Why is HD better?

S

siriousblack

Member
HD has better resolution.

I am the only one who thinks that Canon Ti2 and such produce shitty colors?
Every digitally filmed movie lookes the same...

I don't know whats the advantage...you have to buy new stuff, pay more money, it takes much longer to load images, therefore you have to get a new computer and also the latest software, blabla...but in the end ONLY the resolution is different.

I recently watched a cuople of old movies, especially some of the late 1910/20s..none of it was HD, none of the footage was really sharp...but who cares? These films were great.

But when I sho them to someone under 25 they complain more about the picture then everything else.

It's like hating old Disney movies because they are not 3D and animated with computers.

What's the problem with people nowadays that the newest is supposed to be the best and everything else is just not worth having.

I like my movies look like they where made in their time.
Anybody seen the latest Blu-Ray of Texas Chainsaw or Predator? Or imagine Cemetry Man/dellamorte dellamore..they totally ****ed up the cinematography with bad color correction and over sharpened edges.
I just don't get it.
Why do Americans always try to change the past?

I will use my DVX100 forever or till it dies.
Because I like the look.
It's also easy to handle.
YOu can do all the stuff others do with the PC with the cam.

He who needs reality to be sharper than life doesn't seem to like real life anymore?

Yes, HD it looks better.
But I don't compare, because everything can be good looking...

So why is HD better? A MUST HAVE today?
bigger screens, more money to pay etc etc....but what about the ends?
who needs it?
Everyone was happy with SD untill HD came up.
I still like 16mm, Beta and whatever more...why are we forced or force ourselfes to get more and pay even more for it? Why do you want to have it?
 
I think we all like the idea of our video looking close to film, it seems to be the holy grail for prosumer cameras - The holy grail would be in my estimation:

1. 24P
2. Strong color rendition
3. Lots of DR
4. The ability to achieve shallow dof (not to use it all the freaking time)
5. Codecs that allow us to treat video like film stocks
6. Resolution

The DVX brought 24P, cinema like gamma curves, strong color rendition, and an "it" factor to the IQ that people gravitated to. Early HD cameras pretty much ONLY brought resolution to the game, so in my mind couldn't touch the DVX.
Then when HD went along with 24P and decent color in cameras like the XHA1/HVX 200...I believe we stepped closer to film. 35mm Adapters on those cameras brought us closer still.
Then DSLRs brought more DR and shallow dof to the game...but the strength of the image itself went backwards. Aliasing/moire/low actual resolution.

Now we have cameras that give us almost everything, but many times certain elements are in different camera bodies... The final steps to truly film like cameras are right there. Who wouldn't want that.
 
I agree pulpfiction007 and would add highlight handling as feature of film that is improving but not there in all HD + cameras. Film over exposes to lovely white where digital skews some but this is improving all the time.
 
We work in a VISUAL medium. If you can't see the superior benefits of HD over SD you're working with the wrong equipment or someone is doing something wrong somewhere in the chain. You mention the Canon T2i. WTH? That's a consumer camera that anyone can pick-up at a Best Buy. Shoot with a VariCam, an Alexa, an F5/55 or a C300/500. Betacam?! Dude, I loved my Betacam. I made a lot of money with it and it still makes a nice picture, for SD, but I do not ever want to have to shoot with it again. It can't carry my VariCam's jockstrap.

Are there bad/horrible examples of HD out there? Yes!(just watch local news) But the same can be said for everything, Film, SD, HD and I'm sure bad examples of 4K and 8K will be floating around at some point, too. It kind of makes me laugh that the ends of the spectrum that you cite are a DVX100 and a Canon T2i.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as an @$$, I don't know you or your background, but it just seems ludicrous that you are saying that a DVX100 and all things SD are superior to all things HD(and higher). It almost reads like some of the guys I used to shoot with that said their SD lenses were exactly the same as HD lenses and there was no reason to buy HD glass. They just didn't want to pony up the money is what it all boiled down to. And it sounds like money may be at the root of your argument, too. You're trying to justify staying in an SD world that you have already bought and paid for. I'm not a person who likes change simply for the sake of change, but HD is vastly superior to SD and SD needs to finish dying.
 
Run&Gun said:
We work in a VISUAL medium. If you can't see the superior benefits of HD over SD you're working with the wrong equipment or someone is doing something wrong somewhere in the chain. You mention the Canon T2i. WTH? That's a consumer camera that anyone can pick-up at a Best Buy. Shoot with a VariCam, an Alexa, an F5/55 or a C300/500. Betacam?! Dude, I loved my Betacam. I made a lot of money with it and it still makes a nice picture, for SD, but I do not ever want to have to shoot with it again. It can't carry my VariCam's jockstrap.

Are there bad/horrible examples of HD out there? Yes!(just watch local news) But the same can be said for everything, Film, SD, HD and I'm sure bad examples of 4K and 8K will be floating around at some point, too. It kind of makes me laugh that the ends of the spectrum that you cite are a DVX100 and a Canon T2i.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as an @$$, I don't know you or your background, but it just seems ludicrous that you are saying that a DVX100 and all things SD are superior to all things HD(and higher). It almost reads like some of the guys I used to shoot with that said their SD lenses were exactly the same as HD lenses and there was no reason to buy HD glass. They just didn't want to pony up the money is what it all boiled down to. And it sounds like money may be at the root of your argument, too. You're trying to justify staying in an SD world that you have already bought and paid for. I'm not a person who likes change simply for the sake of change, but HD is vastly superior to SD and SD needs to finish dying.
Click to expand...

you sound like one of those who have money...I like to behave as a dumb A$$ oderwise I don't get any good response here ...
 
siriousblack said:
HD has better resolution.

I am the only one who thinks that Canon Ti2 and such produce s*%tty colors?
Every digitally filmed movie lookes the same...

I don't know whats the advantage...you have to buy new stuff, pay more money, it takes much longer to load images, therefore you have to get a new computer and also the latest software, blabla...but in the end ONLY the resolution is different.

I recently watched a cuople of old movies, especially some of the late 1910/20s..none of it was HD, none of the footage was really sharp...but who cares? These films were great.

But when I sho them to someone under 25 they complain more about the picture then everything else.

It's like hating old Disney movies because they are not 3D and animated with computers.

What's the problem with people nowadays that the newest is supposed to be the best and everything else is just not worth having.

I like my movies look like they where made in their time.
Anybody seen the latest Blu-Ray of Texas Chainsaw or Predator? Or imagine Cemetry Man/dellamorte dellamore..they totally poo pooed up the cinematography with bad color correction and over sharpened edges.
I just don't get it.
Why do Americans always try to change the past?

I will use my DVX100 forever or till it dies.
Because I like the look.
It's also easy to handle.
YOu can do all the stuff others do with the PC with the cam.

He who needs reality to be sharper than life doesn't seem to like real life anymore?

Yes, HD it looks better.
But I don't compare, because everything can be good looking...

So why is HD better? A MUST HAVE today?
bigger screens, more money to pay etc etc....but what about the ends?
who needs it?
Everyone was happy with SD untill HD came up.
I still like 16mm, Beta and whatever more...why are we forced or force ourselfes to get more and pay even more for it? Why do you want to have it?
Click to expand...

If this is a hobby for you use any camera you want.

I produce commercials for television and are required to deliver 1920x1080 HD.
 
siriousblack said:
you sound like one of those who have money...I like to behave as a dumb A$$ oderwise I don't get any good response here ...
Click to expand...

So, trolling…?

I'm not a rich amateur or someone who does this as a hobby or just "shooting a movie" with my friends(not that there is anything wrong with that, per se). It's my profession. I have the money to buy professional equipment to do professional work that requires it, because I have clients that pay the rates that pay for the equipment. My first cameras wasn't $40K, $50K or $60K. Heck, my last camera purchase wasn't even close to that, largely because of advancements in technology. As far as "paying more money", quality gear has never been more affordable/less expensive than it is now. We have cameras now that cost less than $15k that allow us to do things and produce images that FAR exceed anything that a $60k Betacam or $100K DigiBeta could produce in the "SD Days". How much was an SD Beta 'Super edit suite' (tape with A/B and dissolve capability) or an SD AVID system "back in the day"? Literally as much as a house. Now you can buy a laptop for a few $K and HD editing software like FCP for a few hundred dollars that can run circles around six figure systems from the late 90's/early 2000's. Even the free stuff like iMovie can do more stuff better than what some of these systems could do back then. But yes, SD technology from over a decade(or two) ago is better...

And lets also make sure not to confuse the art(cinematography, lighting, story and story telling) with the science(technical image quality, etc.).

You mentioned Blu-ray. I've seen horrible Blu-ray transfers that looked worse than their SD DVD counterparts, but that's not an indictment against the technology. It's against whoever did the "transfer". I've seen amazing Blu-rays versions of "old" movies(Back to the Future looks like it was made yesterday) and new that can't be touched by an SD medium.

I'm not sure what you mean(or if you know what you mean) by "Why do Americans always try to change the past?" As I said before, I'm not one who subscribes to "change just for the sake of change". I also don't think we should forget or "white wash" the past. Remember, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. But how is advancing and improving technology changing the past? There will always be bumps in the road as we move forward, but if we didn't advance we'd quite literally still be living in the stone age and you would never of have had your DVX100… You would be happy with just painting on cave walls, because it would have never existed. Kind of like "everyone was happy with SD until HD came up".

You cast the line and set the hook. Did you get the response you wanted?
 
One thing I like about HD is if you are still producing SD, but shooting in HD, it gives you reframing room. With the exception of web videos, nearly all my clients STILL want SD DVDs. I've even had a few tell me that DVD looks just as good as Blu-Ray :undecided haha.
I liked my DVX100B but never learned it well enough to take full advantage of it. I have seen some wonderful work done with DVX100s.

I'm not thrilled to see the early push to 4K when HD still hasn't matured to what it should be. I'd rather have better HD cameras than start all over again already with lacking 4K cameras before 1080 cameras even got to where they should be.

It is a good time to be doing this, though. Equipment is more affordable. When I started out it was deck to deck analog editing with flying erase heads and delivery to VHS was the norm. Then it was nice editing non-linear for all those years... although interlaced footage was kind of a bother. Then came 16X9 and having to deal with 4X3 and 16X9 material. Then HD and all the hardware and software upgrades. But I do like HD better for several reasons.
If the DVX100 is still doing everything someone needs then that's great. I usually still see more people viewing the DVX100 section of the forum than the other Panasonic cameras!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top