HD distribution
- Thread starter alpi69
- Start date
thisiswells
Retired
Competition will absolutely lower prices!alpi69 said:
Joe_Digital
Well-known member
For those who think Super 16 is much cheaper than HD, think again. I have just completed a feature on 7218 stock which we transferred to HDSR and those costs are FAR above what a CineAlta package would have costed including tape stock.
Here are a whack of costs to consider -film: the camera bodies & lenses & support gear, and shipping into town; the 70,000 feet of 500T stock; the shipping of that stock out of town to the lab & the shipping back; the processing costs -even though we got a great deal from Technicolor...now some of this may not apply in bigger centers, but this is our reality on the prairies.
What would have helped us of course is we own a bunch of this HD gear & support equipment ourselves, but even if we had to rent, the costs would have been much lower. I base that on what I would have rented my gear to another client at comparable rates to those rental houses who have similar packages.
I would not have had to worry about changing mags all the time, then the camera battery then the bodies crapping out because it was cold...
There are also very clear advantages to shooting HD over 16 -namely the 20" Sony BVDM HD-SDI monitor that shows absolutely everything in your frame AND whether or not your focus puller is doing his/her job. I had to wait until we got the dailies back from the lab because our video tap was crappy and based on what I saw in video village some questionable shots looked in focus. Had I worked in HD I could have said cut immediately or 'going again' because the focus was out and the FP didn't think it was. So of course now I don't have the best performance to choose in the edit because some shots are too soft. Or the camera operator who fails to see the big C-stand in the reflection of the car window, or the boom...it can be painted out in post right? No big deal, right?
In HD I can send usable guide track to the camera as it records 20 bit sound so I can take the original source tapes and digitize that night into our system to see exactly what we have entirely synched.
I can say I will not shoot film again because I can control way more of what is happening at break neck speed, especially when it is your own money and you cannot afford to reshoot.
Getting back to the point however -the new Sony Playstations are going to have HD BluRay playback capability and that will create its own push in the market. Plus Sony the corporation owns a huge amount of past, present and future films which they can re-purpose. And don't think the other studios don't see another cash cow coming: HD DVD represents an entirely new cash flow for the same products they've just made millions on because they've just re-issued in DVD. It's all about 'how many ways can we provide a product we can charge for to a consumer?' The fact that my films are finished in HD mean I have anotehr revenue stream to broadcasters who want HD material. If I shoot with my DVX, I lose out. If I shoot with HVX next year, it will help immensely.
Here are a whack of costs to consider -film: the camera bodies & lenses & support gear, and shipping into town; the 70,000 feet of 500T stock; the shipping of that stock out of town to the lab & the shipping back; the processing costs -even though we got a great deal from Technicolor...now some of this may not apply in bigger centers, but this is our reality on the prairies.
What would have helped us of course is we own a bunch of this HD gear & support equipment ourselves, but even if we had to rent, the costs would have been much lower. I base that on what I would have rented my gear to another client at comparable rates to those rental houses who have similar packages.
I would not have had to worry about changing mags all the time, then the camera battery then the bodies crapping out because it was cold...
There are also very clear advantages to shooting HD over 16 -namely the 20" Sony BVDM HD-SDI monitor that shows absolutely everything in your frame AND whether or not your focus puller is doing his/her job. I had to wait until we got the dailies back from the lab because our video tap was crappy and based on what I saw in video village some questionable shots looked in focus. Had I worked in HD I could have said cut immediately or 'going again' because the focus was out and the FP didn't think it was. So of course now I don't have the best performance to choose in the edit because some shots are too soft. Or the camera operator who fails to see the big C-stand in the reflection of the car window, or the boom...it can be painted out in post right? No big deal, right?
In HD I can send usable guide track to the camera as it records 20 bit sound so I can take the original source tapes and digitize that night into our system to see exactly what we have entirely synched.
I can say I will not shoot film again because I can control way more of what is happening at break neck speed, especially when it is your own money and you cannot afford to reshoot.
Getting back to the point however -the new Sony Playstations are going to have HD BluRay playback capability and that will create its own push in the market. Plus Sony the corporation owns a huge amount of past, present and future films which they can re-purpose. And don't think the other studios don't see another cash cow coming: HD DVD represents an entirely new cash flow for the same products they've just made millions on because they've just re-issued in DVD. It's all about 'how many ways can we provide a product we can charge for to a consumer?' The fact that my films are finished in HD mean I have anotehr revenue stream to broadcasters who want HD material. If I shoot with my DVX, I lose out. If I shoot with HVX next year, it will help immensely.
Zack Birlew
Veteran
Okay, film is out okay? Unless you've got a major budget or can stretch the project out and build up money over and over during breaks, it's not going to work. Film would be the best option for anything, minus the obvious like news and sports.
HD is the next step up, it's the step up to Mini-DV over VHS, it's what we'll be shooting in the future. For effects, it works out a lot better, except HDV which is mixed in results. For future proofing, it's perfect. Take a still photograph for example, my 5 megapixel still camera can take pictures at 2592x1944 dimensions, do I need pictures that big? No, they're better suited for blowup to larger sizes or for bigger prints than standard size. When I want a wallet sized print, I shrink it down, same picture, looks just as good and is in the size I want. What you get with HD is flexibility. Very much like the Sony UMD movies, they're simply further downrezzed versions of the films, do they look just as good as DVD's? Yes they do.
SD, the current format being used. SD is great, there's nothing wrong with it, never will be. But for those of us who want future proof for our movies so we don't look back at them like our old Betamax home videos and say "Ugh!" when we have HYPERSTUPIDRIDICULOUSRESOLUTIONBURFERMEGA-HDTVs thirty to forty years from now. If you want to do something now and don't want to spend a whole lot of money, go with SD, you can't go wrong at this point. SD works, it's proven, you know what to expect.
HD-DVD and Bluray.... doesn't matter. Internet iTunes like videoservice, not going to overtake anything for a long while. Sure they could integrate TV and Internet into one entirely single service system like that but computers are still a little too buggy and it becomes too technical for the Average Joe/Jane, there are many out there who don't know how to use their computers or fix little problems. It's not a good thing if the servers go down during Superbowl Sunday now is it? =) HD-DVD and Bluray are going to kill one another, that's all there is to it. Sony is most likely going to stick with Bluray for games and data storage, you can already see that their UMD videos aren't going anywhere really, people are having too much fun ripping their DVDs and putting them on there. Sony! Heads up! Why not try and make a UMD burner drive just for kicks? HD-DVD could very well win the fight, it's cheaper, it uses currently existing technology with some slight alterations, and it's not too different from regular DVD's in material (disc versus enclosure) plus, if I'm not mistaken, the XBOX360 has HD-DVD support already and a lot of people have them now. That's quite a lead for the hare to catch up to the tortoise. The big question is, what will you be buying when they come out, HD-DVD or Bluray? I'm personally going to wait on the side and see how it turns out. Hopefully it goes by quick and painlessly. A good strategy I think is to see who's going to have the cheaper players, not the media itself. If Sony charges $300 for a Bluray player and, I don't know, Panasonic or somebody offers a $100 HD-DVD player, who's the Average Joe/Jane going to buy? The same goes for the other way around, Sony could very well win this time, they've just had a bad record is all. It's shaping up but it'll go down without too much fuss.
HD is the next step up, it's the step up to Mini-DV over VHS, it's what we'll be shooting in the future. For effects, it works out a lot better, except HDV which is mixed in results. For future proofing, it's perfect. Take a still photograph for example, my 5 megapixel still camera can take pictures at 2592x1944 dimensions, do I need pictures that big? No, they're better suited for blowup to larger sizes or for bigger prints than standard size. When I want a wallet sized print, I shrink it down, same picture, looks just as good and is in the size I want. What you get with HD is flexibility. Very much like the Sony UMD movies, they're simply further downrezzed versions of the films, do they look just as good as DVD's? Yes they do.
SD, the current format being used. SD is great, there's nothing wrong with it, never will be. But for those of us who want future proof for our movies so we don't look back at them like our old Betamax home videos and say "Ugh!" when we have HYPERSTUPIDRIDICULOUSRESOLUTIONBURFERMEGA-HDTVs thirty to forty years from now. If you want to do something now and don't want to spend a whole lot of money, go with SD, you can't go wrong at this point. SD works, it's proven, you know what to expect.
HD-DVD and Bluray.... doesn't matter. Internet iTunes like videoservice, not going to overtake anything for a long while. Sure they could integrate TV and Internet into one entirely single service system like that but computers are still a little too buggy and it becomes too technical for the Average Joe/Jane, there are many out there who don't know how to use their computers or fix little problems. It's not a good thing if the servers go down during Superbowl Sunday now is it? =) HD-DVD and Bluray are going to kill one another, that's all there is to it. Sony is most likely going to stick with Bluray for games and data storage, you can already see that their UMD videos aren't going anywhere really, people are having too much fun ripping their DVDs and putting them on there. Sony! Heads up! Why not try and make a UMD burner drive just for kicks? HD-DVD could very well win the fight, it's cheaper, it uses currently existing technology with some slight alterations, and it's not too different from regular DVD's in material (disc versus enclosure) plus, if I'm not mistaken, the XBOX360 has HD-DVD support already and a lot of people have them now. That's quite a lead for the hare to catch up to the tortoise. The big question is, what will you be buying when they come out, HD-DVD or Bluray? I'm personally going to wait on the side and see how it turns out. Hopefully it goes by quick and painlessly. A good strategy I think is to see who's going to have the cheaper players, not the media itself. If Sony charges $300 for a Bluray player and, I don't know, Panasonic or somebody offers a $100 HD-DVD player, who's the Average Joe/Jane going to buy? The same goes for the other way around, Sony could very well win this time, they've just had a bad record is all. It's shaping up but it'll go down without too much fuss.
Neopics
Well-known member
Konrad said:
I think people misunderstood my comment. There are commercials shot in 35mm that only air on TV. So, why do that? Because it looks better than SD-originated video.xray said:
(By no means are all commercials shot in 35mm, nor are they only shown on TV. I was just backing up AZScott's comment as to why shoot with HD, or any other high-end format, when you're only distributing on SD.)
Case in point. My latest project includes making PSAs for a client who also airs paid commercials. Their paid spots are done through an ad agency, and they're shot in 35mm.
I have a GL1 currently and used it for their previous PSAs, but I'm planning on upgrading to the HVX this winter so the quality of the new PSAs will better match the 35mm spots.
Neither set will be shown beyond SD video or broadcast TV in the short term. They'll just look "better".
fiercecurry
Well-known member
I am really curious about how long will it be before the advertising community/industry fully embraces HD. So far it has not. Besides, when you are dealing with agencies and clients who do national campaigns where the average 30 second commercial costs at least $500,000 - $1 million its not about cutting corners and saving a buck or two on film stock and telecine, these clients are paying a lot of money for the whole production and in return they want a high quality product. Film has been proven as the highest quality image, and a lot of people dont want to experiment with a format that is not so proven. Unless your David Fincher who still shoots commercials, (with HD cameras) can you convince the agencies and ultimately their clients. Your late night infomercial or local ad is a different situation, of course these clients will want the closest thing to film for a low price. However, when seen on a regular SD tv and broadcast, your HVX footage will look no better than a DVX. Your high end HD or 35mm or even 16mm will still retain their quality.
alpi69
Veteran
AZ, I am impressed. We indeed used the Schilling, but now we are on Euro like most European countries.
There is no doubt (for me) HD and especially the HVX are the way to go asap. DigiBeta was only for the sake of the argument. We considered it and although the cam itself is no much to rent anymore (they are all good and paid for by now), but it brings its own implications (cam-size and weight, deck needed, tapecosts...). we also considered Super-16 which again brings its own problems, although the cams are super-tough and the image is great.
from a production point of view HVX is the best tool: variable framerates, HD, stable DVCProHD codec, no tapes etc. there are things to iron out in the workflow, but we will handle that (thabks for those links BTW).
distribution as i said is a questionmark. when we are done shooting in fall 2006 i hope we know what goes on (even if we can´t budget properly for it now).
it will be interesting to see how long Sony can keep the PS3 as BluRay only. XBox is out now and making noise for itself. WMHD is out now and fairly affordable yet. BluRay is more expensive as player and medium (i believe), so it will be tough for them.
there are interesting times ahead of us and if it weren´t for the HVX we wouldn´t even be bothered.
There is no doubt (for me) HD and especially the HVX are the way to go asap. DigiBeta was only for the sake of the argument. We considered it and although the cam itself is no much to rent anymore (they are all good and paid for by now), but it brings its own implications (cam-size and weight, deck needed, tapecosts...). we also considered Super-16 which again brings its own problems, although the cams are super-tough and the image is great.
from a production point of view HVX is the best tool: variable framerates, HD, stable DVCProHD codec, no tapes etc. there are things to iron out in the workflow, but we will handle that (thabks for those links BTW).
distribution as i said is a questionmark. when we are done shooting in fall 2006 i hope we know what goes on (even if we can´t budget properly for it now).
it will be interesting to see how long Sony can keep the PS3 as BluRay only. XBox is out now and making noise for itself. WMHD is out now and fairly affordable yet. BluRay is more expensive as player and medium (i believe), so it will be tough for them.
there are interesting times ahead of us and if it weren´t for the HVX we wouldn´t even be bothered.
Neopics
Well-known member
I'm not so sure about that. I've run a couple of tests with the lone HVX still from the Tosh blog and managed to get a noticeably sharper image in post than the footage taken with the GL1.fiercecurry said:
Granted, that isn't the DVX, though. I haven't had the privilege of shooting with the DVX, so its quality may be better to begin with.
By the way, I'm planning on posting some comparisons between the two (GL1 and HVX) over the holidays. Stay tuned.
The Machinist
Respected Member
Am i missing something or are you talking about a canon GL1??
....Yes the DVX's SD is better than a GL1. However I believe someone had posted in another discussion that the HVX's SD image quality is an improvement over the DVX but time will have to tell on that one.
....Yes the DVX's SD is better than a GL1. However I believe someone had posted in another discussion that the HVX's SD image quality is an improvement over the DVX but time will have to tell on that one.
Neopics
Well-known member
(sigh) Yes, it's true. Same camera I've used for the last 5 years. Another reason why I think it's time to upgrade.The Machinist said:
Though, it's done me well so far. It's quite a little trooper. Still works perfectly. And my local station hasn't had any qualms about airing my footage. It's just time to step up a notch (or two...or three...)
Just to clarify.. You can put H264 video on a normal pressed dvd. So you can distribute your HD production as HD from a DVD press house.
There are 2 limitations,
1. you will only get 9GB of storage, which shouldn't be an issue, cause h264 is much more efficient that mpg2, you should be able to fit 3hr of HD easy on 9GB.
2. The Consumer will need a Device which can play back h264. Right now there are no consumer players that will play H264 besides a Computer. But this will Change in about 4 Months when HD DVD players show up.
Other than that if you use Apple Software you can make an HD DVD on DVD media today.
There are 2 limitations,
1. you will only get 9GB of storage, which shouldn't be an issue, cause h264 is much more efficient that mpg2, you should be able to fit 3hr of HD easy on 9GB.
2. The Consumer will need a Device which can play back h264. Right now there are no consumer players that will play H264 besides a Computer. But this will Change in about 4 Months when HD DVD players show up.
Other than that if you use Apple Software you can make an HD DVD on DVD media today.
The Machinist
Respected Member
Indeed. I trained myself on a GL1 back in the day as well. But i agree it's def time for an upgrade and boy oh boy what a time to upgrade.
fiercecurry
Well-known member
bena said:
However, you need a G5 to play back the H.264 encoded DVD. How many people have those? And how long before Blu-Ray or HD-DVD players are adopted by the public to the same level as regular DVD players? By the way, Sony is planning on using MPEG2 encoding for its Blu-Ray discs, so perhaps the hardware on their players will only accept mpeg2 encoded discs.
I am all for progress, and the HD dvd formats (whatever format wins, i dont care) but its going to take a lot longer than 4 months. More like a year and half before 50% percent of the public will actually own one of the HD-DVD or Blu Ray players.
When it's considered how long it was between the first commercial colour broadcast in the US, and 50% of households owning a colour TV, the growth of HDTV must be seen as unbelievably, phenomenally, rapid. Even if it takes more than 18 months from introduction to get that many player sales.fiercecurry said:
fiercecurry
Well-known member
So for at least 18 months you will have very, very few people to show your HD footage to. By that time a newer, better and maybe a cheaper version of the HVX will be out. At least the P2 cards will be.
The point was made generally, and everybodys circumstances are different. It may not be worth rushing out to buy an HVX when first released - any other HD camera, for that matter - but if I intended to buy a camera tomorrow, it would be crazy not to buy HD.fiercecurry said:
If your material has ANY archival value HD must be strongly considered, from the 16:9 aspect alone. Same for such as indie filmmakers - even if first release is SD DVD, originating HD means it is good quality widescreen at least, and the door is open for rereleasing in some future HD format later.
If you don't have a specific reason to buy a new camera - yes, save your money, as you suggest. If you do have a reason - get HD, that's all I'm saying. The comparison to colour was to show just how quickly the technology is being taken up, compared to big changes in the past. A year, 18 months, 3 years, may seem long at the time - in terms of technology take up, they're not.
I'm just finishing the final color correction and audio post on a documentary for the upcoming Winter Olympics. Like the one we produced last year for the 25th anniverasy of the "Miracle on Ice", it was shot on DV and will be distributed on DVD.
In the case of last years film, it debuted on twin big screens at either end of the Olympic Arena with an audience of about 7,000 people and even with a lot of the original 1" 1980 ABC footage held up well - for what it was...a documentary mixing new 16:9 SD and archival footage.
That said, I'm starting to get the first real HD inquiries that matter - meaning that might be deal breakers. In discussions on a upcoming broadcast special, even the regional NBC NY principles asked if I would be producing it on HD.
That's where the real incentive and momentum will come that determines the switch. Not whether it stands up well enough (SD vs HD on SD distribution) or even the issue of "future proofing" (which is a real oxymoron <g>).
The real schedule will be determined by how quickly networks and commercial clients begin to ask for it. Film out is a great thought, but it's simply a dram for 99.999% of anyone that shoots HD inow or in the future. The vast percentage of dollars in this end of the creative business is in broadcast and hard distribution and will be for a while to come.
Just follow the dollars, and they are "starting" to go HD in the places that move the markets.
In the case of last years film, it debuted on twin big screens at either end of the Olympic Arena with an audience of about 7,000 people and even with a lot of the original 1" 1980 ABC footage held up well - for what it was...a documentary mixing new 16:9 SD and archival footage.
That said, I'm starting to get the first real HD inquiries that matter - meaning that might be deal breakers. In discussions on a upcoming broadcast special, even the regional NBC NY principles asked if I would be producing it on HD.
That's where the real incentive and momentum will come that determines the switch. Not whether it stands up well enough (SD vs HD on SD distribution) or even the issue of "future proofing" (which is a real oxymoron <g>).
The real schedule will be determined by how quickly networks and commercial clients begin to ask for it. Film out is a great thought, but it's simply a dram for 99.999% of anyone that shoots HD inow or in the future. The vast percentage of dollars in this end of the creative business is in broadcast and hard distribution and will be for a while to come.
Just follow the dollars, and they are "starting" to go HD in the places that move the markets.
fiercecurry said:
Well I'm probably one of the only guys that owns both an ad agency and production studios and it's still a mixed bag depending on client, budget and scope of broadcast. You can do white screen work in the studio on a DVX or XL2 (I'd go XL2 if the shoot was 16:9 and DVX if it were native 4:3) and it looks terrific on broadcast. More location and involved set work looks great on 16mm (where most commerical work has been done for a while) but again can be matched to a large extent with good technique on either DV camera...especially given the DOF similarities vs 35mm.
To get a "big" spot feel for broadcast can go either 35mm or HD, but if you're talking HVX you're going to need a Mini 35 or other adapter to match the dimension of DOF from the 35mm or large sensor HD.
If, theoretically you had to make a choice, You could make the strong case that for that bigger spot look (given the SD broadcast reality) that a DVX or XL2 with Mini35 will deliver a better look than an HVX or any 1/3" HD cam with a stock lens.
I think we're moving to a place where a $20k investment of a HVX and Mini35 could provide a tapless 0 overhead production tool that could span feature film work as well as the full range of commercial production. (jury's still out on any of the new range of afordable adapters, but I'm definitely intrigued...especially in a multi-camera set up).
Things will be a lot more clear a year from now once the quality has been established.