SD is the way I feel.

Comments

ushere wrote on 11/21/2013, 10:53 PM
don't care what format it is as long as it's interesting ;-)

i'm pleasantly surprised by the quality of some of my old up rezzed 4:3 programs - in fact they look better than some of the avchd stuff i've edit for other people.
deusx wrote on 11/21/2013, 11:19 PM
Well, SD has one major flaw and that is 4:3. Wide screen aspects look so much better. I'm glad Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Sopranos happened when they did because it would take away quite a bit from those shows if they were stuck in a 4:3 format.

As for sharpness, When done right film still looks better and sharper than digital.

4:3 and SD have never been associated with art. Film has been, SD has always been the domain of cheap crap TV. Until Sopranos tv had been 99% garbage and it was all in SD. There was nothing like Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad on tv back when SD ruled the world.

So, I guess I'm trying to say that I will always associate SD with garbage tv. I wish Seinfeld could be rescued from the SD hell even though it is not a show that depends on its look at all.

>>>>If you have the technical where-with-all to edit SD and you produce artful and creative projects in the process then you are an artist in your own righ<<<<

I know editors don't want to hear it, but the art part of anything is in the writing. Everything else is secondary. You can have the best equipment possible, be a great editor, play your guitar at speeds of 250 mph, no matter what you are trying to do, it all means nothing artistically if you have nothing to say and can't put it into words.

Writer is where the art comes from. To use the old cliche. A writer is the ice-cream, the rest is just that cherry on top.
johnmeyer wrote on 11/21/2013, 11:58 PM
So, I guess I'm trying to say that I will always associate SD with garbage tv. I wish Seinfeld could be rescued from the SD **** even though it is not a show that depends on its look at all.Well, you will be very, very happy to hear that this has already been done! The 16:9 HD Seinfeld looks great! AFIK, you cannot get it on DVD or BD, but it is regularly shown on broadcast TV. Several other shows shot on film in the 1970 through 1999 era have also been rescanned in HD.

When I first saw these HD versions I couldn't believe what I saw because it looked like native HD. How did they do it? I did a little research, and this is what I found. Others here may have more information.

Getting more resolution from 35mm negatives is obviously the easy part, but I couldn't figure out how they got the widescreen without any obvious cropping or distortion. From what I've read, the answer appears to be that the original filming was done in a format that was much closer to 16:9 than 4:3 and that the film was then cropped for SD broadcast, back when it originally aired. To create the HD version, they rescanned the entire negative, and only had to crop a very small amount (top and bottom) to fit into 16:9, and this slight crop is not noticeable in most scenes.

You will also be glad to hear that the same treatment was applied to all of the "Charlies' Angels" episodes ...
farss wrote on 11/22/2013, 2:39 AM
I would say that UHD with its attendant wide field of view is quote a different beast to SD on the old 4:3 TVs.
One puts us in the narrative and the other draws us into it. I'd also add there's a greater immediacy to UHD on a large screen.

As I pointed out earlier all this is also a business that involves putting posteriors on seats. There's also competition for the audience's time and money.

Bob.
deusx wrote on 11/22/2013, 4:58 AM
>>>You will also be glad to hear that the same treatment was applied to all of the "Charlies' Angels" episodes<<<

Interestingly enough I caught one Charlie"s Angels episode in Japan and couldn't believe my eyes. Cable TV in Japan doesn't suffer from compression artifacts like cable tv in the USA. Anyway, that episode looked as good or better than anything shot digitally these days with the exception of Game of Thrones maybe. Not only did it not look fake like a lot of digital stuff, but it seemed sharper and more detailed too.

Good news about Seinfeld. They really should release it on blu-ray, but they probably won't 'cause there are probably only 5 or 6 of us who would buy it. I don't think most people care at all.
FPP wrote on 11/22/2013, 6:57 AM
I'm not sure anyone is getting my point..
I simply said i like the SD look when my kind of projects are finished..
I never said SD was better than HD.
I love to edit any resolution my NLE can handle.. But my "Brush stroke" may be a little different than other people.
FPP wrote on 11/22/2013, 7:00 AM
Please read my original post.. It is very clear where I stand on this issue.
Stringer wrote on 11/22/2013, 8:29 AM
Well, first, how about providing a reference to your claim that:

" I recently read some posts here on why HD is the "Now" way to record and edit video on any level of interests."

I missed where anyone was making that claim.


Besides that, you offered your preference for SD vs HD, and I don't think anyone is saying they have a problem with you making that choice...


I get the feeling you came looking for a fight and didn't find one..
FPP wrote on 11/22/2013, 8:54 AM
A fight?
So I'm not suppose to offer my own view in an open forum?
Yes, I expected some opposition but I have no need to fight on this forum.
In fact, as a result of all the feedback, I actually learned a few things about the differences in HD and SD because there are people on this forum that are well educated in this field and have a lot to offer a person like me that dares to be out of the box.
I'm not very commercial when it comes to Visual Arts but I'm willing to open the Pandora's box of what I enjoy doing.
I'm not a forum aggressor and I'm not your foe.
Maybe you should read more of some of the previous post on how HD is becoming more popular with most people and that as I am understanding it SD is less and less used.
Fact is, I still like and still use it.
FPP wrote on 11/22/2013, 11:32 AM
I used to write, produce and direct a local bred drama series on 3/4 tape in studio.
and my external shots were done with svhs.. of course post production was always tedius to say the least.
The resolution of tape worked fine for the time and focus was everything when it came to details on the set.
As for props, I always felt that they were just as important as the actors, so I would not use broken or tathered props unless called for in my script.
I guess low resolution would hide very fine flaws.
Stringer wrote on 11/22/2013, 11:55 AM
What is the opposition you are talking about ?

... And where is the discussion where others claim:

.....HD is the "Now" way to record and edit video on any level of interests." ??
FPP wrote on 11/22/2013, 12:39 PM
(Stringer) Throughout this forum you will find pro-HD users.. Start where ever you want.
And just within this topic you'll find the yeas and the nays..
I like talking about different aspects of video production and read a lot of this forum so far.
There is opposition within the replies of this topic that I started.
You sir, seem to have a problem with my limited ability to learn about this field.
I'm sorry if my curious and sometime naive way of expressing myself doesn't fit your profile of how to explore subject matters in this forum.
I ask at this time to please abstain from responding to anymore of my posts as I will not correspond with you any further.
May you find peace in your life.
VidMus wrote on 11/22/2013, 2:09 PM
FPP said, "I never said SD was better than HD."

The problem for me is that your original post comes across as if you do feel that SD is better than HD. The problem in this thread was the wording you used.

As for me, HD is very exciting! It is like seeing everything clearly without glasses.

In spite of my poor vision, I am so glad I can see!!!
FPP wrote on 11/22/2013, 2:35 PM
My attempt was to highlight an unpopular quality about SD that I like.
HD hasn't gotten a hold of my routine.
Someone said in here that it really doesn't matter as long as you get the job done.
Freedom of speech seems to be suppressed a little here.
By talking about it here I have become more open to HD but am happy working with SD at the moment due to the kind of projects I do.
I'm a student if that matters to anyone, and right now to me every bit of information
I collect is of great academic value no matter how off it sounds.
farss wrote on 11/22/2013, 2:49 PM
Simple point,
you can shoot HD and deliver SD and the results will generally be better than if you shot SD. That's why most of us prefer to shoot HD.

Another point. Along with the switch to HD cameras we also found that it was easier to get a camera that could shoot progressive.

Bob.
Grazie wrote on 11/22/2013, 2:55 PM
farss: "you can shoot HD and deliver SD and the results will generally be better than if you shot SD."And that, right there, dear hearts, has taken me the best part of FIVE years to fathom and be taken seriously when I say it. Yes there are caveats and yes Bob could detail them, but for my lowly HD cameras and my production of DVDs of HD to SD, this "holds" true.

Grazie

larry-peter wrote on 11/22/2013, 2:59 PM
"Freedom of speech seems to be suppressed a little here"

I think you'll find that one of the nicest things about this forum is that there is virtually no suppression of speech. Everyone has their views and sometimes the view of another is simply, "you're wrong." We've all been through it.

If you open up a topic as subjective as this, expect some debate and enjoy it. Even though I don't agree, this has been an interesting thread to follow.
FPP wrote on 11/22/2013, 3:25 PM
I did expect some debate however it was viewed as looking for a fight.
This is a great forum and I wont let negative kharma block me from gathering the bits and pieces of production know how that prevails here.
I've been working on a project (in SD) quality while posting and was learning little things that can make a difference for me.
Lemons into Lemonade.
A free classroom.
Serena Steuart wrote on 11/22/2013, 5:20 PM
Ah, well, you see it is important to be clear about your intentions when you start a thread with something like: SD is better than HD. Bound to get some robust responses, although I thought the tone of discussion was very constructive. If you had said something about the aesthetics of SD images that appeals to you, that you find the lack of detail gives a dreamy quality that enhances whatever, well what could we say? Very likely we would still have mentioned that you have more flexibility for creating visual effects if you start with the highest quality source material. You might have accepted that as true. Grazie made that point, and he is an artist who extended his talents into film making.
john_dennis wrote on 11/22/2013, 5:30 PM
"Everyone has their views and sometimes the view of another is simply, "you're wrong." We've all been through it."

I've been through it. Note farss response to my comment in this thread.

I'd recommend everyone suck it up and keep posting.
FPP wrote on 11/22/2013, 6:01 PM
(Serena) I never said "SD was better than HD"..
However your point of me being more clear is understood.
I guess if I kept it simple and said "I like SD". This would've been a much shorter thread.
All I ask everyone here to do is read the first entry of this post one more time.
I thought I was offering a point of view not minimizing the beauty of HD.
Serena Steuart wrote on 11/22/2013, 7:01 PM
Quite correct, that was a paraphrase of your post, and it was how the post was read. More than that, you claimed that SD is more artistic. That is more than debatable, as you found.

"If you have the technical where-with-all to edit SD and you produce artful and creative projects in the process then you are an artist in your own right.
If you produce something in HD and the clear images stand out so well that it seems too real and the organic art of movie magic and fantasy is somewhat evasive".
FPP wrote on 11/22/2013, 7:40 PM


I recently read some posts here on why HD is the "Now" way to record and edit video on any level of interests.
I like the nice crisp and clear visuals of HD but that is what is so unattractive to me.
If you have the technical where-with-all to edit SD and you produce artful and creative projects in the process then you are an artist in your own right.
If you produce something in HD and the clear images stand out so well that it seems too real and the organic art of movie magic and fantasy is somewhat evasive.
Perfect is not always good because there is no artistic stimulus.
The viewer deserves to use their own imagination using the visuals you offer them in the manner you as an artist chooses to present.
Kimberly wrote on 11/22/2013, 9:34 PM
Re-watching "The Great Gatsby" (1974) on Netflix on the new Samsung. The quality is stunning.