SD vs HD for weddings

Peter Jefferson · June 14th, 2005, 08:09 AM

"The fact is like it or not is that the wedding videographer is doing a disservice to the customer by not shooting in high definition"

I have to disagree with you on that note..
at the moment the means to deliver HD is very limited and it requires a certain amount of education, which quite frankly, is not my job.
On top of that, the market itself (at this time) does not ascertain the extra work required for HD delivery, due to this lack of education.
Be it conversion to wmv/divx or direct to HDD.
Now dont get me wrong, hd will be the delivery format of the future, but at the moment its so up in the air, that its fruitless tryin to offer a product which is virtually unknown to the publics eye.

It seems that with the advent of these new technologies, customers are expecting lower prices, when in fact prices should increase with the new workloads we have to take on board..

so from here where are we??

for me, until my clients can go to a video shop and hire a HD dvd, be it blue ray or hd-dvd or whatever format is available at teh time, thats when i'll be offering HD to my clients..
Shooting in HD is another question as i am specifically waiting for a particular camera to be released.. HVX200 ...

So does that mean that because im waiting for a worthy camera, im doing a disservice to my clients TODAY??
i think not..

Instead look at teh whole picture.. not ina literal sense but in a service, sound and visual sense.
If you can provide all of the above without fail, irrespective of the camera you use, your NOT doing anyone a disservice..

HD will come in good time, but i dont like the idea of producers feeling obliged or pressured to jump on the wagon when the companies who build these machine dont even know where its going themselves.....

Mathieu Ghekiere · June 14th, 2005, 10:09 AM

I'm with Peter on that opinion...

Brian K Jones · June 14th, 2005, 11:04 AM

HD will come in good time, but i dont like the idea of producers feeling obliged or pressured to jump on the wagon when the companies who build these machine dont even know where its going themselves.....[/QUOTE]

I could not agree with you more, Peter. HD is a great thing, but I was happy not to jump on the HDV bandwagon. I would rather have really good uncompressed SD, say, with this reel-stream Andromeda hardware/software, than work in highly compressed HDV. Who knows, their saying they can even get image quality similar to the Panasonic Varicam with this Andromeda stuff. I think I'll ride it out for when the right technology or camera comes out in the future. In the meantime, my XL2 will suffice. And like it or not, I read the other day that analog TV's still outsell DTV's or HDTV's. HDTV will not be in most american homes for several years.

Patrick Jenkins · June 14th, 2005, 03:10 PM

I'm with you all regarding that. I don't think HD is really necessary yet - yeah it's cool to be able to have it and be able to take advantage of it, but ultimately the story being told depends a lot more on the skills of the story teller (and the content) than the gear being used. But I do think that if you're going to go above and beyond and work in or distribute HD, you should make it as future proofed as possible so you aren't wasting all the effort =).

Now when 2015 rolls around and everyone has high def implants or liquid TV walls or something and you're not doing HD, then tsk on you!

;-)

Kevin Shaw · June 14th, 2005, 04:12 PM

It's an interesting quandry to consider whether HDV and other low-cost HD cameras present a challenge to professional videographers to advocate a rapid transition to HD for their clients, especially for something like wedding videos. I understand the sentiment that we should be shooting in HD now because it's the viewing format of the future, but if customers aren't willing to pay for that then it's a business reality that they're not going to get it. And it's true that a well-done video shot in SD is going to be more appreciated later on than a poor video shot in HD, but resolution (or lack thereof) will be more noticeable as HDTVs become more widespread.

Given a choice I'd shoot, edit and output all of my videos in HD effective immediately, but I'm not rushing to sell all my SD gear just yet.

June 14th, 2005, 03:10 PM	#19
Patrick Jenkins Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 382	I'm with you all regarding that. I don't think HD is really necessary yet - yeah it's cool to be able to have it and be able to take advantage of it, but ultimately the story being told depends a lot more on the skills of the story teller (and the content) than the gear being used. But I do think that if you're going to go above and beyond and work in or distribute HD, you should make it as future proofed as possible so you aren't wasting all the effort =). Now when 2015 rolls around and everyone has high def implants or liquid TV walls or something and you're not doing HD, then tsk on you! ;-) __________________ PAL shooter in NTSC territory

June 14th, 2005, 08:09 AM	#16
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	"The fact is like it or not is that the wedding videographer is doing a disservice to the customer by not shooting in high definition" I have to disagree with you on that note.. at the moment the means to deliver HD is very limited and it requires a certain amount of education, which quite frankly, is not my job. On top of that, the market itself (at this time) does not ascertain the extra work required for HD delivery, due to this lack of education. Be it conversion to wmv/divx or direct to HDD. Now dont get me wrong, hd will be the delivery format of the future, but at the moment its so up in the air, that its fruitless tryin to offer a product which is virtually unknown to the publics eye. It seems that with the advent of these new technologies, customers are expecting lower prices, when in fact prices should increase with the new workloads we have to take on board.. so from here where are we?? for me, until my clients can go to a video shop and hire a HD dvd, be it blue ray or hd-dvd or whatever format is available at teh time, thats when i'll be offering HD to my clients.. Shooting in HD is another question as i am specifically waiting for a particular camera to be released.. HVX200 ... So does that mean that because im waiting for a worthy camera, im doing a disservice to my clients TODAY?? i think not.. Instead look at teh whole picture.. not ina literal sense but in a service, sound and visual sense. If you can provide all of the above without fail, irrespective of the camera you use, your NOT doing anyone a disservice.. HD will come in good time, but i dont like the idea of producers feeling obliged or pressured to jump on the wagon when the companies who build these machine dont even know where its going themselves.....

June 14th, 2005, 10:09 AM	#17
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	I'm with Peter on that opinion...

June 14th, 2005, 11:04 AM	#18
Brian K Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 68	HD will come in good time, but i dont like the idea of producers feeling obliged or pressured to jump on the wagon when the companies who build these machine dont even know where its going themselves.....[/QUOTE] I could not agree with you more, Peter. HD is a great thing, but I was happy not to jump on the HDV bandwagon. I would rather have really good uncompressed SD, say, with this reel-stream Andromeda hardware/software, than work in highly compressed HDV. Who knows, their saying they can even get image quality similar to the Panasonic Varicam with this Andromeda stuff. I think I'll ride it out for when the right technology or camera comes out in the future. In the meantime, my XL2 will suffice. And like it or not, I read the other day that analog TV's still outsell DTV's or HDTV's. HDTV will not be in most american homes for several years.

June 14th, 2005, 04:12 PM	#20
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	It's an interesting quandry to consider whether HDV and other low-cost HD cameras present a challenge to professional videographers to advocate a rapid transition to HD for their clients, especially for something like wedding videos. I understand the sentiment that we should be shooting in HD now because it's the viewing format of the future, but if customers aren't willing to pay for that then it's a business reality that they're not going to get it. And it's true that a well-done video shot in SD is going to be more appreciated later on than a poor video shot in HD, but resolution (or lack thereof) will be more noticeable as HDTVs become more widespread. Given a choice I'd shoot, edit and output all of my videos in HD effective immediately, but I'm not rushing to sell all my SD gear just yet.