Video quality less important when you enjoy content

DChang

DChang

Well-known member
Interesting study.

http://www.physorg.com/news200831454.html

I find it funny that there is always a post reminding us that the quality of what you're shooting is more important than the quality of your camera.

But then we have 10x as many threads about mud, low light, etc.

Now there's a scientific study, so stop worrying so much about bitrate settings and make a kickass THRILLfest entry! :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Hah, I *just* made this post in another thread, of someone asking about using an external recorder to improve the quality of the footage...
We shot "Depth of Phil" on an unhacked GH1, which has the worst codec ever released on an "HD" camcorder, and projected it theatrically, and got rave reviews. The new hacked GH13 is 1,000x better. But would it have made any difference in the final image? Sure, maybe. Would anybody have cared? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Always get the best you can, but in the end, if people are more worried about artifacts than they are about the content, then you did something wrong.
 
I'm shooting my next short in "glorious standard definition". If you don't like it, it's not because of the camera.
 
What is particularly interesting is that "Kortum found a strong correlation between the desirability of movie content and subjective ratings of video quality." Couple this with the fact that "the importance of the research could be far-reaching in the way cable companies, online video and news providers shave megabits of compression to save on the ever-growing need for bandwidth" and what could emerge is compression quality being dictated by content in a way counter to what one would expect: higher-quality content being inflicted with lower-quality compression.
 
Last edited:
Content always trumps quality...who can watch the Zapruder film and think about anything but whats unfolding in front of them?
 
DChang said:
Interesting study.

http://www.physorg.com/news200831454.html

I find it funny that there is always a post reminding us that the quality of you're shooting is more important than the quality of your camera.

But then we have 10x as many threads about mud, low light, etc.

Now there's a scientific study, so stop worrying so much about bitrate settings and make a kickass THRILLfest entry! :thumbup:
Click to expand...

we need more threads about "mud" in the pacing of our plotlines!
 
First, I %100 agree on what u r all saying; content rules...

However, this study's objectivity is questionable, or rather unexplained.

According to article:
....and then were asked about the video quality of the clips and desirability of the movie content.
Click to expand...
Were people explained WHAT IS VIDEO QUALITY?
What is the age/education/cultural level of the participants?

Article doesn't mention anything about these factors. And when average Joe is asked about "video quality and the content" IN THE SAME SENTENCE without proper description of course they are gonna favor the videos that makes their miserable lives more bearable...

For the obvious, why need half-ass science?
 
Story over technical will always win. Shoot a POS story line with amazing resolution....so what, it's a waste of my time watching it, I know what HD looks like already. Shoot a great story line with "ennnnh" resolution, can still make millions from it.

People have to remember the end product and who it is aimed at and why you did it to begin with. Did you do it to tell a story and entertain/educate? Or did you do so other editors/camera people/technophiles can be amazed at your equipment and go "ooOOooo"? Always keep in mind, the average viewer may be cognizant they are watching an HD channel or on Blu-Ray, but chances are, they won't really know the difference if the content is good. I mean, come on, you really think that a crappy/disjointed storyline will be improved just because it was shot in 720 or 1080? I think not.

I, for one, could care less if it was HD, SD, or on 8mm. Draw me into the story, get me involved in it. I can think of dozens of "lo-res" productions made way before digital technology was even born, and I still love to watch them. Don't try to dazzle me with cute edits, special filters, or uber resolution. I think it masks the lack of a solid story (lack story=throw flash at them). I really couldn't care less, and if the story is not good, you already bored me. And when I am bored and not drawn in........*click*. Maybe I am not like many people here, the over-artistic and experimental stuff does not do anything for me. I want a solid story. Give me something I can get behind or into. Appeal to my interests.

Were people explained WHAT IS VIDEO QUALITY?
What is the age/education/cultural level of the participants?
Click to expand...
Does it really matter? IQ tests are not required to enjoy a film. Polls and studies can always be pulled apart and shown to be "tainted", regardless of the guidelines. Ultimately, they are just an averaging of opinions.
 
Last edited:
I'm a little surprised this isn't up there with "study reveals that hershey bars wrapped in newspaper more popular then dog poop packaged in gold foil".

Lately I've been shaking my head at the Samsung phone ad that shows Avatar playing in a huge theater... then pulls out and morphs to reveal the screen on a woman's phone... as she's completely fixated on the tiny screen while sitting outside. I could understand if the reveal is on a plane, or similar situation... but not sitting outside.

Anyway... so... I guess for MANY people you can take this phenomenon of content to the point that they'd rather focus their reality into a few square inches over the fully immersive experience called Life... for hours on end?!
Content is king... always has been, always will be.
 
content is king, but i will say, if it doesn't look good, im more over to click off to something else. just how im wired.
 
This study seems to be ignoring one major thing - which is, what if I can see the same content at various qualities?
Which will I choose the majority of the time?

Certainly if you put uninteresting content of high compression quality up against interesting content of low compression quality most viewers will watch the content that interests them, even if the video quality is lower.

But I'd be curious to see what happened if they were to give a subject various versions of the same content....

We can see movies on BluRay, DVD, Cable, various VOD outlets, mobile devices, streaming online... etc.
So while content will always trump quality.... that doesn't mean quality is a non-issue.
It only means that it is secondary to most viewers.

But once the decision on what content to watch is made, people are still left to decide at what quality level they prefer it to be.
 
This is terrible news. Now I have to develop my skills instead of buying a new camera.

:evil:


Cool article Thanks.
 
RIght. I don't think it's Either/Or.

The other issue is the PERCEIVED VISUAL QUALITY IS NOT JUST ABOUT RESOLUTION AND FORMAT.

Putting the story aside, visual impact is affected by lighting, composition, camera movement, and production design.

If the story is the same, movie shot on a Red with crappy lighting and no thought to movement and composition won't have the same level of quality as something shot on a DVX with well-planned camera moves, good production design and emotionally appropriate lighting.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
This study seems to be ignoring one major thing - which is, what if I can see the same content at various qualities?
Which will I choose the majority of the time?

Certainly if you put uninteresting content of high compression quality up against interesting content of low compression quality most viewers will watch the content that interests them, even if the video quality is lower.

But I'd be curious to see what happened if they were to give a subject various versions of the same content....

We can see movies on BluRay, DVD, Cable, various VOD outlets, mobile devices, streaming online... etc.
So while content will always trump quality.... that doesn't mean quality is a non-issue.
It only means that it is secondary to most viewers.

But once the decision on what content to watch is made, people are still left to decide at what quality level they prefer it to be.
Click to expand...

looking at my own viewing habits, 9 times out of 10, I will choose the convenience of Netflix Watch Instantly (compressed 640x360, stereo) over waiting for the Blu-ray or DVD to come. occasionally certain titles are worth the wait, but not many.
 
It has to be great content to choose a bad looking picture , how big was your budget? if it was no budget then your audience ( I hope ) would understand your resources for making this film and wouldn't be so critical.
 
But isn't the rise of Youtube already an indicator of this? I mean in the beginning YT's video quality was matching VHS. Also, rarely has anyone had issues with my films visual quality,sound maybe, but not video. In fact the only reason we moved to HD was because distributors wanted it. Beyond that, people just enjoy stories. A little martial arts thrown in there helps.

-Nate
 
Content in movies is visual and auditory. You can't really separate visual quality as distinct from content. Yes we will tolerate a pretty broad range of technical quality depending on the program and the display venue. It is certainly not all about perceived resolution.
But visual aesthetics, including image quality that is appropriate for your subject matter have a great deal of impact on how compelling your content ultimately is.
 
Last edited:
Burn2Earn pro. said:
It has to be great content to choose a bad looking picture , how big was your budget? if it was no budget then your audience ( I hope ) would understand your resources for making this film and wouldn't be so critical.
Click to expand...

But are we necessarily talking about "Bad"?

I don't think so. I have seen amazing images shot in SD. Yet there are certain people who won't touch SD now because HD (or higher is available).

Format is about 34th on my list of priorities/questions when going into a project.
 
Zak Forsman said:
looking at my own viewing habits, 9 times out of 10, I will choose the convenience of Netflix Watch Instantly (compressed 640x360, stereo) over waiting for the Blu-ray or DVD to come. occasionally certain titles are worth the wait, but not many.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
And that's because we're choosing based on convenience....
now, let's say you have two options that are equal on the convenience scale.
What then?

I guess my point was only that video quality is being subjugated by content (and, by convenience, which is a good and hugely important point)... but that doesn't mean it isn't part of the equation.
"Content is king" only means that it's in charge... but it still has subjects in its kingdom, one of which is 'video quality.'

Case in point - like you I'll generally go to Netflix Instant about 99% of the time, yet we choose to watch our Netflix via our Xbox instead of the Wii, because we find the quality to be superior.

Nothing groundbreaking - I was only saying that when all else is equal, video quality still does matter.
And if I could get BluRay quality from an instant streaming device... I'd probably do that instead.


If I had to rank these in priority it would probably be:

1. Content
2. Convenience
3. Quality

They are all important - even though they are prioritized.
I would say they just have different thresholds they need to reach... lowering as you go down the list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top