Why Choose HD?

[BlueSapphire]

Hi All,
I am new here and looking at purchasing my first camera.

I am really curious about HD versus SD in relation to the clarity of the images.

I understand HD is much clearer than SD but is it too clear for certain applications?

I also understand all the technology is going that way and it is the future but
are some applications better suited to SD than HD?

I am cetain by now I have shown you my lack of knowledge but i would really like to hear
what the advantages are of both if that is the case or is there no question one is absolutely the way to go?

 

[EvsFX08]

Ok, that's something for me to think about. Thank you much.

 

[M1chae1]

Okay, okay, HD is the future. Be that as it may....



Hold on there, big feller! You have no idea how much craptacular footage I've seen shot on HD.

We all know that eventually we will probably all have HD cameras, SD will phase out, the price will come down some, etc. But when you are learning how to use a camera, learning how to frame a shot, figure out lighting, SD is fine for now.

Frankly, I personally don't have the money to buy a HD camera. Alot of the work I've seen in my area is shot on HD....by AMATEURS who couldn't focus a camera to save their lives. I've had people sneer at my DVX! And they think what they are doing is great because it is HD. Never mind you can't make out the features of your subjects. Hey! nice job there, jerky! Love the "squares" where his face is supposed to be!

The point I'm making is: when you can afford to go HD, do it, eventually you'll have to anyway. But don't let that be the reason you don't try to create films with you SD camera. You will need to learn all the same stuff, and then figure out the ins and outs of HD.

PLEASE remember that HD doesn't make you a good videographer. YOU make you a good videographer and once you get to that place, HD will make you look even better.

-- spinner

The question is not of talent. The question is of technology. If a filmmaker doesn't know how to shoot his way out of a wet paper bag...it will be the same for both SD and HD. But when a filmmaker knows what he's doing, then his productions shot on HD are going to look way better than SD.

Just because a bunch of skilless dolts are running around filming shorts on HD, doesn't mean it's not a better choice for the industry...of course it is. I think if a filmmaker has something against HD, and continually justifies how the 'art form' can be shot on any medium...well then I think what we have is a delusional filmmaker. Maybe they can't afford an HD camera, so they poke fun at what's being done with it...but we all know crap is crap is crap, no matter what format.

But there is no denying that HD looks FAR superior to SD--especially if you know what you're doing.

Oh and about that other questions...about only HDTV owners being able to see our HD films properly. To be totally honest, we don't shoot our films with Ma and Pa Kettle in mind. Here's the thing...if we shoot in HD, everyone will get a great looking image, especially if they have the ability to view HD properly. If someone doesn't have the ability to view HD in all its glory, they still will have a great image. Now, when we release our film in BR, it will utilize the resolution. And when we show our film in a theater that utilizes HD projectors, we are all set. If your film was shot on SD, your film isn't going to look nearly as nice when 'up to date' audiences want to view it. Far too many people have BR and HDTVs today to not use HD to shoot.

I love to use 28 Days Later as an example also...with a few expensive lenses, and clever filters, you can make your HD film look like 35mm.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

I see all the hype of shooting in HD, and even have customers asking for HD, but isn't there really a misconception about HD? I mean someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way to really get true HD is to either have HD DVD (which is no longer supported), BluRay, or through an HD satellite channel, (you will never get true HD over cable TV according to people I've talked to both in satellite and cable industry) right? I mean will recording in HD make a visible difference if recorded on a standard DVD? I wouldn't think so and this is why there are two channels for History Channel, ESPN, etc. One is for standard viewing, the other for HD. If I tried to view the HD channel on a Standard TV, would I see anything different? So, are people asking for HD simply because they think they will automatically get better quality, or are they not understanding HD? Or am I completely wrong about this? I'm confused as to why so many people are recording their Indie films, music videos meant for YouTube or DVD, etc; in HD when only a limited number of people will be able to benefit from the HD technology at this point in time. I have a 1080p big screen TV, but it doesn't mean I can view an HD DVD or BluRay, I have a standard DVD player, but NASCAR looks great on Fox Sports HD. So, I hope someone sees my point here and if I'm wrong, please set me straight. Thanks.

The quality is still light years better. Footage shot in HD then viewed in SD is still crisper and has more visible detail than footage shot in SD (IMO). Also, there are Blu Ray projectors. Even at low rent festivals I have watched projected Blu Ray and it looked pretty darn good (whether or not it was "true" HD).

 

[rattailfilms]

a decent camera, go Sony Ex-3 it will do everything you need for a long time. i bought 2 of them for our small production company. SD is a hard sell to clients. If your making film fest stuff or artist films, your ok with SD. canon XL-2 is a good choice.

 

[sonnyboo]

I hope this image helps explain some technical difference between HD and SD. Click on the picture to enlarge...



A lot of people learn visually. Reading 1920x1080 versus 720x480 doesn't always convey the AMOUNT of difference, so this picture helps spell it out in detail.

 

[R3VOLUTIONARY]

I shoot HD and am actually looking to switch to an SD camcorder. It isn't because I don't like HD, it obviously preferable. For what I want to do and how it fits into my affordability has everything to do with my decision. Each situation is different.

HD vs. SD. If resolution is the only thing being discussed, HD wins. There are also other things that go into your decision on cameras. Such as the processor, lens, glass quality, manual controls, xlr or mini inputs.

My current setup is a Canon HF100 with 35mm adapter, lenses, and the shrigg rig. For how I shoot I have learned I need something more than a menu and joystick, mini jack, and a small camera with little weight. It produces a great picture, but has limitations on audio, portability, and setup.

I am currently looking for a Canon XL1s because I can afford it and it offers me all the tools and controls to learn the skills needed for professional work. I can't afford an HD camera with the same features, but I can afford the XL for the price of trading in my current setup.

M1chae1 had it right. The bottom line is that in the end, content matters. You can shoot in HD or even SD, but if people aren't interested in the story, the audio is poor, and the shot composition is bad it still isn't good. Figure out how you want to shoot and what you can afford.

Check out the filmfellas series here: http://www.vimeo.com/2515688

I would watch the first cast (webisodes 1-4) before purchasing. They have great insight on the art of film and talk about learning and the new developments in technology.

 

[morjazzz]

I have no idea about any technical merit this has, but for me I know SD programming on my HDTV looks a lot crisper than SD programming on my other SDTV. So, I have always assumed that shooting in HD (due to higher native resolution, etc.) will turn out better results regardless of the medium it is broadcast on. Again, that's just my experience. It could just be me wanting to believe my HDTV is better than it is...well, it probably is me wanting to believe. Just my two cents.