>>>It is a FACT, complete and utter FACT that beyond a certain viewing distance you will not gain anything from HD resolution.<<<

that is exactly right... "A principal advantage of HD over SD video is the ability to view larger images from closer distances....The design goal for HDTV was to facilitate viewing at a distance of three picture heights from the screen as opposed to the five- to seven-picture-height design goal for NTSC." - http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Tech-Corner/Hoffner_features.shtml

now consider that nearly all of the so-called "hd" tv sets on the market today are not capable of displaying the full hd resolution... what you are left with is a population that really only wants a big screen tv, period.

a classic example of that is my neighbor, who got himself a big 16:9 plasma tv... unfortunately, most of what he watches is 4:3, stretched to fit the entire screen... that is your typical consumer.

BIG... Mmmmmm...

Doh!! Are we talking about TVs or donuts?!!

Who cares as long as it's BIG!!! It'll keep the kids and women happy if it's BIG...

LOL.

But actually it's correct - a typical consumer (and let's say 35+ years old) does not even know today what HDTV is and when they go to the shop, they most probably choose the TV set by the size, by the price and by the look. As the slim LCD and plasma televisions look very neat and fit well to the home, they might buy one in case it's affordable for them, but often not because of the HD capability which the most slim TVs anyway support now. People simply have so much else to do in the life in today's busy world that they don't have time to concentrate on all kinds of TV features.

Truthfully, the only reason I care about HD is for acquiring video. As a Homer Simpson consumer, I just want a bigger screen, good sound, and some donuts and beer. The traditional SD delivery formats work just fine for me. If I can save some living room space by hanging a flat screen on the wall, great!

I still think consumer HD in disc form is going to end up like S-VHS. Great for the acquisition side, but just confusing & annoying for consumers. Remember owning an S-VHS recorder? How many commercial S-VHS movie tapes did you actually own?

As a consumer I want easily accessible media, with lots of content choices. HD just doesn't deliver anything in that department that is substantially better than the current delivery channels for SD. In fact, consumer HD's main claim, the higher resolution, makes it less accessible, with less content choices.

I'll bet if you ask the majority of consumers they'll tell you they didn't realize there was even a problem with DVD delivery. They think it's the cat's meow.


The next big consumer delivery format, will need consumer features that are superior to any disc based format: CD, DVD, or HD. The iPod gave consumers the ability to carry around a huge selection of content, that was easy to acquire, and easily accessible. When I see a video device like an iPod that can pull content off cable or iTunes and can display the video on an HD display, then I'll know HD has arrived.

So those of us who actually took the time and effort to research the step on from analogue video, because;

a) we do understand language both written and verbal and
b) we aren't merely existing in mundane existences that numb the senses and annihilate any idea of what is happening in the world,

should;

a) feel very smug and superior compared to the vast seething mindless mosh of humanity because we know that regardless of anyone's opinion about SD vs HD, the one certainty in all of this is that HD IS here and it isn't going away now that it is, or;
b) just keep watching superior HD quality images and ignore all the banter and rhetoric regarding what's going to happen, or;
c) use any extra cash we have to get a frontal lobotomy so we'll blend right in with the vast mindless mosh and still enjoy watching our HD without knowing why it looks better... nor care why it looks better, and just get the mindless but loving (even though she doesn't know why) missus to give us another beer and donut.

I do wish education wasn't a compulsory thing in this country. It's so much easier to not know anything.

I agree with the side which believes that SD will be a continuing production and distribution method. The biggest and most obvious reason being that once the digital transition is complete, there is no obligation on the part of broadcasters or producers to provide anything in high definition. Once the additional bandwidth is divided and provided to various producers, they have the option to do whatever they deem necessary to create revenue. Whether this is one high def channel or 4-5 SD channels. Secondly, how many of the smaller markets can afford to redesign and upgrade there already profitable SD production tools?

My prediction for the future of high definition is that it will coexist for many years with SD production and delivery. I think some people are under the false assumption that once the Blue Laser or HD DVD format is available that it will instantly replace the DVD format. I believe that the two formats will live peacefully with one another as did VHS and Laserdisc for many years. VHS was a cost friendly consumer format, while Laserdisc was a more costly Videophile format, requiring a specialized player with more expensive media.

Brian,

There will certainly be much 4:3 SD around for years, But I think that in the not too distant future every producer must seriously consider HD. I think the best analogy goes back to the conversion to color TV, or the conversion to stereo audio.

B&W pictures are pretty much used only for effect. No serious audio would be done in mono - heck, you better be thinking about 5.1 surround!

That doesn't mean there aren't many folks out there who could care less about HD or stereo sound.

I guess we'll have to wait a few years to know for sure.

The majority of TV viewers still effectively hear mono sound. It's either:
A- Their speakers aren't far enough apart.
B- Because of their setup's wiring scheme, they only get a mono signal.

And if you're sitting too far from your TV (which is a lot of the case), then you don't get the benefits of the higher resolution.

I think the middle ground that is oft missed in this entire debate is the period of coexistence. Did B&W TVs vanish over night? No... there was a period where both B&W and color TVs co-existed. Eventually, the final tipping point became when cost was not an issue. It eventually made no sense for a consumer to buy a B&W TV when a color TV was the same price.

The same thing will eventually happen with HD but the dynamic is a little different. Color vs B&W was revolutionary...HD vs SD? If we were talking holographic 3D, then maybe, but more lines of resolution for exactly the same content? Nah... It is kind of like music, once we got to stereo, that was good enough for most people. They just wanted a more convenient delivery... first CD and now MP3... quality, oddly is actually REGRESSING. There is no compelling reason for most people to go out and get an HDTV... will they like "Lost" better? Prolly not.

Most people will upgrade as their old sets die off and even the most aggressive estimates only have an HDTV in 20%-25% of homes by the end of next year (there is some debate on how these stats were gathered because there are some people, like me, with 4 HDTVs and some of the stats dont seem to factor that in). I think you will REALLY start to see HDTV sales take off when 32" LCDs hit $499 and believe it or not, I bet MANY of those upgrading will be doing so for the form factor as much as the resolution.

HD is coming...eventually... but HD and SD will co-exist for quite some time...



ash =o)

I think the best analogy goes back to the conversion to color TV, or the conversion to stereo audio.

when people made the switch from b/w to color, all they had to do was replace the tv... they did not own any content, everything they watched was broadcast over the airwaves.

these days a whole lot of people own the content that they watch, and they want full control over it... don't expect 'em to spend big $$$ to automatically replace all those sd dvd's for hd dvd's... legacy content will carry sd for a really long time.

so none of the old paradigms are applicable here... that's why it's all about delivery formats... and since software sells hardware, hd is dead, because there is no software delivery format for it.

so none of the old paradigms are applicable here... that's why it's all about delivery formats... and since software sells hardware, hd is dead, because there is no software delivery format for it.

Good. So now you know that, get on with things and go and frequent the SD sub-forums rather than coming to the HD sub-forums.

SD proponents seem to have this unswerving need to come onto the HD specific forums and make their pronouncements with what they think is the sort of conviction that will stop SD waverers from becoming turn-coats.

So Yay!! HD is dead... for you. Go and enjoy SD.

It's a bit like going to a restaurant really. If you don't like the food when you've tried it, go somewhere else. Don't expect to walk in the door and tell everyone enjoying what they're eating that "the food here is lousy and there's no way you can carry it home - so this place is dead"... though I dare say there's some bozzos that would!!

Actually everyone just say out their opinions in this thread and I don't think that one has the right to publically decide who should stop writing here :) It has turned out into a rather interesting discussion.

I would add that the very large DVD projects like Hollywood movies will probably stay on SD for a long time, because if only a few percent of the people own HD DVD players, it is necessary to go with the format the majority can watch. Certainly new technology spreads quickly, but right now it's pretty hard to estimate about HD DVDs, because they aren't even out yet.

Maybe we should say "how soon till 4:3 SD is dead" I see more and more shows 16:9 or letterboxed or something. Even more commericals are 16:9. I don't know if it's HD or SD, but I sure see a trend going to the widescreen look and I think people will be look at a widescreen TV and see a show tape on SD 16:9 and say,,,"That looks really good"

Actually I'm wondering..... how soon before this thread dies? ;-)

I tried to watch panasonic hvx200 1080p video on my amd xp 1800+ pc with 2GB RAM. The computer can't play it properly due to not enough cpu power. I do get nice video from 720p.

Based on that, I guess hd consumes far more resource than sd.

I agree that my computer is five years old. But I have not planned to buy a new computer now.

Base on the common sense that it is not camera make a difference on video, I think I will stay with sd.

Regards
Leigh

Question, since the Canon HD-1 will do both SD and HD wouldn't it make sence to go with that camcorder, that way you can still do SD now and you will have HD when you really need it and are ready for it. Bob

Good. So now you know that, get on with things and go and frequent the SD sub-forums rather than coming to the HD sub-forums.

the title of this thread is "How soon before SD dies?" ...perhaps you should ask to have it moved to an sd forum, since it makes you feel so uncomfortable ;-)

better yet, please tell us what, if any, hd-specific r.o.i. that you have been seeing from those "hd" cameras that you bought.

not footage that ends up being down-rezzed to sd, mind you, but real honest-to-goodness specific payment for hd content that stays in an hd delivery format.

in other words, give this forum some proof that sd is dead.

Question, since the Canon HD-1 will do both SD and HD wouldn't it make sence to go with that camcorder, that way you can still do SD now and you will have HD when you really need it and are ready for it. Bob
Absolutely correct. However, electronics are something you should buy for today's needs, not for future. If you want the new and expensive camera for SD and are not sure when you will move over to HD, then maybe it's better to buy XL2 for a much cheaper price and then add some accessories for the price difference.

Absolutely correct. However, electronics are something you should buy for today's needs, not for future. If you want the new and expensive camera for SD and are not sure when you will move over to HD, then maybe it's better to buy XL2 for a much cheaper price and then add some accessories for the price difference.

I think this is an honest answer.

Regards
Leigh

Good. So now you know that, get on with things and go and frequent the SD sub-forums rather than coming to the HD sub-forums.Now *where* did this come from?

And no, I don't agree that HD is dead.

Maybe we should say "how soon till 4:3 SD is dead"Another good question as I normally shoot in 4:3 SD. And as much as I would like 4:3 to stick around to accomodate my VX2100 even I see it going by the wayside.

I'm seeing more and more 16:9 broadcast content every month and a lot of commercials now too.

4:3 will be truly "dead" when the NFL makes the official jump with total disregard for the die-hards who complain about missing 12 inches of screen real estate. :)

The NFL not the networks shoot evey game to film not video.

Now *where* did this come from?

And no, I don't agree that HD is dead.

Where?!! From all those posters who come to this thread (which probably shouldn't have been here in the first place) with this or that fact or opinion on something that none of us have any real control over.

Those with the obvious intelligence to declare HD will "die" because "Joe Bloggs next door doesn't own a HDTV so there's no interest in HDTV" or "there's no way or means to distribute HD" or "HDV cameras aren't capable of matching the best SD camcorders" etc. etc ad nauseum are pushing a barrow full of as much self opinionated clap-trap as those who trumpet HD as steamrollering every other means of viewing, shooting, recording etc. etc moving images that mankind has ever seen.

HD ain't going away. It's here now, so unless some SD exponents want to try to track every HD camera/HDTV owner down and make them an offer they can't refuse... they'd better get used to it.

On the other hand SD is going to hang around for a while too. Why do you reckon every lower cost HDV/HD camcorder also shoots DV at SD resolutions? If Sony, JVC, Canon and Panasonic truly believed that their own equipment was likely to be the death knell riding on the back of a massive uptake rate of HD/HDTV by the public... do you reckon they'd waste their time adding extra functionality to a camera that would be cheaper to manufacture and sell without it?

They know SD will be around for a while longer still, and can cope with integrating both without any blazing conflict in the hardware that'll threaten to explode because neither mode thinks the other will survive.

Take a lead from the folks who make the equipment every last one of you use, whether it's for shooting, capturing, processing, viewing or appreciating in any way shape or form. You see them "killing" a particular line just because some bright spark oracle of all knowledge reckons "SD will die"... er hang on make that "HD will die!!" er... "better be safe and give the option to do both"

What's the gripe? You want to watch SD on a HDTV - go ahead!! You want to watch HD on an SD tv - go ahead!! It's like watching some little snot-nosed kid getting upset about some bizarrely inane and paltry thing that they feel has hurt them... while every other kid looks at them like they're just some spoilt little twerp who should just bite the bullet and get on with things. There are those out there who know that if you are faced with a problem - solve it!! It's a shame there's hordes who wouldn't know how to solve it even if the solution was plastered to the inside of their eyeballs.

I shall now solve all our problems by not replying any further to this thread.

It's like watching some little snot-nosed kid getting upset about some bizarrely inane and paltry thing that they feel has hurt themAll this angst over something as silly as an HD/SD discussion?

I shall now solve all our problems by not replying any further to this thread.Interesting exit. (in light of your quote above).

Good luck!

The NFL not the networks shoot evey game to film not video.Ok. So sports venues are forever stuck with 4:3?

Interesting replys. Right now I shoot with the XL-1s and am doing quit well with it, in truth, I love this mother. At "work" I often do health education videos for the general public. These are done for specific communities, ie, Oak Ridge, TN or other communities around waste facilities. I shoot in SD because the community people we send these to have either dvd or VHS. I don't think there is an HDTV in the community that could play an HD dvd, remember, these are usually not your high income communities. However, as the future moves on I must tell you all that the Centers for Disease Control, the CDC, in Atlanta has a video broadcast department that has gone completely HD. They even have a full broadcast studio in the basement. So if I really have to shoot HD they also have two new Panny HVX-200's on order. Now again for me, when my lovely XL-1s goes to the big repair shop in the sky I will go with the XL-2, as my particular audiance will be using SD for a long, long time. Bob

Now that everyone has made their feelings more than clear, I think we can close this thread and move on to other things...