Here is a reference to the wishy washy rules for DTV - NOT HDTV.

http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.pdf

I could be mistake, and am prone to jump the gun during some arguments, and I apologize if I tried to present facts that weren't facts at all.

I do recall distinctly hearing over and over a new mandate by the FCC (which is a part of the exeuctive branch of government here in the US that would REGULATE the airwaves ) have a mandate being put forth by congress which clear stated that the bandwidth used (primary VHF Channels 1-13) could no longer be used by broadcasters UNLESS it was used for the purpose of HTDV broadcasts before 2005.

Now I could be completely wrong = but could someone back me up on this? Was there not a mandate (did we not have every HDTV salesman telling us this up until the end of 1999 - our old tv's would be no good any more?)

The point was that the airwaves are not owned by the FCC in any way shape or form - only regulated. The congress could tommorow say that they are to be used for CB radios and if that was the vote, the FCC would have no say whatsoever - that is the way our government works - period. The president would have to sign the law, be once it was made into law, that would be that.

OF course, the preisdent has a great deal of interest in making the broadcasters that got him elected happy.

Anyway, mea culpa if I am wrong, as I frequently am. I'm pretty sure the concept of 'ENHANCED DEFINTITION TV came about during the Clinton administration when the big broadcasters started crapping in their pants realizing how much they would have to spend to re-tool to create new content

It doesn't have much relevence to me - the MARKET does. Consumers are buying HDTV sets in droves and really want contetn for it. I want to be available to make that content someday.

There have been many precedents for this type of change. Black and white movies largely gave way to color in the 50's (and TV followed suit a decade later). Yet the previous "technology" didn't affect the longevity of the material--you can still see and rent those classic shows and films today.

Whether one considers SD vs HD to be as big a difference as black and white vs color is personal (me, I think it's a fine improvement but hardly radical). The bottom line is: quality content survives. If you were a Three Stooges fan, had 'em all on DVD's, would you never watch them again because you have an HD set? Preposterous!

Those who have invested in mammoth screens and decoders and the like are going to be content-hungry; it's only natural when you have such a dazzling image in your own home for the first time. I get this concept, I've experienced it within myself after I installed a kickin' surround system and only wanted to watch movies encoded in Pro Logic (later AC3). And when my home theatre with HD front projector is installed in a few months, I'm sure I'll be glued to shows on Voom that I would never watch on regular TV.But eventually the shiny newness wears off, you take the tech for granted and you watch things for the content again (unless one happens to be an obsessed videophile, in which case all bets are off).

Bill, I don't get why you think the SD library will become obsolete. SD material can be broadcast across an HD signal, just as black and white broadcasts over color. I expect that SD material will be processed through line-doublers and the like to help it on its way.

In the past few years, most network TV series that originated on film have been duly transferred to HD and then downcoverted to SD for broadcast; others will be re-telecined for HD. We've been "protecting" 16:9 on every film-originated TV series for years; soon enough you'll be seeing those reruns of Buffy and X-Files in glorious widescreen (although nothing will really be going on in those extra couple of inches--we've been having to keep the all action within 4:3). Really, this image of Hollywood quaking in its boots just ain't happening (except perhaps over the issue of digital piracy, which is a real and obvious concern).

Anyway--I hold fast to the belief that content will win out for the vast majority.

Bill...

I think what you're referencing is that the analog spectrum will indeed go away, and not be usable for broadcast anymore (once the switch to digital broadcasting is complete). And that would indeed mean that all the existing televisions in America (by some counts, somewhere around 200 to 300 million sets!) will "cease to work" on that day.

That's still part of the plan. Unless customers buy a $150 set-top-box conversion, yes their standard-def sets will quit working, even though the broadcasters may all still be broadcasting standard-def!

There is much argument over whether this will ever actually happen. The manufacturers seem very anxious to push it through, so that it will in essence become a giant government-mandated handout to the television manufacturers (none of which, I believe, are American corporations...) The networks are extremely reticent to let it happen, they intend to keep the digital spectrum *and* the analog spectrum if at all possible.

And the latest we've heard is that the switchover was supposed to be complete by the end of 2006. But not that many people have bought digital TV's yet. So the networks have said "we'll let you have the airwaves back after 85% of the people in the country are actually watching digital broadcasts." Which the government isn't happy about. Then the government has apparently tried to legislate that 50% of the televisions on the market by the end of this year be digital-ready. Which the Consumer Electronics Association thinks is silly, they want it to be 100%.

And none of this has anything to do with HDTV, it's all about digital broadcasting -- it's an argument over the portion of the spectrum used; the government wants UHF and VHF back so they can auction it off to cell phone and wireless networking and other types of users.


So who knows when and where this will all sort out. There's only one thing I know for certain -- when John and Jane Q. Public find out that the four or five TV's they've bought are all going to suddenly "stop working" one day... they're not going to be too happy about it. And they have no idea that that's what's planned for them.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Piedra : If you're thinking of selling wedding video's then by all means, an XL2 is the way to go. That's not the direction that I'm thinking. I'm looking at a different picture.

I want to be a film maker. I see HDV as a once in a life time potential 'hole' in the industry that will close pretty fast. Remember - from 1970 to 1999 everything the major TV producers created (with few exceptions) was made on SD Video and now that are really HATING the idea of HDTV. That's why the standard has been pushed out and changed.

Remember - it was supposed to be 2005 ALL broadcasted MUST be broadcasting in HDTV? Not it's 2007 that MOST brodcasters SHOULD be broadcasting in 'Enhanced Definition TV' - WHY? All those reruns of 'Judge Judy' are worthless on the the day the new standard takes effect! The ENTIRE library - the WHOLE FU&#ing ABC library becomes WORTHLESS on that day - the LOVE BOAT - 6 million dollar man - the Brady Bunch, ad naseum - get it? Right up to Jerry Springer!!! Now do you see why they are quaking in their boots?

Right now the broadcasters are in charge of the FCC - but there is another side to that force - the producers of the 'flip side' of the technology.

If you want to make wedding videos, stick with SD for now. It will be VERY hard to sell HDTV wedding video, and if you do, I'd only keep an FX1 (or and HD10) as a backup camera.

Good luck to you. (Theoretically you could include an SD and HD Version with a player in a package if you wanted - please reasearch another thread I wrote last year on this subject - I'll look it up for you if you want)

BTW - I still love some of those tunes you wrote in the late 60's! -->>>

Bill the wedding thing is only to make alittle cash to pay for more stuff. I was looking at filmmaking and HD is a good way to go. But then so is the XL2.
With Apple coming out today with HD editing software at great prices it's starting to make more sense. The guy from DVFilms said HD video transfer to film is some of the best he has seen.

What Charles said is actually correct. Even before the HD vs SD debate, most modern large 4:3 TVs had line doubling to improve picture quality from broadcast and vhs sources. Otherwise no one could have stood to look at the lousy picture.

ALL of the current crop of HDTV (16x9) support 480p. And they will continure to do so for the forseable future. And as technology marches on, all of them will have various techniques for uprezing 480p content. (Actually trying to catch up with what we can do with our computers today).

Anyone shooting 480p widescreen wil have plenty of places to distribute their content. DVX and LX2 users have nothing to worry about.

No manufacturer in their right mind is goihng to cut out the low end of the market.

As far as WMHD, well, it's now part of the distribution spec (not broadcast spec) so many of you will have no problem uprezing your stuff to 720p and redistributing it in the future.

So really, buy for what you need , and stop worrying. SD DVD will be here for at least the next 10 years. I like most consumers have no intention of going back and repurchasing my entire DVD lib. Not gonna happen. Even if I purchase HD stuff..

As far as Porno leading the way. That won't happen either. When they first started going to VHS, most of the stuff they initially transferred was shot on film and had a quality look. Now days, most porno looks like low budget soap operas, bad lighting, bad acting, actors with lots of plastic surgery scars or just plain ugly. Bad skin...bad makeup..you name it.
with their ultra low budgets, and look, porno will not be the driving force. It wasn't for DVD at all. It won't be for hddvd either.
The porn producers will certainly try to hype and market their HD offerings. But once consumers see how bad they look, they won't care. If I were producing the stuff, I would stick with SD progressive for the forseable future.

why is it every HBO special about porn shows them using FCP? geez.

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green: With that said, why would the library become worthless? It'll be just as valuable as ever. The Beatles recordings didn't become worthless simply because radio switched to stereo, nor did they become worthless when radio stations went to FM, nor did they become worthless when the world moved to CD. They just copied the content to the new format. And that's what they'll do again with the film and video library. -->>>

There isn't full analogy with these things. Traditionally master fromats have always been a lot better than distribution formats.

Answer me this. Why are they re-broadcasting hogans heroes in HD? They can't rebroadcast 'The Love Boat' in HD. Because the love boat was shot on video. Hogans Heroes shot in 35mm film.

THats why the library will lose alot of value.

Standard-def will be up-rezzed and broadcast over HD. It's done all the time. Much of the commercials you see on HDTV are likely uprezzed SDTV.

Some old sitcoms may be re-mastered from the film source. For some, the film source may not even exist anymore, or may have deteriorated. You'll see a lot of SD uprezzed still broadcast over HD channels.

Bill, "The Love Boat" (both the original series and the late 90's comeback) was shot on 35mm.

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Standard-def will be up-rezzed and broadcast over HD. It's done all the time. Much of the commercials you see on HDTV are likely uprezzed SDTV.

Some old sitcoms may be re-mastered from the film source. For some, the film source may not even exist anymore, or may have deteriorated. You'll see a lot of SD uprezzed still broadcast over HD channels. -->>>

Indeed it is....

The whole issue being discussed here, strikes me as indicative of the directions that the different parties involved have taken in becoming HDV practitioners, proponents and opponents. Some appear to be from traditional film based backgrounds, others hoping for an 'Indie' alternative - and not necessarily having much HD knowledge, while others (I place myself in this group) have travelled from an interest in HD video, HDTV, HT and digital broadcast.

Each group brings it's own pre-conceptions, viewed from it's own particular perspective of the value of HDV at this point in time.

I guess the bottom line is: if you find the whole HDV thing with the FX-1 or Z1 as your means to become involved is too daunting for you to cope with......Avoid HDV.

If you're not afraid and prepared to take a chance that you made the right choice going HDV.....then what's the problem?!!!

The problem isn't with HDV par se.

The problem is people who are far too over enthusiastic with the format,

I'm sick of all this "SD is dead" nonsense. I make my living from video and I have a lot of money invested in the equipment so I'm rather tired of people trying to say that everything I have is now instantly worthless and that I won't be able to make any money unless I invest in HDV.

The other thing is regarding the rendering times. This has only been touched upon very lightly. It seems to be something the HDV proponents like to keep quiet about. Hardly anything I make doesn't have some kind of 'look' process applied to it. That's going to take time to render in HD.

The bottom line is this. If my clients start demanding HD I'll hire in some equipment (most likely a real HD camera), or if desperate the Z1. But until that time there is no way I'm taking in HDV propoganda about SD being dead and worthless now.

As Barry pointed out, there is still the uprezzing option. That's not as bad as it sounds either. The BBC uprezzed some of their programmes for Discovery, and they thought it was actually shot on HD! There are some killer uprezzers out there such as the Snell and Wilcox system, or Algolith. 1080 might be a stretch, but certainly uprezzing 16:9 PAL to 1280x720p is not going to be as huge a leap. And given that all HDTV sets you buy aren't even capable of displaying the full HD resolution (problems of luminance being one reason why I believe) it's not a huge problem.

I've just found out something else that is very curious considering the availability of the FX1 and Z1.

Sony are apparently releasing a DSR400 to replace the 300 series.

Now this does beg the question as to why Sony would release a new SD camcorder such as that if the FX1 and Z1 were poised to take over that level of the market.

OK - sorry my mistake, bad assumption - but you know what I mean. Much of that type of stuff was not.

<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Wyndham : The problem isn't with HDV par se.


As Barry pointed out, there is still the uprezzing option. That's not as bad as it sounds either. The BBC uprezzed some of their programmes for Discovery, and they thought it was actually shot on HD! There are some killer uprezzers out there such as the Snell and Wilcox system, or Algolith. -->>>

When I do HD shows for ABC or ESPN and we have a pregame truck, or SD cameras, the SD video signal coming to us is the best quality available- uncompressed 601 SDI- we run that video through the very latest and expensive upconverters and the video looks horrible on the HD monitors, - very soft..especially when compared to HD signals.. Sometimes, in the situation of a SD camera being integrated into a HD show, the camera never ends up getting used because nobody can bear to put it on the air. Case in point- I did the rose parade for ABC this year, it was in HD. There are a number of networks and local affiliates there who also broadcast the parade- its a pretty big setup- lots of trucks and cameras.. ABC and KTLA were the only ones broadcasting in HD. We had 3 aerial sources to choose from- a blimp- which was a pool feed- a fixed wing plane with gyro cam- which was our plane, and KTLA's chopper. The blimp was 4:3 SD- never made air because it looked horrible.. the plane was 16x9 SD - also looked horrible, but we used it, but only very little, because we had to in certain situations- but mostly we used KTLA's chopper- which we had very little communication .. and was a big risk for us putting on the air with no control....the chopper was in HD- a new technology lets you do RF HD- via MPEG-2... The opening ceremony of the parade was a big Disney production, but HGTV was actually the pool feed which we had to take in SD. It looked so bad- it was a big stink at ABC as to how that entire thing ended up happening, since ABC is Disney and we should've been the pool feed in HD. Keep in mind, all these sources look great, fantastic, in SD.

<< why Sony would release a new SD camcorder such as that if the FX1 and Z1 were poised to take over that level of the market. >>

Hmmm... well, I don't think these HDV camcorders are going to take anything away from the DSR-300/400 level. After all, the FX1 and Z1 are one-piece handycams. They'll probably steal away a big part of the VX2100/PD170 niche, no doubt about that, but I can't see HDV affecting the massive existing infrastructure of professional shoulder-mount SD cameras such as the DSR-300 series and the like. Not for awhile yet, anyway. To me it makes perfect sense for Sony to introduce a DSR-400 series, considering that the previous model was up to 390.

One thing I'm confused about is why SD looks great on an SD monitor, but not on an HD one.

I'm not denying that this is the case, I'm just wondering why.

For example, if I watch 16:9 SD footage on, say a 32 inch screen, why would it look horrible on a HD 32 inch screen? Surely the pixels are the same size for the footage being shown? Surely the noise levels in the footage are the same?

Mike, which upconverters were you using? Fact remains that the BBC managed it and have become very good at it. Perhaps the difference is that the BBC's footage is from very carefully lit and shot material whereas yours was from a live feed? I have been told that things such as wildlife uprez far better than studio drama.

I should also add that the BBC was converting to 720p from PAL footage. So although the horizontal resolution is restricted, the leap in vertical resolution is about the same percentage difference between NTSC and PAL.

Though I wonder if there's any merit in upconverting using something like Algolith to 720 first, and then doing another conversion up to 1080?

People are going to say to me that I should just buy a camera, but uprezzing is a real issue. I bet there are a lot of people on these forums who have some nicely shot and lit footage from their DVX's in the past etc who might want to get a bit of extra mileage out of them.

I'm not doubting the validity of your claims Simon (infact, if you go from 720x576 to 1280x720 you should be able to get decent uprezzing), but looking at 720x480(486) on a native 1080i monitor should look like crap. You're talking over 2.25 the amount of pixels--and even the best uprezzers are gonna have trouble making up that many extra pixels. If I was looking at a regular NTSC source on a 1080i preview monitor, I probably wouldn't ever choose it as a source either. A 32" NTSC monitor will display natively at 720x486, a native 1080i monitor...1920x1080...simple math.

Oh and Simon, I certainly not in the group that thinks SD is dead--SD will be around for a long time...my previous comments were merely pointing out that the HD revolution is finally here, and I think the next few years are going to completely change things.

Actualy Kevin, going from 601SD to 1080i is 4.5 times the pixels! Don't forget about horizontal resolution.

I'm really not sure why SD video looks so bad on HDTV set.. on consumer sets, their upconverters are very basic, so feeding a SD signal into a HDTV looks even worse, IMHO.

When I say the SD video looks bad, you can see some artifacts in the upconversion and the picture is terribly soft.. much like uprezzing an image in photoshop. Now that I've been working so much with HD footage, I can't stand working on a SD truck- which is 601 uncompressed and looks fantastic- it's all about perspective.

I think people are so used to seeing people that you'll notice more upconversion artifacts and softness when viewing people. Wildlife and landscapes should provide the best subjective quality. Remember that a lot of wildlife footage is pretty simple images, a tight shot of a lion with the background blurred, etc. When you start showing footage of things people see everyday, I think the subjective quality is lower. Just my thoughts.

our up converter we used was either an Evertz or Snell & Wilcox.. don't remember.

I look at it all this way: a year from now when high-definition DVD players are the high-profile status item at every electronics store in the U.S., anyone who's paying thousands of dollars for professional video services may start wondering if high definition production is an option. I'm almost sure this will be true for wedding videos, and to a lesser but still noticeable extent for everything else. I know if I was shelling out several grand for a wedding video today I'd want it to be recorded in HD, and I'm betting I can attract customers by pitching that angle to them.

It doesn't matter if/when "everyone" will convert to HDTV, only when the people who are paying for professional videography will want it. That's going to start happening by next year at the latest, and accelerate rapidly after that. Why pay good money to have a video done using 50-year-old technology, when for a few bucks more you can have it done using the technology for the next 50 years?

Kevin, you make some good points. But some facts still remain. I think a year is a bit optimistic because although we might see some form of high definition DVD PLAYER, it is doubtful that we will see a high definition WRITER. Now, perhaps the writes will appear, but remember how much SD DVD writers cost when they first arrived.

The other problem is still with HDV and it's long GOP encoding. I'm sorry, but no matter which way anyone tries to sway this by saying they've never had a dropout yet etc, it is still a risk. These cameras are new too, so we haven't seen the effects of long term reliability.

Just imagine you are shooting someones wedding and the one time that you do have a dropout occurs during the most important part of the ceremony. It's a small risk, but a risk none the less. If it's one wedding, that's okay for you, you can just sort out something financially with them, but it doesn't do much for the bride and groom's emotions if it happened!

In fact I seem to recall there being a thread around here or on one of the other forums about some Japanese wedding videographers who had suffered from this exact problem and were now refusing to use the cameras for such events.

Here's where I stand;

- You are right to say that when HD players appear people will wonder about HD production for hire.

- You are right that if that is the case people would want things such as a wedding video to last a long time so HD would be a good option.

But here's where I disagree, HDV is NOT the solution. I have a feeling that some of the other manufacturers have something altogether more reliable just around the corner.

I also disagree about 50 year old technology. We don''t still use tube cameras ya know!

TNTHD is uprezzed SD, but HBO HD, which is the same as regular HBO, is true anamorphic HD. At least, it looks that way on my anamorphic HDTV.

heath

Hehe, If it's anamorphic, it ain't HD ;-)

D'oh!

h

<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Wyndham : I'm sorry, but no matter which way anyone tries to sway this by saying they've never had a dropout yet etc, it is still a risk. -->>>

Yes, and DV, DVCAM, HDCAM, BETA SP, DIGIBETA, all have risks of dropouts. I've seen 2 or 3 dropouts of HDV footage on standard DV tapes.. I'm on my 3rd CASE of HDV tapes and haven't seen a single one and I shuttle, view, eject, shuttle, view, capture, eject, rewind, fast foward, take to a buddys house, shuttle view, freeze frame, play, slow mo, rewind, eject, shuttle... etc. lol

I would have no problem, after actually using the camera for the last 2 and 1/2 months and having experience to base this on, using this camera to shoot a wedding or presidential address.

I agree that a better format is coming- whether it's this year, next or 2007, who knows. I'd be surprised if a new format or new non HDV camera (read DVCPROHD) came out this year at the same price point as the FX-1/Z1. Soon storage won't be an issue and we'll be recording 4:4:4 uncompressed 1080p HD on solid state.

Simon: those are fair comments, but as far as dropouts are concerned that's why I always try to keep two cameras running for anything important at a wedding. I agree that the significance of a dropout in HDV is a potential concern, but it's not an insurmountable problem. If I can find customers willing to pay extra for HDV wedding videos, I'll figure that issue out.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd: ...VX2100/PD170 niche... -->>>

Wouldn't call this a small niche. Pd150 was the best selling model Sony has had and I'll bet that they will sell fx1/z1's dozens of times more than dsr400's.

If 400 is replacing 300's series, then it seems that hdv has already having a big impact in pro series, when sony is dumping 1/2" models once and for all.

Maybe there is 1/2" hd cameras coming, like HDC-X300, but hopefully 16:9.
Hope they got guts to tell that old chief engineer who's fixated with interlaced picture that customers are demanding progressive. That japanise hierarchy...

Kevin, if you've got two cameras, that's fine. Although not everyone does.

Mike, DV, DVCAM etc do suffer dropouts (well the tape versions of them do anyway), but they are only ever 1 frame or so and are correctable in post. HDV loses 1/2 a second or more! it's no small problem. 2 and a half months is not enough time to evaluate the technical reliability of the camera. Plus if you follow Sony's advice and keep using the head cleaning tape you will probably wear out the heads even quicker than normal.

Sony obviously think that the dropout thing is enough of a problem to warrant a special tape and supplying a head cleaner with the camera.

What you have said about you personally not experiencing dropouts is exaclty what I was on about. It's blinkered. The one time you're not expecting it it will happen. It's inevitable, you WILL suffer from a dropout, and if it's on a shot that is unrepeatable your up a creek without a paddle because unlike DV there's no fix.

The likelyhood might seem small. But then you don't know. You haven't had the camera for long so who knows what the effects of prolonged use are. It wouldn't be so bad if it recorded all I frames. But it doesn't. I wouldn't risk it on an important project with one time only shots, and if a client wanted HDV for some reason for such a thing I'd have no hesitation in pointing it out to them. It's a small risk, but a risk none the less. Even more so for news gatherers. With the way that some of their equipment is treated I'd hate to think what kind of messups they might end up with in time.

Just as an illustration of how bad a dropout could potentially be, what if the tape dropout was either side of the I frame? That's one serious dropout!

Toke, in Japan interlacing is the preferred format. They see progressive, at least in 24p form, as inferior.

Why not try thinking outside the box for a moment.

Let's imagine the number of households with computers. Let's also imagine that a network HD capable media player is about $200....add network card (for older machines), cable and possibly router...maximum $375.

Not only can you watch or listen to whatever you want but it can be delivered on any format. The new network HD media players have a flexibility of use that may be difficult for those stuck on a linear delivery mode to comprehend.

For my money Blu-ray and HD-DVD - being dedicated and expensive expansion devices, are dead in the water before they're even released. Why would anyone pay hundreds of dollars for another flaming box that they're going to have to find space for (in already crowded cabinets and shelves); let alone a spare set of component 'ins', and all it does is play proprietry format disks...

Network HD capable media players are the low-cost portals that will ultimately power much of the mass acceptance of HD because they increase connectivity rather than restricting it even further, regardless of whether you presently have an SD setup or not. The only truly essential HD device you require with a network HD media player (apart from a computer of course) is a HD monitor.

Anything else like a DVB-t or s card for streaming or recording live HD broadcasts is supplemental and incredibly affordable compared to stand-alone receivers.

To all intents and purposes network HD media players will fulfill the promise of computer driven digital entertainment.

Even Sony has recognised this fact with the impending release of their own network HD media player. They're even launching VAIO computers with expanded HD support; not that it's essential - it's just a mark of how seriously they're taking the computer driven digital entertainment market.

The true facts regarding HDV final product delivery are that there's no definitive answer as yet because the delivery landscape is in a constant state of flux; but to write off HDV based on what's achievable at this very moment may be premature.

You know Steve, you've hit on something there. It would be ideal to have such a system. Although it will all depend on who makes the most material available and gets market penetration first. I'd love a do-all system. My dream is to have a playback system that doesn't care what you feed it!

Y'know, I had a similar discussion once with someone who refuses to run a second camera unless he's getting paid a lot of extra money to do so, and he depends on his E&O insurance to cover his butt if anything goes wrong. It's basically the same issue with HDV except the significance of a dropout is potentially bigger, but any dropout in any format is a nuisance. So yes, it's a real concern whether HDV can be used reliably for important work, but there are ways to deal with that just like with any video camera. If you're shooting HDV and don't have access to a second HDV camera, you could at least run a second DV camera as a backup so you don't completely miss something important.

I'll agree that we don't know enough yet about HDV to assess long-term reliability of the equipment, but so far people seem to be getting fine results when shooting with good tape.

The AVeL Linkplayer two is pretty much what you're looking for.. you can throw just about anything at it

<<<-- but so far people seem to be getting fine results when shooting with good tape. -->>>

Flawless.

I agree Kevin ;-)

Somehow one of my posts seems to have gotten mixed up in another thread, so I was trying to fix that. Never mind...

:-)

<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Wyndham: Mike, DV, DVCAM etc do suffer dropouts (well the tape versions of them do anyway), but they are only ever 1 frame or so and are correctable in post. -->>>

How do you correct them?

Simple. DV dropouts usually take the form of little squares, so it's possible using some Photoshop skills to use information from either the preceding frame or the following frame to patch over them. Failing that there's Dynapel's Motion Perfect which also has a function to repair dropouts.

None of these solutions is possible with a 1/2 to 1 second HDV dropout.

There is a very interesting Business Week article avaialble online.

at: [http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2005/tc20050110_2911_tc024.htm]

NEWS ANALYSIS
By Stephen H. Wildstrom

What HDTV Is Missing: HD Content
Today's snazzy new sets are capable of showing pictures that are much better than those broadcasters and studios are yet providing


Kind of right along the lines of this topic.

This isn't true:
"Even the cable-sports network ESPN HD, which often does an exemplary job with HD, sometimes cheats, offering 720p images, but on a 4:3 screen. The reason, according to an ESPN (DIS ) official, is a shortage of mobile HD production facilities. Broadcasting an event in both standard and HD formats requires parallel production operations because the HD shot shows a much larger chunk of the field."

I work for ESPN and we never produce 720p in 4:3- and broadcasting an event in both SD and HD does NOT require parallel production operations. All of our animations and graphics are 4x3 safe, but our show is created in 16x9 and a 4:3 center-cut output is created in Bristol, CT, downconverted and sent out to SD land.

It's possible when he says "cheats" he means that shows that are created in SD for ESPN are shown on ESPN HD also- just upconverted. But in that case, they're not 720p images, they're 601 30i images upconverted to the 720p format.

ESPN really took a big bite when they started doing HD shows. I know they signed some major contracts with two truck companies to get some HD trucks built so they can produce shows for their HD network... they don't get any more viewers and it costs them probably twice as much, maybe 3 times as much, to produce.

I know the preproduction takes twice as long- nobody in the sports broadcasting world has ever been "trained" in HD. We've all just learned as we went. Many producers have never worked HD shows and don't know what's involved and many of the issues created when integrating SD content in HD shows. Things that used to take 5 minutes, now take 10- especially when we check in with ABC in New York or ESPN in Bristol to do our transmission checks. We have to check the HD encoders, and the back-up encoders, make sure lip sync is correct, that our graphics look good, etc. and there always seems to be some problems somewhere in the path. Many of the satellite trucks don't have disembedders or HD decoders, so we have no idea what we're really putting out except for the feedback we get from Master Control in NY or CT.

But he's right there really IS a lack of HD content, and he's right, there are only a small percentage of HD trucks on the road- but every major truck company out there, and even many of the smaller ones, have HD trucks and are building or converting more over. Many of the trucks I worked on last year that were 601 digital trucks are now HD trucks. I'll probably do twice as many HD shows this year as last year, and in 2006 will probably do twice as more as this year.

Simon Wyndhamwrote: <One thing I'm confused about is why SD looks great on an SD monitor, but not on an HD one.>

Kevin Dooley wrote: <I'm not doubting the validity of your claims Simon (infact, if you go from 720x576 to 1280x720 you should be able to get decent uprezzing), but looking at 720x480(486) on a native 1080i monitor should look like crap. You're talking over 2.25 the amount of pixels--and even the best uprezzers are gonna have trouble making up that many extra pixels.>

I posted this question in another forum because my Sony PD170 video which used to look great on a CRT TV now looks horrible on my Pioneer 50" Plasma set. The answers were that I must be doing something wrong, that maybe the image was being scaled improperly, etc. Reading this thread, it seems that I'm not doing anything wrong (I'm feeding the signal from the camera into the set's media receiver box with an S video cable, also tried a firewire in through another box) and that the SD video is just going to look lousy on my plasma set. Any thoughts on what is the truth and whether there is anything I can do short of buying an HD camera? Will hardware upscalers be of any use? (If so, which would you recommend?)

Thanks for any info!

Man ... Simon accuses ME of making "sweeping assumptions" and then proceeds to make a zillion of his own.

Two quick things.

>>saying SD is dead.

No - we are NOT saying that. HDTVs play SD content so there is no either/or issue. Both formats will coexist.

>>although we might see some form of high definition DVD PLAYER, it is doubtful that we will see a high definition WRITER. Now, perhaps the writers will appear, but remember how much SD DVD writers cost when they first arrived

Read my original post. The $250 Linkplayer and the numerous similar boxes en route for 2005 already play HD content off standard red lazer disks. And Best Buy, et al., sell red-lazer DVD-writers to produce these disks for as low as $30 after rebate.