look amazing in HD."

 

DC

[Jared Hoy]

You obviously haven't seen the scene with the corny waterfalls in the background in Episode 2' then,. That was one instance where the limitations of HD became painfully obvious as the grass looked like anything but grass. The limited resolution of video just couldn't deal with all the fine details that you have in a meadow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol - i put a rule in here. no quoting episode 1 or 2 -- i feel to proper measure the benefits of HD there should be some aspect of something other than a greenscreen involved.

[Brad Grimmett]

lol - i put a rule in here. no quoting episode 1 or 2 -- i feel to proper measure the benefits of HD there should be some aspect of something other than a greenscreen involved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? 35mm does fine with green screen. Why shouldn't HD if it's suppossed to be "just as good" or better.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think he means judging HD photography from shots with a lot of efx compositing is misleading since there is so much post processing involved.

 

Of course, that can make HD look better than it normally does too if the efx elements and compositing are done at 2K and only a portion of the frame was done in HD.

 

The grass near the waterfalls in "Attack of the Clones" shows both the limitations of HD's resolution but also the problems with HDCAM as a recording format (too much compression, too much color subsampling, etc.) The waterfall itself was added in post so I wouldn't judge HD on that.

 

On the other hand, I've seen Super-35 movies that crap out on wide exterior daytime shots, detail-wise...

[John Sprung]

Now I assume an HD shot acquired on 35mm and transfered to D5, will look quite a bit different than a shot acquired with an HD video camera? Have you seen the difference in the two side by side, ie inter cut? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See if you can get a look at the tests that Daviau did for Panavision, film side by side with the new Genesis camera. Basically, they're close enough that there's no real reason to choose one over the other for the look they give you.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

Secondly, if you shoot and finish in HD and the end user does not have an HD TV do they get the benefits of HD?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes to some extent. If you shoot in SD, you have to make the Nyquist limit of SD optically, which requires a filter that rolls off starting from a quarter of the sampling frequency to the limit at half the sampling frequency. If you work in HD, you need only make the HD Nyquist limit optically. The re-sampling to SD can be done digitally, which gives you a sharp cutoff just below the Nyquist limit of SD. So, you get a lot more top octave detail. The digital filter can use negative coefficients that aren't physically possible with an optical filter.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brad Grimmett]

I think he means judging HD photography from shots with a lot of efx compositing is misleading since there is so much post processing involved.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, that makes sense. It just sounded like he didn't want to have that comparison because he thought HD was inferior to film when green screen is involved.