OT: Stupid Comparison

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 1/31/2005, 9:56 PM
the drive for "Product-over-Craft"
Except that HDV changes the craft and knowledge of the craft significantly. Whether you get an HDV cam now, or wait, you'll want to be learning as much as you can about the format as soon as you can. It will help you as you grow your biz.
Great sticks are an important and long term investment. I still have my used Sachtler set I bought on Digibid many years ago. Wish I could find another set as cheap.

Grazie wrote on 1/31/2005, 10:35 PM
"Except that HDV changes the craft and knowledge of the craft significantly" - Nicely put! . . I like that! But once "through" the hyperbole, truly, what is the significance? I suppose that would be a neat thing to explore here? What is the impact, connotation and consequence? - Look, I've seen the outputs, seen at the recent Video Forum show . . and before . . and it is outrageous. But this personally epiphany was followed very quickly by, "Ok yes, Graham, now what would you use it for?" That is NOT meant to sound pejorative. It is a well meant question on aesthetics. There is much for the recent vogue of getting SD to filmlook – oh, now it’ll start – where, amongst this, will HD fall?

. . . I also liked your reference your legs. So, you too have your "budget" and economic reference for stuff, "Wish I could find another set as cheap." . .so, you won’t purchase them 'cos they are too expensive? You don't need them? It is wise to "lay-off" until . . . . ?

G


VOGuy wrote on 1/31/2005, 10:46 PM
Nobody knows yet, just what to do with HD or HDV. What else is there to compare it to?

No matter how much you want to hang on to it, SD NTSC video will soon go the way of Black and White television. SD NTSC was designed to be shown on a 13-inch screen - "Radio with Pictures" it was called. Later, when color was added, the resolution, the amount of information contained in the picture was decreased further. While, over the last half-centurey, we have improved the apparent quality of the picture, the real quality of each scene remains the same. That's why ALL SD video has to contain motion - either objects in the image must move, or the camera has to move - otherwise the audience quickly loses interest - there isn't enough there to pay attention to. The form and content of a SD TV picture isn't nearly as important as where and how it moves.

On the other hand, when greater detail is provided in our picture, we now have a whole new medium. Already, there are discussions of how important it is to "lock down" the camera to avoid jarring movement. The exact opposite of "handheld", "rockin" MTV images. Those who have spent years finding ways to make SD work are, on some level, going to realize this, and yes, feel threatened. They have little reason to fear, however, because they will learn much more quickly than others, even though they will need to abandon much of what they know.

Travis
Travis Voice & Narration Services
www.Announcing.biz


Grazie wrote on 1/31/2005, 10:53 PM
" . . even though they will need to abandon much of what they know. " . . ok, which is what? The need to have a steady camera - on good legs? Expose correctly? Frame in imaginative and appropriate ways? DoF? .. FOCUS?!?

<EDIT> . . That sounded harsh . . sorry . . But truly, what is needing to be abandoned? Perhaps I have a different view to this.

Excellent thread this.

G
farss wrote on 1/31/2005, 11:19 PM
Yes, on the face of it they do seem a dumb comparison, comparing a camera designed to shoot a high definition image with one optimised to shoot a standard definition one. It's no secret that cramming more elements into a CCD does nothing for many of the performance parameters such as latitude and smear.
But in this case it's not quite so simple and this is what I'm interested in. The downsampling process does permit you to pickup much better color sampling and something else that I really don't understand myself. I've converted enough material to DVD from some pretty expensive video cameras and yet none of it comes close to what I can get from high res stills. Now I'm going out to the same thing, 4:2:0 SD mpeg-2. It did take a bit a fiddling to avoid a heap of aliasing problems with the HD stills but the results were worth it.
Now I've only got one client whose interested in delivering a HiDef end product. But I do get a lot who want the best quality SD. Now I don't own and cannot afford a Digibetacam or XDCAM camera, heck I can't even afford the lens for one. But I do have access to HDV cameras and from our initial tests downsampling HDV to 4:2:2 SD produces simply stunning results. For sure this isn't going to be goof proof. We will face whatever the limitations are with HDV, however within those parameters we believe we can deliver a superior image to that shot on any camera at twice the price.
Now apart from some work SPOT has done I haven't seen anyone seriously compare the results from the FX1/Z1 shooting HDV and downsampling to SD against another camera shooting DV25 or even SD 4:2:2. I;d love to know how others see the results, I don't have enough experience to really judge the results, so far the very few that have looked at this angle seem to agree that the results are spectacular, particularly for the money.
I'm not saying anyone should ditch their DVX100s or XL2s, there's far more important issues that affect the final product than what it was shot with anyway.
So why am I raving on here? Well I think all the comparative reviews I've read so far are overlooking this aspect, most likely the FX1 doesn't do anything out of the ordinary shooting DV and OK why even think about the HDV side if you don't need HiDef. Well why not think about HDV as an SD acquisition medium. If you think that's an odd idea rememeber a lot of film is used up just to deliver SD for broadcast.
So please guys think outside the square, just because you don't need HiDef don't dismiss the idea of shooting HDV. Now I could be totally wrong, the whole thing might be an optical illusion but until a few others have given it a try lets not dismiss the idea.

Bob.
Grazie wrote on 1/31/2005, 11:53 PM
Well .. . I'm not dismissing it . . and you didn't say I was either. I want to know the creative/aesthetic imperative that it will bring. Look, just 'cos I ask the question don't mean I'm dismissive of it. The sharpness IS awesome - now what . . . ? Where will I get that "hunger" to buy one .. I know it WILL happen .. but what will get my juices running. I love kit! I saw the clip Spot put up of the guy craddling it. More to the point, I was drooling over the follow focus gear - I think?

Interesting . ..

G
PeterWright wrote on 2/1/2005, 12:17 AM
> "I was drooling over the follow focus gear - I think?"

The Freudian society would be proud of you, Grazie..
Grazie wrote on 2/1/2005, 12:23 AM
LOL ! - HAH Pete! . . DON't ask me to "put-up" the un-edited version! - ;)
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/1/2005, 4:26 AM
Eric, I have no problem with anything you said. I have nothing against you or anyone else buying a HD camera. If you're happy, then I'm happy for you--really!

My original point was it's stupid to compare apples to oranges.

Jay
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/1/2005, 4:30 AM
Grazie, actually I did understand your post and how it applied. Often I'm guilt of missing the intent of your subtle comments and replies--appreciated as they are. However, this was not one of those times. I should have replied but didn't. Sorry!

Jay
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/1/2005, 4:44 AM
Travis, like most of the others, you've missed my point entirely. I'm not trying to hang on to SD, nor do I feel threatened. I'm saying, as Grazie so aptly pointed out, that there is no "need" at this time for me to invest in HD. I'm not one of those who has to do something because everyone else does. Never have been. I don't have to own something because everyone else does. I don't have to be "the first kid on the block" to own ______ (fill in the blank). How many people/situations truly "need" HD right now?

You're preaching to the choir... I'm not some young 20-something who is technology driven. I've been in the image making business for 36 years--still, film, and video, so I do have at least a modicum of experience here.

Jay
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/1/2005, 4:51 AM
Bob, you make an excellent point (and always have with the example you use in downsampling). Although I understand your point of view, I can't honestly say that I agree with it as it applies to me, my budget (time and money) and my approach to my work.

If what you propose were an absolute, then why don't we all simply buy and shoot with Arriflexes or Panavisions and have the footage transferred to video?

Jay
Grazie wrote on 2/1/2005, 8:24 AM
Jay - yes - G
richard-courtney wrote on 2/1/2005, 8:46 AM
I am hoping the battle yields some nice price cuts on "OLD" technology
such as the PD170.

Anyone getting rid of their 170's when they open their
new Z1.....let me know.
JJKizak wrote on 2/1/2005, 8:59 AM
Hopefully in about 2 months from now I will have an XL1-s with 3 batteries and about 30 hrs. running time for sale for about a grand.

JJK
BrianStanding wrote on 2/1/2005, 9:02 AM
Hey, Jay!

I agree with you. It IS a stupid comparison. (Feel better? ;-))

Ya want HD, shoot HD. Ya want film look, shoot film. Ya want 1983 tube camera shot onto VHS shoot that. (I actually have one of these... and use it from time to time.) The nice thing, though, is that these options are becoming available to scrubs like us, and not only to mega-million dollar studio productions.

Obviously, DV magazine wants to sell issues, so they're pitting the "hot" new cameras against each other. I have no doubt this strategy will work: look how much space we've spent on it here.

Personally, I'm excited about low-cost HD because I've never been satisfied with the image quality of SD DV projected on a 6-foot screen in a microcinema setting, which is most of what I do. What I find fascinating about the FX1/Z1 cameras is their versatility: NTSC/PAL, SD/HD, in-camera downsampling, etc. Kudos to Sony to developing a reasonably priced product that can meet a variety of applications.
Coursedesign wrote on 2/1/2005, 9:21 AM
High Definition? Ptttthh...

If ya want high definition, ya should see Jaques Tati's 70mm movies. For example "Playtime", which I didn't have time to see for the third time last week (at the American Cinematheque).

This movie really uses the format.

It could not have been shot in DV, HD, 16mm, or even the best of 35mm.

Why? Because there are multiple things going on within each frame. It needs a huge screen to see everything going on in different places within a scene.

Can't do that without 70mm.

Now if we were talking about the best picture quality overall for normal feature films, then we have to go back nearly 75 years in time and pull out some three-strip IB Technicolor films. Clearly beats ANYTHING from the 21st century. Why is it not more popular with filmmakers? The camera was nicknamed "the cottage."

Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/1/2005, 10:30 AM
Jaques Tati... I'm pleasantly surprised!

Jay
FuTz wrote on 2/1/2005, 2:20 PM
Tati's the KING too when it comes to using sound...see "Mon Oncle" ("Uncle"?) and just try to imagine without sound: half the movie's humor's gone.
FuTz wrote on 2/1/2005, 2:22 PM
... Didn't know about this 70mm use... wow!
Now I got to see it on a giant screen !
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/1/2005, 2:56 PM
Need HDV, gotta have HDV, HDV rules. (muttered in the voice of Homer Simpson)
Jay, you're right, you don't NEED HDV right now, but there are those of us that like to live on the bleeding edge. When the VX1000 came out, I was one of the first to buy one. Used it hard for about a year, then the XL1 came out. Bought that, sold my VX on Digibid. Still have the XL along with 2 others. For me, it's a good time to retire them, as I've not bought a bigger cam in about 18 months. But...
HDV is going to rule the world shortly. Even if the market isn't ready for it, the market will make itself ready for it. The itch cycle is shortening according to all the market research reports. And tech geeks like us are famous for our itch cycle. :-)
JJKizak wrote on 2/1/2005, 3:01 PM
Those 3-strip color films were so intense they could not show them on TV, and then you would have to wear sunglasses.

JJK
VOGuy wrote on 2/1/2005, 5:08 PM
If nobody's had the chance to experience an apple - the closest "known" item they have to compare is an orange, then comparing apples to oranges makes perfect sense.