Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

[col lamb]

Chris

Whilst I do agree with you that the content of a movie matters most, if I have the choice of viewing the same movie in SD or HD, its no contest HD wins by a country mile.

I just cannot understand why anyone who has a HD camcorder shoots either in SD or using one of the lower data rate HD settings.

Some of my recent movies require detail to be seen, sharp chrisp edges etc and again HD wins by a mile.

As for rendering times etc, I can get my movies off the SD card and be editing much quicker than having to capture a tape, editing time is no different and rending the movie to MPG/h264 is very fast.

HD is the future, the sooner more embrace it and produce their movies in it the better

[Peter Copestake]

Thinking about this further last night I realised it's Video/S-video all over again, isn't it? I helped some young folk make their film for Duke of Edinburgh once and asked the teacher if she wanted it on VHS or S-VHS. It was made on digital but it must have been before DVDs were commonplace. What's the difference? S is better. The S please. But of course they did not have the player so the event was a bit flat when the tape wouldn't play. It did not occur to me that a Grammar school would not know the difference.

[tom hardwick]

And therein lies the point that we're all shooting in hi-def these days, regardless of the camera we shoot with. Compared with the 2nd or 3rd generation VHS tape we used to hand over, any digital format is hi-def, whether we like it or not.

[Chrisbitz]

Tom has a point, (as usual). I don't think the current changes are quite like VHS - DVD. VHS was a particularly lossy format, so DVD did give quite a useable improvement to picture quality, whereas HD seems to me to more like icing on the cake. And dont get me started on 3D!

I'm waiting for someone to tell me I need to upgrade to 3D because It's the new technology!

HD still hasn't reached mass Market yet, and I can't put my finger on why. Is it due to the cost of hd DVD players, or is it because it's not enough of a must have technology?

It is mass Market on computers and phones, which are more relevant to gadget orientated people, but as far as domestic living rooms, most people I'm aware of only have hd capability because their ps3 gives it as a by-product, rather than because they "must have it"

[Michael Slowe]

Chrisbitz, I can agree with you unreservedly, it's the artistic quality of the film that counts - every time. Having said that I repeat my earlier statements that a good film will appear to be even better when viewed in HD. I have done SD DVD's (downscaled in my encoding software, BitVice) and BD's (from the exported HD file) of the same film and the BD version just looks so much better. The appearance of a production does matter - we are VIEWING what the producer hopes is a work of art and by definition the appearance matters. Of course a rubbish piece of work will always look rubbish, no doubt about that. Tom, in his above post, supports my contention that HD looks better on the screen, so why not try and get it there if we can?

Of course exhibition of the file from a hard drive is the way to go if the exhibitor can manage that and more and more are doing so. Punters at home though, still will play discs for quite a while yet.

[col lamb]

Chris

"HD still hasn't reached mass Market yet, and I can't put my finger on why. Is it due to the cost of hd DVD players, or is it because it's not enough of a must have technology?"

Oh how wrong you are, every heard of the iPhone?

There are millions of them being carried and used by young and youngish people in this county alone and they all can shoot 1080p HD video. On youtube alone there are 43000 iPhone related videos, heaven knows how many there are in total.

Just about every digital stills camera can shoot HD video, just try and buy an SD camcorder.

The GoPro action camcorder that Tom H reviewed, is being used by thousands of participants of sports and action events (24000 videos on youtube).

HD is everywhere except with the majority in the IAC it would seem

[Chrisbitz]

Oh how wrong you are, every heard of the iPhone?

There are millions of them being carried and used by young and youngish people in this county alone and they all can shoot 1080p HD video. On youtube alone there are 43000 iPhone related videos, heaven knows how many there are in total.

Ever heard of reading the whole post before replying?

Let me requote my post for the hard of reading

It is mass Market on computers and phones, which are more relevant to gadget orientated people, but as far as domestic living rooms, most people I'm aware of only have hd capability because their ps3 gives it as a by-product, rather than because they "must have it"

[col lamb]

Chris

I did read all your post

HD TV sets have been in the UK for many years.

Sky has been broardcasting HD for years (I have been on HD for 6 years)

Freeview has HD channels.

Indeed with the digital switchover you have to have a compatible TV or receiver hence Joe Public has HD now.

Where I live was changed over 18 months ago.

HD is in the vast majority of houses now, if Joe Public cannot be bothered to get it operational it is their loss.

HD makes all the difference when viewing TV and Movies (from whatever source) and it can certainly enhance IAC competition movies.

Who would not watch some of the wonderful drama that the broadcast channels produce such as Downton Abbey in HD if one could it makes such a difference.

Appathy and stuck in mud attitudes produces a stagnant society, the IAC and its membership should move with the times and enbrace all modern technology, use it and gather new members from the millions who have the gadgets but do not exploit them fully

[Dave Watterson]

Whatever the reason, the public has been and still is, slow to adopt HD. Since the switch to digital transmission a great many people are still using their old tv sets with a freeview or satellite box. One friend of ours still uses a 20 year-old, 14 inch black-and-white set with a tiny gizmo on the back to translate the digital signal.

At Watterson Towers we refused to replace a perfectly good tv or our video projector just to see football - or even Downton Abbey - in HD. There is a small impetus to change now because more non-commercial films are being made in HD and we are asked to do a lot of judging ... but ours is probably an unusual case!

The problem, as many have said here, is not that there is a difference in the price of a blank BluRay and a blank DVD disc - that is relatively small. For various reasons the cost of BluRay players is not a huge issue. The catch is that unless your old tv or projector is wearing out, it is hard to justify the hundreds of pounds it costs to replace them.

For those of us who like collecting commercial films the cost of buying BluRay discs as opposed to DVDs is also a factor - but that depends how many films you buy each year.

The underlying issue for non-commercial film makers is how much money you are prepared to spend on the hobby - for some people part of the pleasure is upgrading kit every few years - others are willing to pay expenses and catering for professional actors - it seems the majority just want to keep on enjoying the business of making movies. This is compounded by the fact that fairly few of their prospective audiences have the means to present work in HD.

Our hobby includes all sorts of enthusiasts. It is wonderful to have people on the cutting edge of technology, just as it is marvellous to have people who produce astoundingly good movies in any format. But IAC supports and encourages ALL levels of film making. Personally I take as much pleasure in celebrating the work and enthusiasm of a 1-star winner as a Daily Mail Trophy winner - even though the results may be of very different quality.

Dave

[Peter Copestake]

Hear, Hear, Dave.
And strange as it may seem we do have an HD set and we do watch Downton Abbey but in SD because we record it on our HDD recorder the disc in which is already half full because we don't get round to watching all we record so we are now recording in SD. I sometimes switch the TV to the HD version when it says I can and, maybe it's my eyes, but to me the difference isn't so great on a 37" screen. Now, projected may be very different.
By the way, if mobile phones produce HD through tiny lenses why does the BBC use big 'uns?

[Michael Slowe]

I also find that on a good TV screen the difference between HD and SD is not always dramatic (sport seems to be the exception) but that is because the SD that we are looking at was originated as HD and the kit being used is in a different league to ours. I was referring to DVD's and BD's that we can make and here the difference is very obvious. By the way there is HD and HD. Tom could no doubt elucidate but the bit rates at which it is shot can vary from 35mbps (my Sony EX 1 camera) up to 4,000mbps which the Red camera shoots at. I believe the new Arri Alexa shoots at rates up to 8,000mbps and the reference to iphones recording HD is very misleading.

[tom hardwick]

'the reference to iphones recording HD is very misleading.' Well said Michael. Pixel counts no more make high definition images than a crown makes me king of England. My Samsung phone has a 5mp camera. What an unfunny joke that is. My NX5 is effectively a 2mp still camera and makes lovely A4 glossy prints.

tom.

[col lamb]

On my Pioneer 42" the difference between SD and HD is very marked.

Michael you are so right about there being HD and HD.

MiniDV records at a data rate of 36mbps, my Panasonic TM 900 records in 1080p mode at 29mbps, just because the MiniDV has a higher data rate does not mean that its quality is better than the TM 900

The iPhone 4 records in 1080p format, but just what the recording data rate is is another matter, it does not say what its h264 rate is but it sure does not match the TM 900 but it still is HD.

[Michael Slowe]

Col, I think you'll find that DV (mini or cam) records at the rate of 25mbps.

[col lamb]

25Mbps yes, for the video element only, add in aution, sampling and error checking and the numbers ramp up.