G
Guest
Guest
I remember when many of the same arguments against red, were the same ones for HD:
-Hard Drive Space and the Cost of Archiving
-Hidden Costs in Reusable Flash Media
-Computing Power for Playback
-Low Light Sensitivity
-up rez 720p benefits vs true 1080p and the resolution arguments
-Who needs HD?
That is because they are all valid arguments. They applied then, and they apply now.
For me, I was disappointed when I first saw HD, and felt it was a half-ass upgrade from SD. Twice the resolution is not quite twice the perceived resolution. 4K or 5K, on the other hand, would have been a happy upgrade. Don't get me wrong, HD is an improvement over SD, and I like to tell myself that it is a necessary evil to pay for future technological advancements in digital imaging.
But HD has only been somewhat enjoyable in the last 2yrs. Prior to that, there were still many people who didn't have HD, or computers that can playback compressed HD. Even today, I know few people that have and use blue ray. Also, with the trend of people owning laptops, and not desktops, they have 900p screens at best, and more likely have 800p. Cable television is a lackluster visual experience, and internet compression makes anything over 720p almost irrelevant. Most internet content is watched at below 720p.
Things are getting better. But we were introduced to HD as a beta, and started paying into it, without it actually being fully developed or feasible. Growing pains. HD seemed like a lot of trouble and expense for not a lot of benefit. Invented and implemented in Japan in the 90's. One of the reasons it was not introduced sooner to America, was bandwidth.. yay, now we have worked around that problem just in time for the death of television!!!
Sony introduced the first HDV codec camera in 2004 for prosumers. (What a nasty image that was! - made me miss the murky yet smooth look of SD on CRT sets.)
By the time HD actually starts fulfilling its potential, 4K will be completely feasible.
-Hard Drive Space and the Cost of Archiving
-Hidden Costs in Reusable Flash Media
-Computing Power for Playback
-Low Light Sensitivity
-up rez 720p benefits vs true 1080p and the resolution arguments
-Who needs HD?
That is because they are all valid arguments. They applied then, and they apply now.
For me, I was disappointed when I first saw HD, and felt it was a half-ass upgrade from SD. Twice the resolution is not quite twice the perceived resolution. 4K or 5K, on the other hand, would have been a happy upgrade. Don't get me wrong, HD is an improvement over SD, and I like to tell myself that it is a necessary evil to pay for future technological advancements in digital imaging.
But HD has only been somewhat enjoyable in the last 2yrs. Prior to that, there were still many people who didn't have HD, or computers that can playback compressed HD. Even today, I know few people that have and use blue ray. Also, with the trend of people owning laptops, and not desktops, they have 900p screens at best, and more likely have 800p. Cable television is a lackluster visual experience, and internet compression makes anything over 720p almost irrelevant. Most internet content is watched at below 720p.
Things are getting better. But we were introduced to HD as a beta, and started paying into it, without it actually being fully developed or feasible. Growing pains. HD seemed like a lot of trouble and expense for not a lot of benefit. Invented and implemented in Japan in the 90's. One of the reasons it was not introduced sooner to America, was bandwidth.. yay, now we have worked around that problem just in time for the death of television!!!
Sony introduced the first HDV codec camera in 2004 for prosumers. (What a nasty image that was! - made me miss the murky yet smooth look of SD on CRT sets.)
By the time HD actually starts fulfilling its potential, 4K will be completely feasible.
