High Definition:No Difference for TV?

M

mike the beginner

Well-known member
Over at http://www.hdforindies.com/ there is a great article on High Definition and whether you actually notice the difference on the vast majority of TVs. In relation to the red one it is interesting stuff!

I am so glad that Graeme Natttress has concentrated on the Dynamics and lattitude of the red one rather than outright resolution. Otherwise those who do not intend to use red one footage for the theatre might start to re-think their plans?

There is always archiving in best quality for future use!

Michael
 
The charts are based on the theoretical resolution of a 20/20 sighted person and are a useful indication of the sizes of screen needed to get the benefit of HD, however there are many qualitative and workflow benefits to shooting in higher resolution than the delivery medium. And of course... it looks better. Watch the BBC'c Planet Earth at SD and its clear it was shot in HD (Panny 720 I believe).
 
mike the beginner said:
I am so glad that Graeme Natttress has concentrated on the Dynamics and lattitude of the red one rather than outright resolution.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm glad that RED hasn't gone over the top with resolution...



:)


- Mikko
 
I'm not sure Mike is talking about making acquisition-side decisions based on this otherwise good data.

e
 
I was suprised when looking for a moderatly priced new tv recently that the majority of HD tv's available are 1366 x 768. 1080p tv's seem to be very expensive still and the fact is you probably wouldn't see too much of a difference as the article indicates.

That said however can a DVD film be displayed differently to SD using a HD setup? And are the HD feeds, such as those available on Sky, 1080p or are they at the bottom end of the scale 720p or even 720i? The Xbox 360 is only 720p if I'm not mistaken?

So my question is are there any situations where we can actually view a 1080p film or other currently available? And if the answer to that is no then most of the discussion seems a moot point.

Roll on the 4k home projector... oh and the bigger house I'll need for the 60ft screen :)
 
mike the beginner said:
Over at http://www.hdforindies.com/ there is a great article on High Definition and whether you actually notice the difference on the vast majority of TVs. In relation to the red one it is interesting stuff!

Michael
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

One thing to remember is that film on an SD television has looked better than SD video for many years.

Stephen
 
Hi Mike,

One thing to remember is that film on an SD television has looked better than SD video for many years.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Stephen you are so right:)

There are off course many reasons for doing things in HD as mentioned by others. I have been looking at a lot of video footage out on DVD recently and i am really beginning to hate it. I am talking about sport type DVDs and fishings DVDs in particular. Bright with poor shadow details and water that just looks un-natural, skies don't look right either. Now someone will say that these things can be improved apon in post but that is another skill aspect to learn. Fine if you have all the other skills already, but a disaster if like me you still have to learn such basic skills with the camera etc.

When i seen the first images of the red one without colour correction, just straight off the camera sensor, i was absolutely gob smacked by the richness and creaminess of the image. For my purpose the image actually comes first since my first project will be for promotional and marketing purposes etc.

The one thing i have noticed recently though is here in the UK the price of HD ready TVs are very competitively priced compared to non HD ready TVs. So whatever we may think joe public is going to buy the HD TVs anyway. It will be a far bigger hurdle however to get them to buy into DVD Blue ray recorders/players at anything like the current prices quoted. The main reason for joe public to buy into blue ray is the amount of er....stuff they can copy onto these discs. Our government though has put a damper on that with their recent announcement of ten years imprisonment for some perpetrators.

PS people are also buying larger TVs as well. Film Buffs like me already have a 56" Tv!!

Michael
 
I was just talking about viewing - acquiring at higher res offers a lot of flexibility and benefits in post
 
From my testing with a viewing distance of 1,5m from my 23" Cinema display, 1080p material looks way better than that same material gone through a high quality 1080p>720p>1080p scale. Looks more 3d, more easy on the eyes.

But in any case a good video scaler and a good panel is adding more viewing pleasure that just a high res screen with some junk electronics.

Cant wait to get my HD DVD player :)
 
Hmmm, based on the article, maybe I should consider a front projector instead. The Sony 1080p SXRD line is getting more affordable.
 
Barry_Green said:
But not because of resolution.
Click to expand...

Certainly not only because of resolution, but oversampling certainly helps perceived quality a lot. Same as shooting HD for SD broadcast.

I have a 44" rear projection DLP at home which is only PAL SD resolution (1024x576) and has no HDMI input, but can take an HD component input. I was quite staggered at the difference in picture quality on it when I connected it up to the component output of my Z1, and switched the Z1 between 1080i output and 576i.

Nick
 
Barry_Green said:
But not because of resolution.
Click to expand...

Barry,

You are totally correct, knowing how to light and not adding detail to compensate for lack of resolution, would IMHO be the key.

I believe Red cameras will be capable of producing beautiful images in the right hands. Those images will look far better on an SD monitor than normal SD video

Stephen
 
Nick_Shaw said:
Certainly not only because of resolution, but oversampling certainly helps perceived quality a lot. Same as shooting HD for SD broadcast.
Click to expand...
Except that it doesn't. HD for SD broadcast doesn't look any different than SD for SD broadcast.

The question is if the camera can saturate the frame with detail. If we're talking about a $200 handycam, then yes an oversampled/downrezzed HD broadcast is going to look sharper. But if you're talking about an SDX900 or higher, no oversampled/downrezzed HD broadcast is going to look any better than the solid SD broadcast in the first place. Easily demonstratable when the Tonight Show was broadcasting HD and the Letterman show wasn't -- on an SDTV the Tonight Show didn't look one pixel better, not one iota better, than the Letterman show.
 
Nick_Shaw said:
which is only PAL SD resolution (1024x576)
Click to expand...

Nick. Surely that should be 768x576 (or 720x576 depending upon how you look at it) to be standard PAL definition.

M
 
As far as 1366 x 768 versus 1920 by 1080, the cutoff to my eye is about a 40" screen. 40" or below, I can't tell the difference between the resolutions.

At 46", the 1920 by 1080 seems a little sharper. This test was with a DVD mind you...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top