Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

A forum to share ideas and opinions on the equipment and technical aspects of film, video and AV making.
User avatar
Mike Shaw
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Bromley, Kent

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by Mike Shaw » Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:51 pm

We have an HD (ready) TV because that's all that was available when we bought it a couple of years ago. It has a large superbly clear and sharp plasma screen. We have FreeView, no Sky, no HD transmissions, no subscriptions to pay. Were I younger and employed with money awash, it might be different. We have watched HD TV - my sons have them. On their systems we watched an HD and an SD version of the same film to be amazed at the difference. Only, we weren't. Frankly, we saw no markedly discernible difference and little to be gained by spending more money on new boxes, dishes, and then pay more for BluRay versions of films into the bargain. We watch films and documentaries for their content, and as long as we have a good sharp picture - vastly better than the old VHS stuff - that's well good enough for us ... perhaps that's an advantage of aging eyes blurring the edges a bit?

The secret of accepting SD is to age, and live on a pension. We don't invest for the future now. For us, we're in it.

And I too have an FX1 which I leave in SD mode - in spite of the argument that it is better to shoot HD and download as SD if I must. I might have done that if I didn't have an SD miniDV player (which obviously can't cope with HD) ... and I do not like using a camcorder as a VCR. I still have my Sony TVR900 in top notch condition, because it is only ever used to shoot, never play a VCR role.

And while I'm about it, bring back the horse and cart. Far fewer accidents in those days. Of course, it takes longer to get anywhere, but what's the rush? :lol:

Chrisbitz
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Orpington, Kent

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by Chrisbitz » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:00 pm

Thanks Mike, I'm so glad an "old codger" agrees with me too - I was afraid I'd be dismissed as a know-nothing teenager! :-)
I like to make films, this is- my Youtube account. What's yours?

"all of the above is nothing more than nonsensical ramblings, and definately should NOT be misconstrued as anyone's official policy"

User avatar
Mike Shaw
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Bromley, Kent

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by Mike Shaw » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:51 pm

No problem Chris ...

Now, ditch the Kindle! (At least until it works properly and costs peanuts... :D )

User avatar
TimStannard
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by TimStannard » Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:06 pm

Mike Shaw wrote: And while I'm about it, bring back the horse and cart. Far fewer accidents in those days. Of course, it takes longer to get anywhere, but what's the rush? :lol:
Not inside the M25, it doesn't!
Tim
Proud to be an amateur film maker - I do it for the love of it

Michael Slowe
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by Michael Slowe » Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:59 pm

In case I'm thought of as a 'gadget' nut I hate the iphone (the screen's too sensitive), the Kindle, (what's wrong with a book?) and as for 3D, well it's the end of cinema (and TV) for me if it really catches on.

User avatar
Mike Shaw
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Bromley, Kent

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by Mike Shaw » Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:33 pm

Hooray! Now I'm definitely in good company.

ned c
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Dammeron Valley USA

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by ned c » Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:49 pm

Convergence; two threads have been running here; one about the future direction of the IAC and another about the role of BluRay and HD. Here we see why it is very difficult for the IAC to attract young movie makers; the technology phobic senior citizens make it clear that only luddites are welcome. OK, some of this is humorous but there is an underlying truth in the resistance to change. Why buy an HDV camera and then shoot in SD? The iPad has apps for movie makers and is easy to read in sunlight; handles color and is a useful size; you can even edit on it if you wish. I understand the Orpington club is very successful and has young membership; perhaps Mike will share the reason for this success.

The question for the IAC to address is how it spends its income. If survival, growth and expansion are objectives then an expensive in-house magazine will not serve this. No matter how well liked by the current membership is this where the bulk of the income should go? Why an office and an employee for an organization with a small membership where the largest cost activity is the production and distribution of the magazine presently undertaken by the editor? For a similar cost DVDs of BIAFF winners could be circulated to the membership; we aer movie makers.

If the primary objective of the IAC is to serve its ageing membership then admit it and stop worrying about young movie makers and concentrate on the third age. Nothing wrong with this but it requires a clearer definition of the IACs mission.

By the way; I like Mike’s new avatar, a benevolent gent rather than the scary earlier version.

ned c

Chrisbitz
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Orpington, Kent

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by Chrisbitz » Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:29 pm

I'm sorry Ned C, but you only speak for yourself about "technology phobic senior citizens"!!!!!

I have many, many years to go until I claim a pension, and equally, I believe that the Pro HD people here are significantly older than I am!

I don't really see any point in bringing age into a discussion, where age isn't relevant. Maybe that's one of the secrets of Orpington's attraction to the younger members?

I'm not technology phobic in any way. In fact my job depends on me being bleeding edge in computer technology. However, I don't believe in buying technology for the sake of it, until it offers me a benefit in reality.

I've just ordered an Iphone 4s, which is very bleeding edge (whatever your opinion, Mike :-) ), yet I still make films in SD.

If it's not age related, what else could it be?
I like to make films, this is- my Youtube account. What's yours?

"all of the above is nothing more than nonsensical ramblings, and definately should NOT be misconstrued as anyone's official policy"

User avatar
Mike Shaw
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Bromley, Kent

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by Mike Shaw » Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:44 pm

perhaps Mike will share the reason for this success
Well, I can't speak for the Committee, but as I see it there is no dogmatism over the way things must be done to the exclusion of other methods, people are allowed to do and use things the way they want. Some want hard copy of the Club Newsletter: they're not called Luddites as a result. They get their hard copies without a quibble. Until recently, some were very happy to produce their movies on VHS: they weren't castigated (but we did have a chuckle and a dig, must admit... in good humour). Their films were shown like everyone else's ... in the best light possible.

Tolerance, acceptance that there are other views and opinions, a real 'fun' approach to everything, an atmosphere and environment that embraces all, and a marked lack of cliques ... I think those are probably the key factors. Everyone is happy. Newcomers old and young want to stay and join in the fun...

I'm not against change to new methods, and of course can see the advantages of 'web publishing' and new technology. I can also see the disadvantages where such exist - and I don't think those with no desire to even bother with web-published media for any of a million and one reasons should be looked down on as 'not being with it' - or Luddite-ish.

My mantra is, and always has been, options, choice. Not everyone wants web publishing. Not everyone wants to use HD (me) - the fact that my new cam has HD was because that was the only choice for the type of cam I wanted. I'd have stuck with my TVR900 if it was capable of proper 16:9. Because it has HD, I don't have to use it if I choose not to. I have, for me, very valid reasons for chioosing not to. My camera. My choice.

One seriously shouldn't try to shovel everyone into the same box ... that is "1984" and/or 'Brave New World' revisited. And why there are at least two political parties for example: the problem there is one part of the populace has to live with the choice of the other part - the majority supposedly - and are very rarely happy about it.

I do not think forcing the IAC into a technological straight-jacket is the way to make it more attractive to everyone - and newcomers.

I think creating better awareness of its existance and making it more available to all - irrespective of desires to use old or new equipment or systems, or old or new technologies - is the way to extend its membership. More public relations and self promotion, less attention as to whether the magazine shoukld be solely on-line with no hard copy.

Was I scary before? Hmmm. Maybe Bates Hotel shouldn't have taken that pic ...!!

ned c
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Dammeron Valley USA

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by ned c » Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:16 pm

A response, two even!!

The only reason age is even mentioned is that generally the member clubs of the IAC are made up of people in their later years. Look through the photos in F&VM to see what I mean. There has also been mention of the wish of the IAC to attract a young membership. The IAC and the clubs are not the same thing I agree; but with a few exceptions I think it is fair to say that the clubs are in decline. So what is the future of the IAC; what constituency does it represent and how is it to serve it? In my earlier posts I have listed suggestions that have elicited very little response so I decided to stir the pot a bit.

The only reason for debating the print v digital magazine is cost; it would be great to have both but if funds are limited and there are other demands then they will have to be weighed and priorities set. My view is that the most valuable jewel that the IAC possesses is the BIAFF and this is where the money should go both in terms of promotion and rewards. This would answer Mike’s call for better promotion, withoutabox would fix this in short order but it does cost money.

The reason to shoot in HD is that it “future proofs” your assets. Most of my efforts wind up as SD DVDs although originated on HD; yes I do make Blu Ray versions for people who have players and I can re-use earlier material in new productions.

ned c

col lamb
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:51 pm
Location: Preston, Lancashire

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by col lamb » Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:38 pm

WELL SAID NED

I have my bus pass, I am a techie nerd, I like the gadgets, I keep abreast of kit I am interested in and I said when both Digital 8 and HDV came out, do not buy it as it is just a stepping stone to full HD, so I am a clairvoyant as well.

You can just see it in some clubs........a potential new member comes in and starts asking questions about camcorders and PC's.

Blank looks on faces of the club members who have failed to keep up with the times, failed to understand how their kit works, failed to provide the very advice others desire..........potential member leaves and never returns. I have seen this many times at my club.

The IAC does need to looks after its aging membership, but it will ultimately fade away unless new blood is encourage to join.

New blood will only join if the content is of interest to them.

Right, back to the DVD / HD issue, those who have seen SD and HD and cannot see any difference..............are you blind!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SD on a HD TV looks slightly blured around the edges, is softer and has less dynamic range. Blu-ray is much sharper, clearer tonal range is deeper.

Avatar in SD = OK, Avatar in HD = stunning, Avatar in 3D = incorrect perspective

Why oh why have a HDV or HD camcorder and shoot in SD, that just does not make sense, you might just as well save some of your money and bought another good quality SD camcorder, I sold my second hand 900 for £200 more than I paid for it.

Why oh why have a HD camcorder and not shoot at the highest data rate possible, that also just does not make sense.

If you want to see the future of editing and media systems watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cclpQ1pI0xQ

(Link originally by DJ to the IAC NLE email group)

Its not about forcing others into a particular corner, its about embracing change.
Col Lamb
Preston, Lancashire.
FCPX, Edius6.02, and Premiere CS 5.5 user.
Find me on Facebook, Colin Lamb

User avatar
Mike Shaw
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Bromley, Kent

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by Mike Shaw » Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:47 pm

See what I mean about intolerance? You have an HD camcorder. Therefore you MUST shoot HD because nothing else "makes sense". Well, I'm afraid it makes 100% sense to me.

We keep hearing about 'it all looks sharper and crisper' with HD. I'm not making films for their sharpness. I make them for their content. If you don't like them because they're not sharp enough, tough. If you don't like the content - then that's of more interest to me - that's what I need to do something about, that's the angle I want to work on. That doesn't mean I'm going to deliberately shoot them out of focus or have poor colour balancing. It means I worry more about content than image quality. I'm getting really tired of this 'if you don't film in HD you're wasting your time' single-minded attituide. HD doesn't equate to good composition, never has, and never will.

And this ...
Blank looks on faces of the club members who have failed to keep up with the times, failed to understand how their kit works, failed to provide the very advice others desire..........potential member leaves and never returns. I have seen this many times at my club.
Because I choose not to shoot or edit in HD doesn't mean I don't know anything at all about it. If your club loses potential members because no one can answer their questions, then in all seriousness I suggest you look again at the way new members are treated at your club. You are in fact suggesting too that no one at your club can answer newby's technical questions. I don't believe that for a moment. It really is insulting to suggest that everyone MUST "keep up with the times", or else be lacking in some way. Thankfully there are still artists and artisans around who create stunning work using traditional methods and traditional tools.

We don't all have ding dong 100 inch screen televisions and piles of modern electronic equipment. We don't have surround sound, not because we don't think it is better, but because we have other things we prefer more. We don't need HD, and we see no reason to buy more equipment just to have it because it is 'the future'. I use a fork and spade to dig the garden, not a super-powered rotavator.

To continually berate people who don't think techology is the god that everyone without exception must follow in the same way as yourself isn't very clever, IMO. Accept that people think differently to you. Accept that there are other views held equally as strongly as you hold yours. Accept those people are just entitled to their views as you are, and that their views and ways of doing things make just as much sense to them, as yours do to you.

Just because things change, they do not "have to be embraced". Not all changes are for the better - look at the mad dash to something new all the time in media storage, leaving 1001 different systems in its wake, meaning considerable outlays all the time just to keep pace. Some cannot afford to continually 'embrace' the continual cycle of change that occurs these days. Why should they?

I say again, I have no desire to shoot HD just because my cam is capable of it: I expect with your own equipment/software you don't use to its full potential. Future proofing? I'm 80: I'm not even going to bother changing from miniDV. Ever. I have no interest in HD. The club doesn't show videos in HD - they're more interested in the content, which is why I enjoy that club.

Tolerance. Acceptance of different views. I accept that HD is here to stay (until the next change comes along). I accept it is sharper, crisper, you can see flies' knee-caps at 100 paces. For me, I'd rather see a good story or an interesting documentary well told - its sharpness adds very little to the pleasure.

As it happens, many/most if not all of the youngsters in our club are also more intersted in the content of their movies than them being super duper high quality. Maybe that's why we're growing, and other clubs aren't?

User avatar
Dave Watterson
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Bath, England
Contact:

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by Dave Watterson » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:37 am

I think we have to agree to disagree ... or at least to have slightly different attitudes to HD and its place ... or we risk this thread becoming a slanging match !!! :-)

It all started as a musing about how our work is shown and seen by the wider public.

I was amused (appropriately) to see that the first international festival in our area of work which actually asks for computer files to be sent to them is the Berlin comedy film festival called Eulenspiegeleien - a ridiculous piece of wordplay in German - the festival devoted to comic films and silliness. Who said those "Chermans haff no sense off humour?"

The IAC Festival (get entries in by 20th December to save money) accepts Blu-Ray but insists on an SD DVD to accompany it for the judging. Jan and I are judging three contests this month and cannot yet play Blu-Ray so we see everything in SD. I am also judging an international festival for students/semi-pros and have a stack of DVDs from them ... all SD.

For some time we have to accept that many of our audience will watch in SD, no matter how we make films. It makes me think of the viewfinders Hollywood has used for years which show scope width but have lines to indicate 16:9 and another set to show 4:3 - because the cinematographers keep one eye on future tv sales and so framing has to be reasonable for those formats as well as the cinema one.

McDave the peacemaker!

User avatar
Mike Shaw
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Bromley, Kent

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by Mike Shaw » Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:02 am

D'accord! as they say on the Contingnong!

tom hardwick
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am

Re: Blu-Ray Rather Than DVD

Post by tom hardwick » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:52 am

To pick up on your point Col, namely, 'Why oh why have a HDV or HD camcorder and shoot in SD, that just does not make sense, you might just as well save some of your money and bought another good quality SD camcorder'.

I sold my VX2000 and bought a Z1. The former was 4:3 SD and the latter 16:9 SD or HDV. I bought the Z1 because it was a native 16:9 aspect ratio camcorder, and this was far more important than it's hi-def capability. For four years I must have shot 95% of all my projects in SD. I looked on the Z1 as your, 'save some of your money and bought another good quality SD camcorder'. It was just that; a good quality 16:9 SD camcorder.

Now I shoot file-based and shooting in full HD makes much more sense, but in HDV days the potential for losing critically important shots due to tape dropout was a price not worth paying in my view - and especially so when all my clients (100% of them) wanted DVD.

tom.

Post Reply