"Will us older cameramen lose our jobs because of poor eyesight that can't get a perfect focus?"

Yes.

(Sorry, couldn't resist. I, too, am an "older" cameraman with less-than-perfect eyesight.)

Young-whipper-snapper.

Just focus on the facial zits, volcanos, moles, stray hairs, food particles, neck wrinkles, scars, earring holes, nose hairs, drooping eyes, eye blood vessels, teeth fillings when mouth is open, and skin discolorations in the cleavage area and you will be OK.
JJK

I just got out my reading glasses so that I could read this thread...ok I see the questioned raised about whether old farts can pull good focus... well I can ... of course I do it by zooming in and pressing the button assigned to "push to autofocus"...

My question is, which seems to have missed, what's the point of the incredible sharpness of HD if we're going to us various methods and means to degrade the image "so it’s not so highly defined."

I can remember when, not too long ago, people were saying DV is too sharp, it has to be softened to take away the hard edge. How, with the advent of HD, people (even some here) have said DV "looks like crap" and HD is the way to go, but let's degrade the image in the process.

Am I the only one confused by the "logic" in all this?

Maybe he doesn't like the look of edge enhancement that many HD video cameras apply.

(But I wouldn't know.)

you're not the only one confused. When the TV show "The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne" came out it was shot in HD. It looked TO good. :)

But the main advantage of HD is that people like you & me can get higher-quality originals & have the OPTION do make it look crappy like it used to. :) So if you need something super sharp, you can do that.

Jay, I think we get your point. I love the really sharp details of mountains and trees
of places I'll never be able to see in person.

There are things that are better left as a little blurry such as closeups of
leading actresses. There are imperfections that I'd rather not be reminded of.

The one thing I do like is widescreen aspect.

"of course I do it by zooming in and pressing the button assigned to "push to autofocus"

Just push the EASY button and all those fidgety buttony pushy problems go away, you can even be bleary eyed hang over from drinking too much bourbon the night before.

BigRockies.com Your Home in the Rockies!

There are things that are better left as a little blurry such as closeups of

Tell me about it!!!!

:D :D :D :D :D

TheHappyFriar:
Now that's funny.
JJK

So what's the point?

One of the biggest (and most vocal) proponents of shooting HD rather than film is Robert Rodriguez. He has gushed (on more than one occasion) about how much nicer it is for him to shoot a flick on HD cameras over traditional film cameras. If you have the DVD version of Once Upon A Time in Mexico, I recommend watching the little doc called "Film is Dead: An Evening with Robert Rodriguez" where he speaks to an audience about his experiences shooting with the new (at the time) cameras.

According to him, one of the main advantages is the ability to see what you've just shot - in HD - right after you've shot it. This eliminates the worry that the shots were out of focus, underexposed, etc. because you know right away if you've gotten the shot you wanted. "And you don't realize how bad the best monitor for film is until an HD monitor shows up on the set." This also allows the actors to judge (and alter, if necessary) their performances while still on the set. Basically, everyone can leave the set at the end of the day, confident that they've gotten what they set out to get.

Another big advantage is the speed in which they can set up shots compared to using the film cameras. One of his catch-phrases has always been "move at the speed of thought" and apparently the new HD cameras are allowing him to do this in a way that film cameras could not.

Just as a little footnote, Rodriguez was first introduced to HD cameras by George Lucas and he's shot in HD ever since (Spy Kids 3, Once Upon A Time in Mexico, Sin City, Planet Terror, etc.)

My question is, which seems to have missed, what's the point of the incredible sharpness of HD if we're going to us various methods and means to degrade the image "so it’s not so highly defined."

The option of degrading the image (for whatever reason) is not new and is available for movies shot on film as well (though it usually necessitates a digital intermediate unless you want to alter the film itself using chemicals and whatnot.) It's also not required - it's an artistic decision made on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes it's used selectively, sometimes it's used throughout, and sometimes it's not used at all - it's a choice, not a requirement.

I think you're addressing some of the issues most closely associated with Marshall McLuhan. While I thought most of what he wrote was claptrap, and he was a lousy writer and did a dreadful job of trying to articulate his insights, he nonetheless gained notariety for awkwardly describing how dramatically the nature of a medium affects the content carried by that medium.

In the case of HD, it provides a sense of "hyper-real." This is especially true of the 1080i variety (HD, of course, comprises several technologies).

We all definitely need to understand what we are trying to achieve and whether interlaced HD is the correct vehicle. If it isn't, then we probably need to look at shooting HD in 24p, in order to step back from the hyper-reality. The other "degradations" already mentioned may also help.