What I mean is, I know I'm supposed to like the clear images but they don't turn me on enough to produce in that manner.
I've seen some Van Goah paintings sell for millions of dollars and they were some of the ugliest pictures I ever saw.
But when I learned how to look at the core of the artistic approach, I changed forever.

I'm fairly old-school in a lot of ways, but I do like working with the highest quality material I can get - although pixel count does not equal quality by any means.

If I'm engaged in TV programming, I don't notice whether the broadcast is in SD or HD. If I'm not engaged in it, I'll start pixel-peeping. But for my personal projects, I'm glad I don't HAVE to acquire in SD these days.

And if get too nostalgic for the old days while editing, I just preview in Draft mode.

Well it's up to us "Old Schoolers" to keep the "Art" in this medium.
Shrimp is just as good as lobster if it is prepared properly.

well you picked the right NLE...

always felt Vegas started having problems around the time DV became HD... maybe 4:1:1 is its comfort zone.

I think I'm just happy about digital technology.. But I don't want to give up the old school discipline.

I'm totally with you there, FPP. And with so many web sites providing open access for terrible content I sometimes miss the days when it was too expensive for pixels to be wasted on skateboarders' injury videos.

And I agree, art has no resolution specifications. Hopefully we are all holding art above pixel count.

But 486 SD is strictly a broadcast video resolution, and only in America and a few other countries. My idea of art comes from film moreso than TV, and we're only now getting to the video resolution of film. I spent a lot of my life enjoying film tranferred to SD video, but I lived for the theater experience. I'm glad to able to approach that, but I still do work almost every week in SD for broadcast. It still looks good too.

Whatever floats your boat...

"atom12: And if get too nostalgic for the old days while editing, I just preview in Draft mode. "

Lol that made me laugh, it's funny and true.

Yes SD has some cozy atmosphere to it, just like listening to music through vintage speakers.

But I am really glad that all the images that I capture are at the highest resolution & quality possible.
For archiving purpose and having the capability to show it at largest size/format possible if needed.

You can always downgrade it to SD. Although capturing in SD at the first place must have it's own charm too.

But unlike 'film' upscaling it later (think about valuable family memories, and able to zoom into someone) would be really hard, if required:
Can You Enhance This.... Post #3.


VMP

Interesting that we romanticize the technologies we knew when growing up. I grew up with film (before we had TV) and have been waiting for video to match that standard. Now we're getting there. To me SD renders skin tones very badly, so people look as if they're wearing heavy pancake makeup screened by nets. This isn't a characteristic of portrait painters, from Ben Quilty to Rembrandt. High quality source material can be processed as you desire. If you see artifacts in your HD then look to your post work flow.

Artefacts != art.

Bob.

Actually, I'm in a New York state of mind, myself.

I don't miss most of what I experienced of SD. I do remember renting a group of movies on Blu-ray one time and being surprised to find one of them was actually on DVD. I was so captivated by the story and the beauty of the production, I forgot to think of the format. It's unlikely anyone will ever experience the same with any of my work, however.

Vegas best suited to DV? Hardly.

I do nothing but HD with Vegas and it behaves just fine. And from what I've read here recently, V12 seems to be a pretty good release for those who had been having issues.

As for the artfulness of SD versus HD, that's akin to saying one prefers charcoal to watercolor or oils in their wall hangings. It's just different. That said, one thing I like about HD on my TV at home is that now I can read all the fine print about Viagra or Cialis side effects.

Perhaps what the pro-SD folks are objecting to is the "artificial look" that is often the result of in-camera sharpening, not the resolution itself. I have found that the default sharpening level in many (most?) cameras is exceedingly high. I like to shoot video that looks like film and as such, I have totally turned off the in-camera image sharpening. To me, the results are a vast improvement and If I ever have a situation where I need it, I do it in post.

Peter

[I]"I have found that the default sharpening level in many (most?) cameras is exceedingly high."[/I]

That can certainly be a problem. Still SD video had a lot of sharpening applied as well.

To my mind the more interesting issue is that for most of us we shot SD in 4:3 and we shoot HD in 16:9. We can then deliver it as 16:9 HD or SD.

The trend to wider screen formats continues too, I see a lot of the younger generation shooting Scope and with anamorphic lenses as well. I'm not convinced of the value of the lens flares that produces but meh, I'll leave that to the artists.

Bob.

I rather feel the same way about 3D versus HD. It's hard enough to capture stunning underwater footage in HD, never mind 3D! (Okay I did watch "3D Meerkats" on my new Samsung for about 15 minutes and it was pretty cool.)

As another Forum user has already mentioned, if I'm engaged, I don't notice if a TV Program is SD or HD. Case in point: I'm working my way through the X-files on Netflix. Love every episode, SD or HD.

I've seen loads and loads of rubbish from HD cameras and some really beautiful stuff from SD cameras. It's the same reason I've seen "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" more times than I can remember:

[I]It's not the wand, it's the magician who wields it. [/I]

Regards,

Kimberly

Oh PS. I remember reading an article about the original Star Trek production wherein people had such bad skin, the film crew had to put panty hose over the camera to diffuse how nasty everyone's skin looked.

This summer, before I got the glorious new Samsung HDTV, I watched "The Great and Powerful Oz" at Costco on one of their HDTVs. The thing I remember most is how cheap the costumes looked and how many pimples were on each character's face. Yuck. More "K" is not always a good thing.

I think you have a very wise perspective on this topic Kimberly.
I feel , I create, I present.
I always feel like strumming my guitar and listen to the sound even though I don't know how to play.
Art is always accidental in my book.

I'll be sure to watch an episode of star trek and see if I can tell.. LOL
I did'n't know that... Very interesting.

"If you see artifacts in your HD then look to your post work flow."

I'm talking about broadcast TV right from the major networks. One would hope they've got their post work flow down near perfect. Maybe it's *because* it's being broadcast rather than delivered on BluRay, but i find watching HD broadcasts to be painful watch with all the little sparkles and cross hatching of high details, and blurred areas of low detail. It's just too much compression.

SD generally uses the same number of bits to encode only 1/6 as many pixels, and therefore retains much more of the original detail.

Kelly, I doubt it's the broadcast networks doing that kind of compression. I'm betting it's the local OTA station (because I don't believe that a network house could produce one show that looks good and one that looks horrible, compression wise). Assuming you're just watching OTA, then the show is compressed when beamed to the station, then compressed again when broadcast from the tower. I can't find any info on the bandwidth a satellite has for a channel, but it's greater then OTA I believe. Not sure how it is now, but it used to be (when digital & HD were getting started) the networks had several channels on a several satellites (Disney/ABC seemed to be everywhere!) and I don't remember them doing multiple feeds on a single channel on our digital receivers.

But I'll side with FFP on this one. HD has so much more detail you need to put that much more effort to make your presentation look as good as it did in SD. The only show I watch seems to have that down, but I still see "more detail then I should" on productions.

Interesting. More detail than I should. One of those esoteric observations that sets me wondering about how much detail is enough. One of the things I learned early is that the set should be dressed to suit the format, so for 35mm you can arrange all those nicknacks and bookshelves, but for 8mm you keep it simple because you won't see much other than the talent. But probably by "too much" you mean skin imperfections. That's very controllable.
Soft focus lenses and nets were used a lot for CUs of the stars, so there's nothing we're talking about here that hasn't been dealt with by the old (and current) DoPs.

A terrestrial (over-the-air) transmission carries 19.39 megabits of data per second (a fluctuating bandwidth of about 18.3 Mbit/s left after overhead such as error correction, program guide, closed captioning, etc.), compared to a maximum possible MPEG-2 bitrate of 10.08 Mbit/s (7 Mbit/s typical) allowed in the DVD standard and 48 Mbit/s (36 Mbit/s typical) allowed in the Blu-ray disc standard. Broadcast and DVD are both MPEG2 where Bluray can use MPEG2, h.264 or VC-1 encoding.

However, many broadcast stations also have additional SD subchannels, each taking up about 2.5Mbits/sec each. Of course, this reduces the available bitrate for the main HD channel and it can look pretty ragged. Fortunately, the network broadcast stations here in Albuquerque have no more than one subchannel and two of them (CBS and PBS) have no subchannels and throw the full bitrate at the main channel. They are pretty much free of artifacts.