If they have BD players they would ask for BD versions. The dance studios haven't either.

Never underestimate the ignorance of customers.

I have never ceased to be amazed over the things people can misunderstand, and how far removed they often are from every other reality than their own narrow niche.

If you don't tell them you have BD (or that you would consider it if people asked), they won't expect you to be able to offer it.
==========
Up until around a year and a half ago I was offering SD DVDs and VHS versions. I was down to around 10 VHS versions and 140 DVDs on average. I stopped offering the VHS versions. If I offered a BD version despite the fact that no one asks for one and I end up with 10 BD orders (or less) I won't consider it worth the effort any more than if I still offered the VHS versions from a practical and business standpoint. You may argue that the comparison isn't valid, but I would argue that neither one is currently worth the extra effort from a time spent vs return on effort standpoint. As I have said all along BD will not catch on until both the players and movies come down in price to compete with SD. That hasn't happened. Blu-Ray "won" - SD rules the day. If that changes (strictly from a cost standpoint) and people start buying players and movies in large numbers, they will ask for BD versions and I'll sell it to them using a price structure similar to what I used for VHS versions vs SD DVD versions. And the cost of BD blank media better come down as well.

Many of you do weddings - I don't. Strictly stage performances. It's not the same.

John

If you shoot HDV there's around the same number of chroma samples in its 4:2:0 as there is in SD's 4:2:2. The numbers relate to the sampling at the given resolution.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

We're talking about "NTSC DV 4:1:1 to DVD 4:2:0" vs. "HDV 4:2:0 to DVD 4:2:0."

Were you thinking that DVDs use 4:2:2?

Of course "the numbers relate to the sampling at the given resolution."

Were you thinking to extract the chroma in a different way from the luma, scaling the luma but not the chroma?

I was suggesting to sell the future, not the present.

Half of all homes in the U.S. have HD today.

Half of those have no clue, but still, it's only 2008 and eventually they'll get it enough to ask for more.

And stage performances certainly do have a shorter perceived life span when it comes to consumer interest, as John suggested. Not too many people think, "This is something I want to watch 50 years from now!"

"Half of all homes in the U.S. have HD today."

Can you show me some proof to that?

Let me try it another way :)

If you shoot HDV, the chroma sampling is 4:2:0 of 1440 x 1080 pixels. Sorry I don't have the maths to calculate how many actual chroma samples that is.

If you downconvert the HDV to NTSC DV and then encode you go 4:2:0 @ 1440x1080 to 4:1:1@ 720x480 to 4:2:0 @ 720x480. The result isn't very good.

If you encode from HDV directly to SD DVD on a HD timeline you bypass the 4:1:1 step. Results are better.

To look at it another way ,1440x1080 at 4:2:0 has more chroma samples than 720x480 at 4:2:0. When you downconvert those extra chroma samples can be used to yield better chroma sampling in SD, fairly close to 4:2:2 You don't need to do anything special, Vegas does it quite nicely with the right workflow.

Bob.

[edit] Perhaps what's missing is how Vegas works. It doesn't scale the chroma sampling. It converts to 4:4:4 and then scales and samples that. The more chroma samples it has to start with the better sampling it can deliver, depending on the codec of course.

I would never suggest going from HDV 4:2:0 to NTSC DV 4:1:1 to MPEG-2 for DVD 4:2:0. In fact I have posted several times in the past when people thought this was a good idea.

Here's what I said above:

...the 25% of subject color recorded in NTSC DV (i.e. 75% discarded) is cut to only 12.5% in making a 4:2:0 DVD, while HDV etc. already records in 4:2:0 so there is no further loss, you keep the 25%: just show a few stills shot side-by-side in NTSC DV and HD and lifted from the DVD and BD disks...).

I was merely stating that shooting in HDV 4:2:0 instead of shooting in NTSC DV 4:1:1 avoids cutting the already very meager chroma sampling in half, when comparing output to a 4:2:0 SD DVD.

Can we agree on that, or have I missed something?

I'm aware Vegas works in 4:4:4 internally, but when it comes time to output, it is bound by the output format. This means that if you apply a glow effect or a transition or whatever, this will be done in 4:4:4. When outputting this to a 4:2:0 timeline, that's all you get. If you output to a 4:2:2 timeline, you'll get 4:2:2.

When you downconvert (render) 1440x1080 HDV to 720x480 MPEG-2 for your DVD output, I don't see how Vegas' 4:4:4 could be involved at all, as there is no intermediate result involved. It's just a 4:2:0 timeline feeding a 3d party codec that outputs a 4:2:0 MPEG-2 file.

"Can we agree on that, or have I missed something?"

I think we're on the same wavelength.

What I missed was you were talking about going from NTSC DV to SD DVD. I was talking about going from HDV to SD DVD, hence the confusion, my bad.

Bob.

"Not a single request for a Blu-Ray version from any client to date."

1. My hand is up. Request or not, they are getting a BD (with a few exceptions and some variations of delivery format).

2. I agree sitting around waiting for HD to develop is crazy. Last November I bought all the $98 Toshiba HD-A20 players Wal-Mart had and included them with the video package. Maybe this November some BD players will break $100 and I can do it again.

I bet by November of 2009 we will still be having this discussion and there will be another HD delivery format announced/coming/in-the-works.

Followup edit: I didn't really followup but with a few of the people who recieved HD-DVD players. Of those I spoke to, no one ever bought a single HD-DVD movie, even knew there was a format "war". Moral, you can lead a consumer to HD, but you can't make them play.

Wonder what the latest news is on China, Russia, Germany, India, etc as to what they are doing since they are ignoring Bluray.
JJK

The Sony BDP-S350 BD player can be had for $186-$199.

It comes from the factory at Profile 1.1, but can self-upgrade to Profile 2.0 through its direct internet connection.

That's likely to be the only Profile 2.0 "value" buy.

I doubt Sony will drop it to $99 this month. They seem to prefer to keep the price high, even if it means few buyers.

And if you want the best picture, it looks like you'll have to buy a Panny player. Sigh.

John Cline hit the nail on the head.

I basically DON'T give my clients any options. They hire me because they feel I know what I'm doing. My SOP is to shoot 1080i HDV, deliver the finished product to standard DVD. Collect payment for services rendered. Simple process.

I deliver the finished product to widescreen SD format since the majority have HD TV's, but are still using mainstream DVD players. My POV is that having HDV content down rezzed looks fine to these customers when played on a 42" HDTV. Even if they have a normal 4:3 TV set, I still deliver widescreen. Not one complain on that either.

I offer Blu-Ray when I speak with potential clients, but they tell me they have no way to play the discs, so I defer to standard def DVD's at the highest SD DVD bitrate that will fit on the disc - no complaints so far.

Cliff Etzel - Solo Video Journalist
bluprojekt | solo video journalism blog

Cliff,

So do you know how many prospective customers Googled "Blu-Ray videographers" and didn't find you on the list?

You may be right, but it's good to think about those opportunities sometimes.