1080p

Thomas Smet · September 16th, 2004, 12:13 AM

you are still missing the point of my post. I was not bashing HDV in any way. I was talking about how it almost gets us there. I already responded that I didn't think HDV was a rip off but that we cannot expect the same quality as full HD. I never heard anybody do a real comparison between HDV and HD so I thought of pointing out the "slight" differences hence my words of almost there. Why in the heck is everybody thinking this is a negative post in any way. If anything I was saying how good of a value HDV is compared to HD.

You know DV is still considered SD even though it is at 4:1:1. DV and digibeta for example are very different but yet they are still SD. This is the problem we are having right now. Some people think the specs are what the cameras are doing while some think of the specs as just the format specs. We are talking about two different things here. The only reason I brought up the cameras was because it was the only information I had on hand at the time of writing the post. It also shows what the HD are supposed to be. Now if the cameras fudge the numbers to fake those specs is a different story. I was not comparing cameras or tape formats. Clearly HDCAM wasn't up to full HD specs thats why SONY came out with HDCAM SR which does the full HD specs.

The whole point I was brining up was that HDV does give us a lot for our money but cuts it back slightly to not give us too much. For example HDV 720p only has 30p compared to HD's 60p. To some this may not be a big issue but that doesn't change the fact that it is a lower frame rate. There are going to be down sides to using a cheaper format. I mean DV was/is great but at the end of the day it still isn't dvcpro50 or digibeta.

Will HDV be good enough to use- yes
is it the same as HD-no

SONY and Panasonic would have to be pretty dumb to give Joe-Schmoe the same quality for $5000.00 instead of $100,000.00.

Frederic Lumiere · September 16th, 2004, 07:11 AM

Fair enough ;)

Michael Struthers · September 16th, 2004, 11:05 AM

Here's a 15k HD camera ;-)

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/pr.../aminima.shtml

Frederic Lumiere · September 16th, 2004, 11:22 AM

Michael,

I totally agree. I've always said that Super 16mm is a fantastic alternative to getting a film-like full HD image. Because it's already Film!

Ken Hodson · September 22nd, 2004, 09:18 AM

Thomas- I think your point was pretty weak. The only point you end up making is HDV 720p is 30fps / HD 720p is 60fps. If you had taken up issue with colour space, or compression you would have been more on track.

September 16th, 2004, 11:05 AM	#33
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	Here's a 15k HD camera ;-) http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/pr.../aminima.shtml __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

September 22nd, 2004, 09:18 AM	#35
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Thomas- I think your point was pretty weak. The only point you end up making is HDV 720p is 30fps / HD 720p is 60fps. If you had taken up issue with colour space, or compression you would have been more on track. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

September 16th, 2004, 12:13 AM	#31
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	you are still missing the point of my post. I was not bashing HDV in any way. I was talking about how it almost gets us there. I already responded that I didn't think HDV was a rip off but that we cannot expect the same quality as full HD. I never heard anybody do a real comparison between HDV and HD so I thought of pointing out the "slight" differences hence my words of almost there. Why in the heck is everybody thinking this is a negative post in any way. If anything I was saying how good of a value HDV is compared to HD. You know DV is still considered SD even though it is at 4:1:1. DV and digibeta for example are very different but yet they are still SD. This is the problem we are having right now. Some people think the specs are what the cameras are doing while some think of the specs as just the format specs. We are talking about two different things here. The only reason I brought up the cameras was because it was the only information I had on hand at the time of writing the post. It also shows what the HD are supposed to be. Now if the cameras fudge the numbers to fake those specs is a different story. I was not comparing cameras or tape formats. Clearly HDCAM wasn't up to full HD specs thats why SONY came out with HDCAM SR which does the full HD specs. The whole point I was brining up was that HDV does give us a lot for our money but cuts it back slightly to not give us too much. For example HDV 720p only has 30p compared to HD's 60p. To some this may not be a big issue but that doesn't change the fact that it is a lower frame rate. There are going to be down sides to using a cheaper format. I mean DV was/is great but at the end of the day it still isn't dvcpro50 or digibeta. Will HDV be good enough to use- yes is it the same as HD-no SONY and Panasonic would have to be pretty dumb to give Joe-Schmoe the same quality for $5000.00 instead of $100,000.00.

September 16th, 2004, 07:11 AM	#32
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Fair enough ;)

September 16th, 2004, 11:22 AM	#34
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Michael, I totally agree. I've always said that Super 16mm is a fantastic alternative to getting a film-like full HD image. Because it's already Film!