Hulk wrote on 2/7/2005, 9:16 AM

Thanks for taking the time to make the posts, read through them, and tally the results. NOT a simple undertaking.

It looks like most people "in the know" see HDV at true HD.

- Mark
Barry_Green wrote on 2/7/2005, 3:27 PM
"It's very interesting to read responses as to why some feel HDV isn't "true" HD. Most of them base it around the MPEG compression"

Ah. There's some informed thinking. Those are the type of guys who think "real" HD is limited to HDCAM, right?

The kind of guys who get surprised when they find out HDCAM doesn't record 1920x1080, it records a downsampled 1440x1080 image...

So then they flee to the sanctity of HDCAM-SR, Sony's newest and greatest HD recording format.

What happens when they find out HDCAM-SR uses MPEG compression? Will their universe implode? HDCAM-SR uses MPEG-4! (granted it's at almost 600 megabits, vs. 25 for HDV, but come on... if MPEG is the problem, surely they have to rule out HDCAM-SR also, right?)

The world knows I'm no fan of HDV as a format, but come on, you gotta tell it like it is. HDV records an HD signal, and just because it's MPEG-based, well... so's every other form of HD transmission. All DirecTV, Voom, and network broadcasts are done in MPEG-2, and D-VHS (the only commercially available HD recording system for consumers) is MPEG-2...

Well, I guess you can tell 'em, but that doesn't mean they'll believe you.
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/7/2005, 5:23 PM
Well...if they're gonna rule out MPEG, then they also need to rule out BetaSX, IMX too. That's the funny thing.
I *am* a fan of the HDV format, obviously...but I also am aware of it's limitations, potential limitations, and things to avoid. Shooting HDV is a different paradigm, just like shooting 24p.
You gonna be at NRB? Let's do that shootout there!
Barry_Green wrote on 2/7/2005, 11:29 PM
Yeah, discard IMX why don't they... that's only reputedly Sony's best-looking SD format! Sheesh.

Okay, about NRB... never heard of it, just looked it up... ah. Well, the timing of this is just comical. I'm planning on being in Anaheim on the 17th! And the NRB convention looks like it ends the 15th. Grr. Can't get there any sooner either: I'm working a Showtime show on the 10th & 11th, working post on a corporate video on the 12th, shooting a TV show pilot in Vegas on the 14th & 15th... which looks like basically all the days of the convention. Sigh. Wonder if I can get out of the post gig on the 12th...

Someday we shall overlap. What else is coming up?
PDB wrote on 2/8/2005, 3:09 AM
Well I'd like to chime in from a consumer's perspective....

My own personal views on this based entirely on a non scientific research (ie: just from what I see/hear from people around me...)is:

1) Consumers generally associate digital with better quality: ie, digital did bring a better picture (dvd vs vhs).
2) Bigger screens make for better viewing: ie, plasmas and then bigger standard sets are "better" and deliver quality viewing
3) Plasmas etc are for the early adopters of course...
4) In Europe its widescreen all the way (as opposed to high def...) I believe people have a misconception/confusion as to what high def is as opposed to digital (in other words, people generally assume that digital is all high def by definition - excuse the pun...) when obviously it's not...BUT they are buying into bigger screens (and generally thinking they are getting a much better picture by doing so even though they cannot receive high def signal).

And I must say my personal experience mirrors a lot of that...I bought into the DVD stuff because I thought the picture would be a LOT better...What I actually found was that the picture may have been better....but the audio was just incredible!!! That really made a huge difference (5.1 system).

Ontop of that I was hugely disappointed with the quality Plasmas deliver (and one of my main clients is a manufacturer of a top brand in plasmas etc...) I have also seen a 29" (I think it was that size) LCD displaying the same dvd as a 42" Plasma alonside it and to my eyes the LCD delievered a better picture. Actually the manufacturer astated that LCD technology is superior and will get better: plasmas should die out in the near's just that its more costly at the moment to manufacture bigger LCDs than Plasmas).

So bascially I guess my conclusion os that consumers want:
1) Widescreen
2) bigger screens

But they will be more impressed by sound than image: I mean I've been to a few homes with brand new plasmas and keep getting the "isn't the picture quality amazing?" line - which to my eyes isn't..!!!

Anyway, just thought I'd add a comment from a consumer's perspective....and an early adopter one at that (but didnt buy into the plasma thing..couldnt see the quality justfying the price at all...)

And for what it's worth, people on the street haven't got a clue about 720, 1080 i, p etc etc etc...
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/8/2005, 6:58 AM
PDB, your experience mostly mirrors mine, and I think you're right on. However, when people actually experience REAL HD, they are blown away. It's the picture equivalent of the sound. But you don't see much real HD right now.
thanks for chiming in!
Coursedesign wrote on 2/8/2005, 8:48 AM
I am curious if other people also have had the experience that LCDs are better than plasma screens for HDTV.

I would ask you to please exclude anything you have seen in a mass market store (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.), because those are almost never set up correctly, and that makes a comparison impossible.

I am yet to see an LCD that can match the best plasma screens, when set up correctly.

If you have seen a good 40" or bigger LCD, which one?
BillyBoy wrote on 2/8/2005, 9:05 AM
As a past president once made a big deal out of saying it depends on what is, is... So too with HD. There has been much cacking, chest beating and pontificating in this forum over resolution, preceived and real. Most agreed that HD is 1920 x 1080... at a minimum. So just like many of you know that "digital zoom" in a camera is fake, and all that really counts is optical zoom, so too with the vast majority of viewing devices, monitors, televisions, projectors. The reality is not many are capable of real 1920 x 1080 resolution.

Time to seperate the apples from the oranges. Yes I know SOME "smaller" screen TV's - monitors have native 1920 x 1080 resolution. In this context that means the number of PIXELS would be 2,073,600.

As screens get larger the current state of the art doesn't allow for that many pixels because during manufacture the failure rate making the displays is too high. Case in point, my Panasonic TH-50PHD7UY has a native resolution of 1366 x 768 or "only" 1,049,088 pixels.

What does it mean? Look at the math above again. There are 768 rows with 1366 pixels each. That's roughly 70% of the potential at what most consider a "minimum" of 1920 x 1080 for it to be called "real" HD.

So it boils down to this: It DOESN'T MATTER how high a resolution your new toy, ie HD camera is capable of producing if the consumer is viewing it on anything LESS than the native resolution the camera is capable of generating.

So for those that get their shorts all in a bunch over trival copyright violations, will you also tell your customers the TRUTH that the HD footage you are planning on charging more for won't be seen at its potential unless their viewing device is equal to the native resolution of the camera it was shot with?

Yea right, sure you will. Of course you'll tell your customer that if they typically view HD on a 40 inch or larger set, they are getting only about 70% of the quality it was shot at. Or sure, any higher resolution is better than SD, but aren't you really just less than totally honest?

Then of course there's the other issue of HOW will you deliver your HD material. to the consumer? If on a DVD, then the resolution will max out at 480 unless you can make HD DVD's and of course your customer has a HD DVD player. A tiny percentage.

Now again, tell me WHY so many are rushing to get a HD camera now?

1. I'll make more money
2. Its a ego thing
3. My competitors are doing it, I got to also, right?
4. If Joe Average don't get it from me, he'll go to someone else
5. All of the above.

I now return you to your fantasy world.
John_Cline wrote on 2/8/2005, 9:19 AM
6. I will be producing a higher quality product which will still be relevant when every does have HD displays.

Billy, do you not plan for the future... EVER? You keep say that very few people have HD displays, but that will not always be the case.

BB: "Or sure, any higher resolution is better than SD, but aren't you really just less than totally honest?"

No, not at all. I produce product at the highest quality possible. My clients know this, appreciate it and are willing to pay a premium for it. It simply isn't my responsibility that someone may watch or listen to something I produce on an inferior TV or audio system. That's their problem. What you're suggesting is that we all "dumb down" our productions because Joe Average will never see or hear the difference. I can not and will not do that. You know, I find this "good enough" attitude offensive. What ever happened to taking pride in one's work? I'll tell you what, on the off-chance I ever get a client that wants it only done "good enough for Joe Average", I'll send them to you.

BillyBoy wrote on 2/8/2005, 9:25 AM
I spent a couple months looking before getting a 50 inch plasma.

Both LCD and Plasma are good. Which is better depends in part, on WHAT you are going to view and if or not your going to view in a darker room.

A LCD is brighter than your typical Plasma, but not all. That makes a LCD ideal if you view a lot of daytime TV. A down side of some models of LCD's is you can't set a proper black point. In other words the screen is never really black, once calibrated, which of course distorts the picture.

A bigger issue for me was detail or lack of it. Here the typical Plasma wins hands down. How so? Keep searching to find a store where similar sized screens, one a LCD and another Plasma are running side by side. You may be shocked. It may not show up as much in movies, but ask the sales person to put both sets on a NONE HD channel. Now look. The LCD looks like much softer. Since 80% or more of what's on TV is still not HD, that's not good.

A down side of plasma is cost. They also weight more. Check out the specs. Narrow it down to a few models of both types. Also consider a monitor verses a television IF you're going to get your HD material off cable (I do) then you don't need to pay extra for a set that has tuners built in.

The bonus for me was features. While the retail version of the Panasonic is impressive their "professional monitor" which I ended up getting has many more adjustments, including the ability to adjust the black point of each primary color seperately as well as tweak the gamma. More important the panel emits MORE LIGHT. I don't have the specs handy, but this combined with the ultra high 3000 to 1 contrast ratio makes for a stunning picture.

As far as a comparison in store, right, its hard. But I did it in home. Yes, I can afford it, so it bought both a large screen plasma and a large screen LCD I now use as my "external monitor". Side by side, if you feed it the same signal, the plasma clearly wins at least in the two models I got.

A good, actually a very good LCD is the new Sharp line. So too for the Hitchati (spelling?) if you can find one in retail stores.

PDB wrote on 2/8/2005, 9:43 AM
Well BB, I can at least refer to the Marketing Director's input regarding the Plasma/LCD debate...and this is from a world leading manufacturer (there are only at the most half a dozen manufactureres in the world btw...) according to him, put a good LCD next to a good Plasma display (same screen size of course...) and you will see a difference in favour of the LCD (plus they age way better etc...) That is his verdict in his professional capacity as a manufacturer of both. The problem currenctly however is that it is not commercially viable today to produce high quality LCD sets above 32" (I believe that was the max size he quoted...) but it will come and pretty quickly at that according to him...

Another curious piece of data is that the public in general assume that ALL plasmas and LCD are high def capable, which they are not by a long way..In fact in Spain up until at least mid 2004, there was only one model and from one brand only out of all the models/brands available which is high def display...and yet people go out and buy them THINKING (or sold...) that the ALL are high def displays....gullible people we all are.....

BillyBoy wrote on 2/8/2005, 9:51 AM
John, your debating style is so weak, you always try to make it look like I said something I didn't say. Of COURSE everyone should try to make the highest quality product as possible.

You're avoiding the question.

Point blank John, do you TELL YOUR CUSTOMERS that the HD product you're delivering can't be seen at its native resolution unless they have a viewing device equal to task?

Yes or no?

Let me make a little analogy. Everybody knows that while the label says pork and beans, the pork in the can amounts to a tiny amount and is mostly fat. With "HD" anything, what it means in all over the map. I'm of the opinion its DECEPTIVE to market a HD product without a disclaimer saying what the resolution is and what's necessary to view it at its native resolution and if you don't it isn't really "HD" quality.

Nobody suggested you 'dumb down', I'm hinting you're at the party and the band hasn't shown up yet. What HD means is still very much in flux. I'm going to wait awhile yet, because you know what, I bet its going to change. You go ahead and blow a bundle on something that will maybe be considered obsolete in eighteen months or so.

Finally, just once if you could somewhere find the restraint to avoid taking a cheap shot it would be refreshing. Afterall, you keep trying to come across as a "professional". Keep trying, you got a very long way to go.

BillyBoy wrote on 2/8/2005, 9:58 AM
PDB, you're right about the size issue. LCD's beyond 36 inches, (I've been told nobody makes a plasma smaller than a 37 inch) can't stand up to a plasma. I hardly think I'm the only one that doesn't want what amounts to a "small" (anything less than 40 inch screen )in my main viewing room, which for me is a larger family room which is another reason I got the plasma.
Coursedesign wrote on 2/8/2005, 10:09 AM
The better current generation plasmas are rated at 60,000 hours lifespan.

That's 30 years at 40 hours of viewing per week with a 2 week vacation each year.

At that time, by 2035, we'll probably be having a similar discussion about whether the new UMSHDV cameras are really UMSHD (Ultra Mega Super High Definition)!

:O) :O)

Cheno wrote on 2/8/2005, 10:12 AM
Billy Boy,

Do you work for a call center? I was trying to get a part for a shower and swear that you were on the other line arguing with another rep that it didn't matter that I wanted a nicer shower head because after all it was the same water coming through it.

HD is here to stay. Debate it all you want but people are glad it's here. Regardless of delivery right now, why is anything even shot on film? It still ends up on an SD DVD for me to watch. Why not shoot everything on my DVX100 or even a 1 chip camera.. it's all ending up on the same format.

Professionals want the best for their clients. If this means now a format that offers more than SD DV but can't afford a $125,000 camere. Let them have it. Just because you don't do much in the industry to warrant it doens't mean that everyone is in the same boat.

By the way, I spoke to your manager and he took care of my shower head order.

John_Cline wrote on 2/8/2005, 10:39 AM
BB: "Point blank John, do you TELL YOUR CUSTOMERS that the HD product you're delivering can't be seen at its native resolution unless they have a viewing device equal to task? Yes or no?"

No, I don't have to, they already know that. They're professionals.

BB: "I'm hinting you're at the party and the band hasn't shown up yet."

Curious... there are a lot of people at the party and the band is in full swing. I'm sorry, did you not get your invitation?


(As far as taking cheap shots at you... give me anything at which I can take an "upscale" shot. So far, it's been like shooting fish in a barrel.)
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/8/2005, 11:16 AM
No BB, HD is not "all over the map" except in the minds of confused people of which you apparently are one.
HD delivery has two specs. And only two specs. End of story.

Now, to the ridiculous position you've taken on telling clients anything...
Do producers of shows like JAG, Leno, NCIS, Discovery Channel, HBO, Showtime, LifeTime, Oxygen, (the list is ad nauseum) tell their clients, the broadcaster, or the end user that they'll not enjoy better video based on the tools used for production? Does Sony issue a caveat with every HDV, HDCam, and HDCamSR camera that end users won't enjoy the greater detail offered by the format?
Of course they don't. The goal is to acquire in the highest possible quality, and let the market and delivery determine how and where it's displayed whether it was acquired at 4K or at half D1.
I would posit your position is a condition brought on by a few experiences:
1. Never having had a client, never having had anything broadcast. Just having a project broadcast for the first time is a tremendous learning experience in itself.
2. Doing home-video for your own pleasure on the cheap. (which is fine, but it negates the value of you commenting on "professional")
3. Not understanding the creative and self-mandated drive to be better one's self. All artists, whether video, audio, or visual arts are driven to do better each and every time, in each and every way. If we started shooting pictures of young kids in the back yard, then the next thing might be shooting models. Then we moved on from stills to video, and made some late night commercials, and from there, we might start shooting low budget cable infomercials. From there you might grow to a docco. Then a pitched-out special or pilot. If you don't have a creative drive, then you'll never, ever, grasp the concept of constant betterment.

In any event, HD, HDV, and any expanded resolution offered by any format offers the ability to achieve certain looks, dreams, desires, professional aspirations, and fundamental gain of knowledge to the average joe, or to the not-so-average joe who is looking to reach goals within a reasonable cost bracket. But just because *you* don't understand the value of, nor see the better imagery derived from HDV doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. Crawl out of this forum and into the real world, you'll see massive communication from a lot of HDV enthusaists. And HD, whether from HDV or HDCamSR is the current journey's end for most shooter/editors that do have aspirations of making great video.
nickle wrote on 2/8/2005, 11:18 AM
You know, just because we aren't all participating in this post doesn't mean that we aren't reading it.

We can see clearly that being able to tell a client that a video will not only look fantastic on whatever flavour of HDTV he has at present, but is also of such high quality that it is designed for future REAL HDTV.

How often can you say that a product doesn't have built-in obsolescence?

There is a "good, better, best" scenerio that usually applies to consumer goods.

What you own to view video now isn't what you may want in the future.

The point is that you are buying value NOW and for the future. I didn't see any references to prices being charged for producing HD videos. But it stands to reason that if an HDTV costs more than a standard TV, that an HD video will also cost more. Does it make sense to tell a client that he only has to pay 70% of the price because he can only see 70% of the quality on his TV? Or for a client to say "I want HD but only 70% of real HD because that's all I have to watch it on?"

I now leave you to your circumlocution.
BillyBoy wrote on 2/8/2005, 12:34 PM
Spot, true to form, you ask for opinion, that jump all over anyone that disagrees with yours. You inability to have a calm reasoned discussion on any of your hot button topics is well known. Probably why you have been kicked out of other forums. Futher, your endless trumpeting "you're a professional" is beyond simply being repetitious poor self-serving behavior, its a sign you're a arrogant self-important jerk craving attention. Hint: REAL professionals don't keep reminding people they are professionals. There's no need to. You're the only one in this forum that has some need to do that. Constantly.

You have no idea what I do or what I have done regarding video and graphic related work since I've never mentioned it to you or anyone else in this forum. Yet over and over you try to suggest otherwise.

Where are you going trying to suggest I started by shooting boys in the backyard? You jumped to that idiotic conclusion probably based on the fact I used some boy photos in some of my tutorials. Lately, in this thread and others you have tried to suggest I'm gay (I'm not, but none of your business if I was) by trying to make something out of a common <wink> I sometimes added to posts that millions use to suggest HUMOR, something you are totally lacking.

The bottom line is you can't bully me Spot. And unlike Zippy, you can't bribe me to leave the forum like you did with him. There isn't a damn thing you or your lap dogs like Cline can do to stop me from posting here. When I have an opinion I want to share, I'll share it. If you don't like it, too damn bad. I'll close by reminding you that you couldn't attack a single point I made, which explains why you instead attack me on a personal level. Wasn't the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last that you will show the world that inside, you're really just a little boy that's used to having his own way and when you don't get it, you get very angry.

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/8/2005, 12:48 PM
I'll reiterate.
Point one: There are two HD deliveryformats. Only two. Not several as you keep suggesting. You are greatly confusing the issue with your continued assertion that there are more than two standards. (1080i or 720p)

Point two: It doesn't matter what is used to acquire media for HD delivery as long as it meets one of those two specs mentioned in point one. No one needs to offer any client any caveat, the client can see this for themselves.

Point three: While you may not have the desire, drive, nor wherewithall to have a need to improve your video work, many of us do. Whether it's HDV, HDCam, or HDCam SR, many people in this forum are on a path to achieving the best level of greatness that they can achieve, and at the moment, HD is a part of that path upwards. If you fail tounderstand that, the fault lies within you, no one else.

Point four: I submit, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you have never had a client that had broadcast requirements, nor have you produced anything for broadcast yourself. If you had, you'd understand where many of us are coming from on this point. The mere process of getting your first project on-air is a significant learning experience that many of us have gone through at some point in time. It's like a rite of passage in this biz, and if you've not experienced it, you'll never grasp the value of the experience. Getting media on PBS alone is a major learning opportunity. Even if you've done it a few times.

If you took my post as suggestive of anything else, look to yourself for reasoning as to why you felt that way.
John_Cline wrote on 2/8/2005, 2:17 PM

There is a MONUMENTAL difference between opinion and fact. Spot, myself and many others here state FACTS, you state opinions based on a complete and total misunderstanding of the facts.

BB: "I'll close by reminding you that you couldn't attack a single point I made"

Billy, have you read ANY of this thread? Your points have been attacked with FACTS and then summarily dismissed as the ravings of a uninformed lunatic.

By the way, HDV IS HD despite the fact that your precious new "professional" plasma TV CAN'T display it in its native resolution. I guess its not all the "professional," now is it?

BillyBoy wrote on 2/8/2005, 2:27 PM
I'm neither confused by or against HD as you and a couple others have tried to suggest. I simply said FOR ME its early in the game, things are in flux, they may change and what "HD" means depends greatly on who you ask and in what context you pose the question.

Just because BROADCASTERS have more or less agreed on what makes a HD broadcast signal, doesn't mean and hasn't meant that the manufactuers will go along. The hard reality is they haven't. I explained why. Right now, its very tough to make large screen (50 inch or larger panels) with true 1920 x 1080 native resolution. The cold reality is therefore while you may very well deliver "real HD content" someone viewing same on such a device may only gets 70% of the resolution. Its like going to a restaurant and ordering a bowl of soup, but because you arrived near closing and they were running out they added 30% more water to it. I don't know about you, but I would feel cheated.

The typical client will see an improvement over SD of course, assuming he has some type of HD receiver, but many won't. That's all I'm saying. Such a client will not "see" a difference unless he views it on multiple devices, one truly capable of displaying HD, the other a lessor version. If at this point I was offering a HD product I would include a caveat of some sort. Its only fair, to the consumer. So you see Spot, its really very easy to cut through the crap you shovel when you have facts on your side.

Point three, sadly more personal attacks from you. My desire, drive or wherewithall has nothing to do with the discussion, yet here you are again attempting to paint me as some none caring, none knowing, reckless or lazy person.

Point four is a beauty. You know as well as I do and so does everyone else NOBODY ever better try to "correct" or disagree with Spot or you go into one of your tantrums. The reality here is outside this forum and perhaps some others Spot is just a common name for a dog. Nothing more. Aside from that hardly anyone has heard of you. That's offered not as a put-down, but as a reality check. There's a lot of creative people that contribute to this forum. Most are simply happy to help when somebody has a question. You seem to have a need to be worshiped or force your narrow views on everyone else. Sorry, my prayer rug is at the cleaners. You're just one of the guys like everyone else. I keep hoping that some day that will dawn on you. Your homework assignment for this evening is look up the meaning of humble.
BillyBoy wrote on 2/8/2005, 2:32 PM
Lets see, so far in this thread, Cline has called me "scum" and now a lunantic. Way to go Mr. "Professional".

You do know I just laugh at you, don't you John?
John_Cline wrote on 2/8/2005, 2:45 PM
BB: "Cline has called me "scum" and now a lunantic"

Hey, if the shoe fits... (How about adding "illiterate", see below)

BB: "You do know I just laugh at you, don't you John?"

Hmmm, I hadn't noticed, it was being drowned out by all the people laughing at you.

BB: "attempting to paint me as some none caring, none knowing, reckless or lazy person."

Billy, it's "NON-caring, NON-knowing" not NONE, it's NON. There is NO "E" at the end, never has been, never will be. You have made that same grammatical error in many posts here on the forum or is it your "opinion" that it has an "E"?.

BB: "Just because BROADCASTERS have more or less agreed on what makes a HD broadcast signal"

There's no "more or less" to it, they have agreed.

BB: "Right now, its very tough to make large screen (50 inch or larger panels) with true 1920 x 1080 native resolution."

Then why did you buy one instead of waiting "eighteen months" as you suggested you would before you bought an HD camcorder? Talk about being at the party before the band shows up! My party is going strong and we're watching the show in FULL, glorious 1920x1080.

BB: "I don't know about you, but I would feel cheated."

As well you should. How much did you pay for that 70% of an HD TV?