The Tao of HD

J

JRAnderson

Well-known member
Hi All,

Let's call this a case study on the psychological impact of High Def video.

I'm having a debate of sorts with my best buddy and occasional video collaborator on the virtues of HD vs. SD.

Let me say right up front I'm a huge fan of HD and would prefer it in nearly all cases. Who wouldn't. So, this is not a which-is-better debate, but rather a discussion on the relative increase in quality in a particular situation.

Specifically: The discussion centers on a possible project, a three-hour church-type teaching that will be mostly, if not entirely, a head shot of the pastor, all taped interview style. Now, in just about any other situation I 'd be all for the greater vibrancy of the HD format. But in what will be a static -- ok, I'll say it, boring -- shoot, I'm having trouble seeing why there would be any desired difference over what we'd get from SD footage.

He contends that this is exactly when you really want HD, to get that extra pop. It is in the boring subject matter that the difference between the two formats is most noticeable and when the subject matter is beautiful, grand or sweeping that the difference becomes less noticeable, he says.

I contend that more is not necessarily better in this situation. I don't need to see the individual threads in the weave of the teachers' shirt, or the bits of stubble on his face, or be able to count the number of hairs on his head. Now, if we were shooting this on location in Hawaii or anywhere outside with even the slightest hint of visual variety I'd say hell ya, HD. But back in the real world, there is very little that I could imagine seeing more of in this particular shoot that would make me want to go the extra mile for HD.

Which brings me to the practical side. We're equipped with two DVXs but only one HD camera. Since we want to make this a two-camera shoot, we'd have to rent the second camera if we went HD.

Then there is the added issue of delivery. This will only be circulated on DVD. While it may be nice to one day deliver on HD DVD or blue-ray, the reality is it ain't happening any time soon, at least for people who would view this. So...

Thoughts?
 
A head shot of a pastor doesn't strike me as particularly cinematic. I would imagine that plenty of ugly skin flaws would be apparent in HD without makeup.

So yeah, I agree with you. I would just shoot SD as it will be simpler and serves the purpose.
 
David Jimerson said:
I think you've answered your own question.
Click to expand...
Not really posing a question so much as trying to see what I'm missing. My friend is ten times more knowledgable on all things dealing with resolution and format. He's smarter on most things, for that matter. And he's an excellent communicator. Stiil, I drove him to the point of frustration on the phone (even though he's also ten times more patient than I am) but I still didn't get why he felt adamant about this.
 
I'd have to agree with you. The truth is that the average people don't care much about resolution (even though they are impressed with a large quantity of it). If I'm correct, your goal is not to impress the viewers with stunning imagery. Who are you delivering this to? Usually if you watch a 3 hour video of one person talking you are doing it for content, not for strict visual entertainment.

If HD was a source that everybody expected and was easy to deliver on, I'd say to definitely shoot HD, but for this it seems that you'd just be superfluous to shoot HD.
 
bballplaya283 said:
If I'm correct, your goal is not to impress the viewers with stunning imagery. Who are you delivering this to? Usually if you watch a 3 hour video of one person talking you are doing it for content, not for strict visual entertainment.
Click to expand...

I think that's my buddy's point: That the sheer visual accuity of HD provides a certain "stun" factor in and of itself.

My counterpoint: If the material itself is not stunning, or at least interesting, then it doesn't matter.

This I think is the crux of the debate.
 
JRAnderson said:
Not really posing a question so much as trying to see what I'm missing. My friend is ten times more knowledgable on all things dealing with resolution and format. He's smarter on most things, for that matter. And he's an excellent communicator. Stiil, I drove him to the point of frustration on the phone (even though he's also ten times more patient than I am) but I still didn't get why he felt adamant about this.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're missing anything.
 
I think this debate is like most things..... there are no set in stone rules

why dont you guys cover this preacher in a cinematic way and utilize HD? why does the shot have to be a boring static shot? I think more details on the project might lead you to more answers...
 
If you're having to spend your own money to shoot in HD to then just turn around and deliver in SD, shoot SD. If you were having to rent all the cameras anyway, there might be more of an argument for going HD just to have it, test it, figure out workflow for future projects, etc.
 
hoofandmouf said:
I think this debate is like most things..... there are no set in stone rules

why dont you guys cover this preacher in a cinematic way and utilize HD? why does the shot have to be a boring static shot? I think more details on the project might lead you to more answers...
Click to expand...
Client is driving this. He want something simple that can be done in a day without a lot of fuss and muss... just wants to get it done.

But I agree, it would be a lot more fun to get creative.

The point of the thread though wasn't so much to explore how to make the video better, but see -- theoretically speaking -- if there is ANY value added in HD over SD in a situation like this.

For example, even though we'd deliver on standard DVD but shot on HD, there's still be "quality" edge in the video wouldn't there? I'm not saying it would look "better" but it would look different than had we shot SD, wouldn't it?
 
There might be some theoretical resolution advantages shooting HDV and downrezzing to SD but I do not think any of your viewers would notice, or care. SD shot with two DVX100s put on a DVD looks perfectly professional. You have the cams and can do it fast.

I bet that if you circulate the material now on SD DVD, NOBODY is going to ask 3 years latter for the same disk in HD! Nobody, the video has served its purpose and forgotten.

Just that are you trying to fit 3 hours on one DVD?
 
Petrus said:
Just that are you trying to fit 3 hours on one DVD?
Click to expand...


Maybe, but only if the client opted for the ease-of-use benefit that would bring, but my preference would be to split it up and preserve the resolution.
 
This is so uncanny…


A friend of mine and I were having a similar discussion, but some of the details were actually quite different. We ended up disagreeing, but perhaps one of you will shed more light on this.


In our particular project, also a three-hour church-type teaching done with two cameras to switch between the head-shot and a somewhat wider angle showing a desk and various props. My arguments for shooting HD spanned several topics, but were based on the fact that I own only an HD camera. I can rent one HD camera and the camera package is complete. My friend contends that his SD cameras (two of them) would do every bit as well, and that I should shoot SD instead. (He may have overlooked the fact that his cameras are over 1000 miles away and won’t be around for the shoot!)


Color did come up in our discussion, but differently than in the case with JRAnderson’s friend. My friends point, similarly, was that as it was not a richly-colored landscape, and therefore HD color would be of no benefit. I argued that HD does a better job of preserving color space. I stated that in scenes with less color, or a drab environment, any degradation of color whatsoever would be tragic. (Sure, I was being a little dramatic here, but I think you can grasp my point).



In contrast, I had to laugh at JRAnderson’s friends line, “It is in the boring subject matter that the difference between the two formats is most noticeable…” Ahem. Sure, whatever.


To me, this point is illustrated by those primetime dramas shot in DV format. Oftentimes the colors are minimal and dark, yet there is a preserved richness akin to quality film work. When the same episode is broadcast (generally simulcast) in SD, there is no argument that it takes a hit everywhere – color included, and everything looks, well, flat.


No, in my case I am not interested in counting the threads in the weave of the shirt or viewing the beard stubble, but I do value the crispness that HD lends to this environment.


Practically? Well, in our case, both DVX’s would have to be transported to location over 1000 miles away, while a single HD camera is already on site. I could certainly rent a pair of DVX’s - perhaps for only slightly more than the rental of an additional HD camera. But, all things considered, Renting an HD camera (same make/model) seems like the way to go in order to preserve the same look – any comments here are especially welcome.



Delivery will only be DVD for the next two or so years, HD DVD probably won’t be a factor. However, much of what I have read (admittedly, I have limited experience here) indicates that going from HD to DVD can provide a superior product as compared to going from SD to DVD – any thoughts here?


Personally, I don’t feel post-production of SD vs. HD is much of an issue – this will be a fairly straightforward edit (very linear!) and my system moves through HD like a hot knife through butter.

Rendering will require more time with HD, but the general workflow is not impacted.


Very similar, but with different points. Feedback is appreciated.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top