Devils Advocate ..... HD vs. SD

B

BennyMonday

Active member
Ok, I don't want to stir up a lot of discussions other than the choice of shooting HD vs. SD. I understand there are a lot of variables here but I have a few points I'd like to throw out there and see what everyone's honest viewpoint is on the topic.
Let's say you're shooting a short film or music video. A large percentage of the Indie community, I would guess.
So you have a choice of each format .... but your end result is the festival market (maybe for acknowledgment or just to display what you are capable of producing). So most likely you will be outputting to a DVD or web content, or both.
So, here is my question .... if you're result is an SD DVD or SD on Youtube or Vimeo (yes I understand they both display HD, but when imbedding them they don't and you are redirected to see the HD version, maybe not the most practical method) why wouldn't you shoot on the best SD camera available .... a DVX100b. I've read all over the internet and that does seem to be the best SD camera out there. The 24p option is also rated as one of the best.
When shooting HD and then you have to compress down to MPEG format for a DVD, you are going to loose some of your original quality and there are plenty of pitfalls in rendering that effect quality.
This brings me back to the question ... unless you are shooting for an HD output/blu ray why wouldn't you arm yourself with the best SD camera on the market (not looking for an argument there, I just chose the DVX for it's rep).

I understand many people want to use the latest technology and best recording device ... but if it's like hunting groundhogs with a bazooka what is really the point?? Maybe the norm will be HD someday ... and maybe you will need that HD format to transfer into something new they discover next year ... blah blah blah. It's not the standard today with most film fests and web content and that's the fact.

I'd like to hear what everyone's take is .... I've used both and have my own opinion but want to hear what your 1st hand experience has been and how you feel.
 
1) The HVX is a better SD camera than the DVX, for a number of reasons - not the least of which is native 16:9 and better resolution, ability to shoot DVCPro50, etc.

2) HD downconverted/transcoded to DVD looks better than SD... though different compression schemes affect this... meaning, I'm not sure DVCProHD->DVD looks better than DVCPro50->DVD (see 5 below), but it certainly looks better than DV->DVD.

3) Extra resolution of HD holds up better during postproduction processing, and allows more flexibility in, say, reframing and other manipulations

4) Some HD codecs (DVCProHD) have colorspace advantages (as does DVCPro50), that makes the imagery hold up better BOTH during post production (color correction, etc) AND the conversion to DVD's 4:2:0 color space.

5) Even without the colorspace advantage, HD when downconverted will effectively have a colorspace advantage over DV... since there are more color samples to start with (e.g., 4:2:0 HDV at 1440x1080 has more than twice as much color information as 4:1:1 DV, and thus is effectively similar to 4:2:2 SD)

6) I'm sure there's more, but this should get you started!


That said, the DVX is a great camera, and probably won't be a limiting factor in the situations you describe. Further, DV is faster to edit, process, and transcode, smaller to store/archive, etc. So there are benefits to the DVX side as well. I choose between SD and HD depending on many of the project constraints, and SD often wins at this point... because, as you say, there are issues with delivery and playback of HD that make it not realistic for many things I do.
 
Last edited:
BennyMonday said:
why wouldn't you shoot on the best SD camera available .... a DVX100b. I've read all over the internet and that does seem to be the best SD camera out there.
Click to expand...

Don't believe everything you read. Maybe for a camera of that price range, but it comes up way short of say, a SDX900, or really most cameras with 2/3" imagers, or 1/2", or....

Look, the whole idea of HD in this day and age is to "futureproof" your work, meaning that hopefully it will be cross compatible for just a bit longer. Black and White Television was fine, until along came color to change the way we did things. Same thing here as that whole situation really. I'm sure there were guys out there saying "well, b&w has been this way for awhile, why change it?" They too were most likely contemplating what they should do. But the simple fact is, color is better.

Look at it this way. If I wanted to make a b&w film, I could always film it in color and convert it to b&w easily. Going the other way would be a VERY difficult task. It just wouldn't be the same. Same thing with HD. You can always make SD out of HD, and there are ways to make SD into HD, kinda, but it's always going to be SD. And like ullanta said, the number of pixels you start with is going to increase a lot of things, like detail.

HD is quickly becoming the "Norm" as you put it if it isn't already. A very large percentage of television now is HD, downconverted for SD programming when needed. And when HD is more prevalent than SD, which will be a reality here quicker than you think, it would be great for that project to not be so outdated.

But if you are shooting for Youtube where nobody will care, it's not broadcast, etc, SD will be fine. Have fun with it.
 
Well, "the norm" depends on your audience. The vast majority of my work will involve final products in SD until Blu-ray achieves the market penetration that DVD has... which is years off at best. Until there's a dominant, widely accepted HD delivery format, SD will remain important for many things.
 
Stepping back to my original post .... the intended output is for film festivals and web content offered on a DVD. Yes, as stated obviously the footage captured on HD will have better resolution and depth you cannot get on SD. But when you are dealing with a medium (DVD) that parallels SD wouldn't it make sense to stay that route.

Kit, I think you are taking my example and comparing it to every possible option available. Most Indie Short filmmakers cannot afford a $17K camera. Yes, for that kind of money it darn well better make a DVX or HVX come up short ... or you better have held on to your receipt.

My point .... again ... is the market of the smaller Indie filmmaker, using a prosumer set up for shorts/docs/videos and the format to choose based on output. To be even more exact, let's say you have a Sony FX-7 and a DVX-100b, you are shooting a music video .... final output is Vimeo/YouTube and DVD for an upcoming band that really has some tallent. You want to give them the best you can for a short buck they can afford. Do the honorable thing and compromise .... what's the best content you can put out under these perameters?

From many people in a similar position this would be helpful information as they grow in this field. "Futureproofing" your work is a wonderful concept, but that is not the here and now for someone making a film to play the Fest circut over the next year or so giving people a peek at what they are capable of producing. Most have home "sutdios" for Post work using FCP/Prem etc, and one good camera .... and the question is, what camera is the best bet for that scenerio for let's say under $4K.

Is that more preciese?

I'm just trying to address a very large market, of which I have seen a lot of talent lately ... that could help from a little education from folks with years of expereince.
 
I don't know Benny - looks like you don't want an answer, but confirmation of your own beliefs. You've gotten some useful opinions which you seem to be dismissing. And Kit was responding to your superlative "Best SD Camera Available"... which was unqualified. Certainly those cameras are available for rental at low rates these days, as are used high-quality SD production cams...

But as has been said, HD provides more flexibility in post and a better final product, even when the final product is SD. That may or may not be important enough to warrant additional expense.

And.. the best under-$4,000 camera? Kind of a meaningless question. Just read all the camera reviews/debates here on 'User. It very much depends on the specific project, DP, etc. Sometimes a $1,000 camera with a specific $3,000 accessory will be a better fit to a project. Sometimes only renting will get you what you need within budget. Sometimes a cell phone that captures video will be ideal. Sometimes low-light capability will dominate. Sometimes resolution. Sometimes media or workflow. So there's never an answer to this question.

But I'd say the HMC150.
 
ullanta said:
1) The HVX is a better SD camera than the DVX, for a number of reasons - not the least of which is native 16:9 and better resolution, ability to shoot DVCPro50, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't know how carefully you've looked at HDX DSD footage but in my experience it is fatally flawed by excessive stairstep aliasing or (perhaps artifacting is a better term.)

Regardless - if you look carefully at high contrast diagonal edges - bannisters bookshelf edges, window sills, tops of moving cars , etc it is absolutely unacceptable. It exists in all flavors of SD HVX200 recording, regardless of user settings including detail. Don't know if they fixed it in the HPX170 or HVX200A but Panasonic never admitted this problem exists although our own Barry Green eventually acknowledged it and warned against shooting SD with the camera as a result.

Lenny Levy
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top