Would you buy an SD camera these days?

Noa Put · May 11th, 2008, 04:25 AM

I film in the 16:9 mode, the resolution hit is hardly noticeable on most older type widescreens. Even if i compare my older footage which was filmed in 4:3 I almost don't see any difference.

I have also seen fx1 footage on my tv and compared to my vx2100 it was no better to be honest since it was downconverted to fit on a regular dvd.

On big screen lcd screens the lack of resolution shows more but on these screens regular digital tv also looks like crap. I have not seen any big lcd capable of displaying a digital signal in something that looks better then my 10 year old tv can produce.

Only when viewed on a blu-ray disk/player or when you look at a hd channel from National Geographic you see where these hd ready or full hd tv's are made for but as long as you view it on a regular dvd the qualitydifference is hardly noticeable no matter is you use a hd or sd cam.

Jeff Harper · May 11th, 2008, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Jeff - I'm intrigued. You say 'What good is 16:9 if you can't see it?' and I don't understand. You mean couples that can afford your/their wedding filming skills come home from honeymoon and switch on an old 4:3 CRT?

Or maybe you mean that they've gone back to shooting and delivering in 4:3 and the customer simply toggles through the remote options to arrive at the best compromise of distortion and image loss to fill his widescreen set?

tom.

Tom, what I said was perfectly clear. We full-time wedding videographers who shoot with the PD and VX series cameras in my area are not finding viable, affordable LOW-LIGHT cams to upgrade to in this period of transition. If I shot with the XL2 series of cams, etc, I woudn't notice the difference much, but unfortunately I do. I know one man who has gone to using the EX1, but he isn't full time. Who can afford to replace 4 camera kits $9000 each to shoot weddings? Not me.

Tom Hardwick · May 11th, 2008, 04:54 AM

I see you're shooting PAL Noa, so that's a tick in your box. But I've just done a wedding shoot with my Z1 down-converting from chips to tape (i.e. shooting in the DV mode, the worst way to use an HDV camera) while the other cameraman shot using his PD170 (PAL) in the 16:9 mode.

Whoooh! Intercutting between the cameras on the edit was a real eye-opener on any 16:9 TV we cared to show the footage on - the PD170 just looked so soft. But then again when used on it's own shooting 16:9 it can look fine - as I've proved with my VX2k in that mode.

It's the dreaded, unforgiving and ruthless A /B test that shows who's boss.

tom.

Tom Hardwick · May 11th, 2008, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Tom, what I said was perfectly clear. We full-time wedding videographers who shoot with the PD and VX series cameras in my area are not finding viable, affordable LOW-LIGHT cams to upgrade to in this period of transition.

Yes, that bit's clear and I'm right with you on that one Jeff - after all you can't cram 4x as many pixels onto the same size chip and expect they to work as well in the gloom. But the bit I'm not clear on is your customer base - and specifically how they view your 4:3 footage.

Jeff Harper · May 11th, 2008, 05:02 AM

Many view on HD tvs, but so? I hate it. I'm aware of it. I can't afford to do anything about it. Like I said I don't have $36K to spend. I'm still getting a second HD cam, and will start sliding into it that way, but even last night I had a photographer literally yelling at me to turn off my lights. I can't imagine shooting a reception with anything else yet.

Seun Osewa · May 11th, 2008, 05:02 AM

What about widescreen DV camcorders?

Jeff Harper · May 11th, 2008, 05:12 AM

Actually, now that you mention it, what is comparable is low-light to the PD and VS series that is widescreen? I might take a look. Of course in a year I'll have to get rid of it because by then I trust there will be better affordable low HD cams, and I guess in about a year the demand for HD wedding videos will be taking off.

Tom Hardwick · May 11th, 2008, 05:47 AM

What is comparable is low-light to the PD and VX series that is widescreen? The EX1 - but that's 4x the price.

Seun Osewa · May 11th, 2008, 02:13 PM

Apart from the EX1, the best low light HDV cam is probably the XH-A1.
Won't a noisy HDV image be less noisy after downsampling to DV?

Mike Rehmus · May 11th, 2008, 04:10 PM

Maybe if you ran the HD video through a noise filter, it might be less noisy when you down-convert. Otherwise, the signal to noise ratio should stay about the same.

Giovanni Speranza · May 11th, 2008, 06:22 PM

When I shoot HDV for SD, I get always very pleasant results. The noise print is smaller than shooting in SD, there is no visible artificial sharpness so the footage has a more filmic look. I suggest you to buy a HD camera, you will be able to make better SD films with it. When I downconvert to SD using Final Cut Studio, there is no artifact or aliasing.

Manny Felarca · November 14th, 2010, 12:39 PM

I bought an XL1S for $600 3 months ago, and it's taken this long to learn to really use it well. I decided to videotape the "last" football game at the high school near us. I went up to the press box area, and it was packed with others wanting to video the game. Each school seemed to have 3 or 4 video cameras/videographers doing their thing. ...and then there were others there just to videotape for their friends or parents. I went right up, set up, and waited for the game to start. A school official soon came up and sent away 4 guys that were there (they were using the small camcorders, and I guess they "knew" from that which ones weren't "official," even though they said they were shooting for the school. When I looked at who/what was left, including me, There was only 1 person shooting with an HD camera. The rest of us was using an SD camcorder (VX1000, DVX100B, TRV-950, etc.) The guy with the HD camera wasn't even selling his footage.... The announcement was made that they can purchase a DVD of the game, and it was from the one videotaping with the DVX100b.

The recent weddings from relatives/friends that have had their event videotaped are still wanting it on regular DVD, probably because it's easy to copy, and can be given to anyone for viewing, which you can't do with HD DVD's yet. I haven't heard anyone complain yet that it isn't HD.

Videographers may notice the difference between HD and SD, especially when editing, but your customers don't, in the same way that they don't notice the difference between a photo taken with a Canon D30 (3 mp camera) and a Canon 5D Mark II (21 mp camera). The photographer who took the shot will, though.

Jeff Harper · November 14th, 2010, 01:37 PM

In my opinion its not about HD vs SD, it's about widescreen vs 4:3. I don't know anyone with a 4:3 TV any longer, though I know they are still out there. Even an older friend of mine, (80 year old woman) has a widescreen lcd tv.

I have HD cameras because I couldn't stand to put out 4:3 videos any longer, not because I shoot HD. I shoot widescreen SD and can't even imagine shooting with a 4:3 camera any more. Just my 2 cents.

Tom Hardwick · November 14th, 2010, 02:16 PM

Jeff nails it, word for word. How do you respond to that Manny?

Manny Felarca · November 14th, 2010, 08:17 PM

Funny you should mention how your TV's are all widescreen. So are mine! All 3 of them. The living room TV is 56", the one in our kitchen/play area is 46", and the one in our bedroom is 42". When I play my SD videos on them, the screen is filled with the video. It doesn't matter which TV I use. When I play wide screen, then there's black borders at the top and bottom. I don't go in and change settings. It is the way it is. My mother has widescreen TV's. It plays the same way. My friends have wide screen TV's. When I bring any of my videos to their place, the results are the same!

So what's the issue? Play SD, it fills the screen. Play wide, it has black borders. So what? You're making a mountain out of a molehill.... and honestly, I doubt that your clients even care! That's not what they're looking for.

A Grandmother of ours died in April. We had a collection of videos on a DVD that we played at the viewing, and for the guests who came to visit from out of town to watch. So many tears over the memories.... and NOT A SINGLE VIDEO WAS TAKEN WITH HD CAMCORDERS. Some were taken with low resolution digital camera/camcorders (Cybershots type of cameras). They weren't crying because the footage was taken with an HD camera. No one asked what cameras were used. No one discussed the editing issues with lower resolution SD camcorders. Everyone wanted a copy of the DVD.

May 11th, 2008, 04:10 PM	#40
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Maybe if you ran the HD video through a noise filter, it might be less noisy when you down-convert. Otherwise, the signal to noise ratio should stay about the same. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

November 14th, 2010, 12:39 PM	#42
Manny Felarca New Boot Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: San Diego, Ca Posts: 21	Would you buy SD camcorder I bought an XL1S for $600 3 months ago, and it's taken this long to learn to really use it well. I decided to videotape the "last" football game at the high school near us. I went up to the press box area, and it was packed with others wanting to video the game. Each school seemed to have 3 or 4 video cameras/videographers doing their thing. ...and then there were others there just to videotape for their friends or parents. I went right up, set up, and waited for the game to start. A school official soon came up and sent away 4 guys that were there (they were using the small camcorders, and I guess they "knew" from that which ones weren't "official," even though they said they were shooting for the school. When I looked at who/what was left, including me, There was only 1 person shooting with an HD camera. The rest of us was using an SD camcorder (VX1000, DVX100B, TRV-950, etc.) The guy with the HD camera wasn't even selling his footage.... The announcement was made that they can purchase a DVD of the game, and it was from the one videotaping with the DVX100b. The recent weddings from relatives/friends that have had their event videotaped are still wanting it on regular DVD, probably because it's easy to copy, and can be given to anyone for viewing, which you can't do with HD DVD's yet. I haven't heard anyone complain yet that it isn't HD. Videographers may notice the difference between HD and SD, especially when editing, but your customers don't, in the same way that they don't notice the difference between a photo taken with a Canon D30 (3 mp camera) and a Canon 5D Mark II (21 mp camera). The photographer who took the shot will, though.

November 14th, 2010, 01:37 PM	#43
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	In my opinion its not about HD vs SD, it's about widescreen vs 4:3. I don't know anyone with a 4:3 TV any longer, though I know they are still out there. Even an older friend of mine, (80 year old woman) has a widescreen lcd tv. I have HD cameras because I couldn't stand to put out 4:3 videos any longer, not because I shoot HD. I shoot widescreen SD and can't even imagine shooting with a 4:3 camera any more. Just my 2 cents. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

November 14th, 2010, 08:17 PM	#45
Manny Felarca New Boot Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: San Diego, Ca Posts: 21	Would You buy an SD camera these days Funny you should mention how your TV's are all widescreen. So are mine! All 3 of them. The living room TV is 56", the one in our kitchen/play area is 46", and the one in our bedroom is 42". When I play my SD videos on them, the screen is filled with the video. It doesn't matter which TV I use. When I play wide screen, then there's black borders at the top and bottom. I don't go in and change settings. It is the way it is. My mother has widescreen TV's. It plays the same way. My friends have wide screen TV's. When I bring any of my videos to their place, the results are the same! So what's the issue? Play SD, it fills the screen. Play wide, it has black borders. So what? You're making a mountain out of a molehill.... and honestly, I doubt that your clients even care! That's not what they're looking for. A Grandmother of ours died in April. We had a collection of videos on a DVD that we played at the viewing, and for the guests who came to visit from out of town to watch. So many tears over the memories.... and NOT A SINGLE VIDEO WAS TAKEN WITH HD CAMCORDERS. Some were taken with low resolution digital camera/camcorders (Cybershots type of cameras). They weren't crying because the footage was taken with an HD camera. No one asked what cameras were used. No one discussed the editing issues with lower resolution SD camcorders. Everyone wanted a copy of the DVD.

May 11th, 2008, 04:25 AM	#31
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,510	I film in the 16:9 mode, the resolution hit is hardly noticeable on most older type widescreens. Even if i compare my older footage which was filmed in 4:3 I almost don't see any difference. I have also seen fx1 footage on my tv and compared to my vx2100 it was no better to be honest since it was downconverted to fit on a regular dvd. On big screen lcd screens the lack of resolution shows more but on these screens regular digital tv also looks like crap. I have not seen any big lcd capable of displaying a digital signal in something that looks better then my 10 year old tv can produce. Only when viewed on a blu-ray disk/player or when you look at a hd channel from National Geographic you see where these hd ready or full hd tv's are made for but as long as you view it on a regular dvd the qualitydifference is hardly noticeable no matter is you use a hd or sd cam.

May 11th, 2008, 04:54 AM	#33
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I see you're shooting PAL Noa, so that's a tick in your box. But I've just done a wedding shoot with my Z1 down-converting from chips to tape (i.e. shooting in the DV mode, the worst way to use an HDV camera) while the other cameraman shot using his PD170 (PAL) in the 16:9 mode. Whoooh! Intercutting between the cameras on the edit was a real eye-opener on any 16:9 TV we cared to show the footage on - the PD170 just looked so soft. But then again when used on it's own shooting 16:9 it can look fine - as I've proved with my VX2k in that mode. It's the dreaded, unforgiving and ruthless A /B test that shows who's boss. tom.

May 11th, 2008, 05:02 AM	#35
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Many view on HD tvs, but so? I hate it. I'm aware of it. I can't afford to do anything about it. Like I said I don't have $36K to spend. I'm still getting a second HD cam, and will start sliding into it that way, but even last night I had a photographer literally yelling at me to turn off my lights. I can't imagine shooting a reception with anything else yet.

May 11th, 2008, 05:02 AM	#36
Seun Osewa Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: West Africa Posts: 255	What about widescreen DV camcorders?

May 11th, 2008, 05:12 AM	#37
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Actually, now that you mention it, what is comparable is low-light to the PD and VS series that is widescreen? I might take a look. Of course in a year I'll have to get rid of it because by then I trust there will be better affordable low HD cams, and I guess in about a year the demand for HD wedding videos will be taking off.

May 11th, 2008, 05:47 AM	#38
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	What is comparable is low-light to the PD and VX series that is widescreen? The EX1 - but that's 4x the price.

May 11th, 2008, 02:13 PM	#39
Seun Osewa Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: West Africa Posts: 255	Apart from the EX1, the best low light HDV cam is probably the XH-A1. Won't a noisy HDV image be less noisy after downsampling to DV?

May 11th, 2008, 06:22 PM	#41
Giovanni Speranza Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Lugano, Switzerland Posts: 149	When I shoot HDV for SD, I get always very pleasant results. The noise print is smaller than shooting in SD, there is no visible artificial sharpness so the footage has a more filmic look. I suggest you to buy a HD camera, you will be able to make better SD films with it. When I downconvert to SD using Final Cut Studio, there is no artifact or aliasing.

November 14th, 2010, 02:16 PM	#44
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Jeff nails it, word for word. How do you respond to that Manny?