SD is dead: here the reasons at DVinfo.net

Giovanni Speranza · May 8th, 2008, 04:21 PM

SD is dead?
In 1 word: Yes!

There is a physic law that defines the SD end:

"If well interpolated an image looks always good if the projection media has equal to lower resolution than the source image, and an image looks always bad if the media has more resolution than the source media"

i.e. a 300px x 200px picture shown on a 240px x 160px phone screen looks perfect, a 1920px x 1080px picture shown in a digital cinema projector with 4000px x 3000px looks bad.

SD was conceived for cathodic tv posts, which in the best case had the same resolution as the source, and in most case had much lower than the SD standard. A SD film can look fantastic in a SD tv post.

With the advent of plasma and LCD tv's, which have more than SD resolution, everything below HD looks horrible.

HD is a need, not a choice.

Daniel Browning · May 8th, 2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giovanni Speranza

"If well interpolated an image looks always good if the projection media has equal to lower resolution than the source image, and an image looks always bad if the media has more resolution than the source media"

That's incorrect. Display size, viewing distance, resize algorithm, source material, subject matter, and especially individual perception are all greater factors than the one you mentioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giovanni Speranza

1920px x 1080px picture shown in a digital cinema projector with 4000px x 3000px looks bad.

There is a lot of pricey resize software, but I find even a simple bicubic will look almost as good as 1080 native.

I think that your objection to SD on plasma/LCD must have to do with something else, because material that has good sources and processing looks great (e.g. theatrical DVD5).

But even if it were true, none of that will kill off SD. It's unfortunate, because I would be happy for the rapid demise of SD and anything interlaced.

Giovanni Speranza · May 8th, 2008, 04:47 PM

Yes, anyway "good qualtiy" is subjective.

R. L. Appling · May 8th, 2008, 04:58 PM

Heres some food for thought - Physics aside consider the human element for a second (uh-oh here we go...)

Ask any cinematographer looking at retiring from the business after 30 years and they will almost all smirk at video and say " WHAT WAS WRONG WITH FILM? WE HAD IT DOWN TO A SCIENCE!" and you might have to give the salty dog his due because it was a science that had been dialed in. That fact did not stop Beta, VHS, and DV from evolving at all.

Is HD a need? Hmmmm... I know staying employed is a real need. IMHO I think you just have to stay on the cusp of evolving cinematography at all times. Consider this - I love s16mm film and everything about it. But I am a realist too. No, Film is not dead, but it might as well be. What will become of SD? Probably the same thing.

But keep in mind it is an equal opportunity issue - every media / informational source becomes obsolete eventually in the process. Nothing is safe... My kids have never even cracked the Encyclopedia Brittanica, they just go online. Have you ever been asked... "What are (INSERT HERE - ie: 35mm film, Arriflex Camera, 8 track tape, reel to reel tape, buggy whips) used for Dad?" Hey, no need to ask Dad for info anymore - just look it up on Google...

Pietro Impagliazzo · May 8th, 2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I think that your objection to SD on plasma/LCD must have to do with something else, because material that has good sources and processing looks great (e.g. theatrical DVD5).

Well theatrical DVDs were not acquired with DV camcorders, but with 35mm film or expensive digital cinema cameras.

That plays a big role, well that plays GIGANTIC role.

Giovanni Speranza · May 8th, 2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. L. Appling

Ask any cinematographer looking at retiring from the business after 30 years and they will almost all smirk at video and say " WHAT WAS WRONG WITH FILM? WE HAD IT DOWN TO A SCIENCE!" and you might have to give the salty dog his due because it was a science that had been dialed in. That fact did not stop Beta, VHS, and DV from evolving at all.

To stay employed is a real need. I think you just have to stay on the cusp of evolving cinematography at all times. Consider this - I love s16mm film and everything about it. But I am a realist too. No, Film is not dead, but it might as well be. What will become of SD? Probably the same thing.

But keep in mind it is an equal opportunity issue - every media / informational source becomes obsolete eventually. Nothing is safe... My kids have never even cracked the Encyclopedia Brittanica, they just go online. Have you ever been asked... "Whats 35mm film used for Dad?" No need to ask Dad for info anymore - just look it up on Google...

Personally, i can't compare film to SD. Film is the best thing man invented for imaging. SD is the worse. I NEVER liked SD. Even DVD on SD. I almost never watch TV and i'm a cinema addict, possibly 70mm.

R. L. Appling · May 8th, 2008, 05:31 PM

I consider image capturing devices to be a tool. Each tool has its unique purpose, and a well armed carpenter knows how to use the tools available to him. Film, Pixelvision, VHS, BETA, SD, HD - just tools to express a vision. As filmmakers we stand on the shoulders of giants and take for granted the innovations of the past. I for one pay very keen attention to anyone in a position of knowledge who can help me use these tools effectively regardless of which age they originate from. Be it Film or Video, or whatever the next big thing to come along might be...

Personally just being technically on the ball is the hardest task. The actual act of capturing the image I seek is second nature.

Daniel Browning · May 8th, 2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pietro Impagliazzo

Well theatrical DVDs were not acquired with DV camcorders, but with 35mm film or expensive digital cinema cameras.

That plays a big role, well that plays GIGANTIC role.

Neither I nor the OP said anything about DV, but you are correct, of course.

Chris Hurd · May 8th, 2008, 06:22 PM

I really don't like these kinds of threads, they go *nowhere* fast.

SD is about as dead as film. Meaning not dead. Plenty of people here are making a living with it.

I suppose it's a debatable topic, but what does such a discussion actually accomplish?

The answer is that it accomplishes *nothing* whatsoever.

This is DV Info Net. Not DV Opinion Net. Thanks all,

May 8th, 2008, 04:21 PM	#1
Giovanni Speranza Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Lugano, Switzerland Posts: 149	SD is dead: here the reasons SD is dead? In 1 word: Yes! There is a physic law that defines the SD end: "If well interpolated an image looks always good if the projection media has equal to lower resolution than the source image, and an image looks always bad if the media has more resolution than the source media" i.e. a 300px x 200px picture shown on a 240px x 160px phone screen looks perfect, a 1920px x 1080px picture shown in a digital cinema projector with 4000px x 3000px looks bad. SD was conceived for cathodic tv posts, which in the best case had the same resolution as the source, and in most case had much lower than the SD standard. A SD film can look fantastic in a SD tv post. With the advent of plasma and LCD tv's, which have more than SD resolution, everything below HD looks horrible. HD is a need, not a choice.

May 8th, 2008, 06:22 PM	#9
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	I really don't like these kinds of threads, they go nowhere fast. SD is about as dead as film. Meaning not dead. Plenty of people here are making a living with it. I suppose it's a debatable topic, but what does such a discussion actually accomplish? The answer is that it accomplishes nothing whatsoever. This is DV Info Net. Not DV Opinion Net. Thanks all, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 8th, 2008, 04:47 PM	#3
Giovanni Speranza Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Lugano, Switzerland Posts: 149	Yes, anyway "good qualtiy" is subjective.

May 8th, 2008, 04:58 PM	#4
R. L. Appling Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Tehachapi, California Posts: 72	Heres some food for thought - Physics aside consider the human element for a second (uh-oh here we go...) Ask any cinematographer looking at retiring from the business after 30 years and they will almost all smirk at video and say " WHAT WAS WRONG WITH FILM? WE HAD IT DOWN TO A SCIENCE!" and you might have to give the salty dog his due because it was a science that had been dialed in. That fact did not stop Beta, VHS, and DV from evolving at all. Is HD a need? Hmmmm... I know staying employed is a real need. IMHO I think you just have to stay on the cusp of evolving cinematography at all times. Consider this - I love s16mm film and everything about it. But I am a realist too. No, Film is not dead, but it might as well be. What will become of SD? Probably the same thing. But keep in mind it is an equal opportunity issue - every media / informational source becomes obsolete eventually in the process. Nothing is safe... My kids have never even cracked the Encyclopedia Brittanica, they just go online. Have you ever been asked... "What are (INSERT HERE - ie: 35mm film, Arriflex Camera, 8 track tape, reel to reel tape, buggy whips) used for Dad?" Hey, no need to ask Dad for info anymore - just look it up on Google...

May 8th, 2008, 05:31 PM	#7
R. L. Appling Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Tehachapi, California Posts: 72	I consider image capturing devices to be a tool. Each tool has its unique purpose, and a well armed carpenter knows how to use the tools available to him. Film, Pixelvision, VHS, BETA, SD, HD - just tools to express a vision. As filmmakers we stand on the shoulders of giants and take for granted the innovations of the past. I for one pay very keen attention to anyone in a position of knowledge who can help me use these tools effectively regardless of which age they originate from. Be it Film or Video, or whatever the next big thing to come along might be... Personally just being technically on the ball is the hardest task. The actual act of capturing the image I seek is second nature.