Hells bells... SD or HD for a new camera???

Kevin Shaw · July 26th, 2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Minor

Why invest 30K into technology that is not perfected, not in demand, and will be obsolete in a year or two (or whenever the next gen comes out and blows this stuff away)?

Why do you suppose TV networks are investing many millions of dollars in HD if customers don't care? Do they know something we don't?

Also, part of the point here is to provide the best quality we can for customers at a reasonable price, whether they understand to ask for it or not. Even without HD delivery there's value today in being able to produce widescreen SD output, something most DV cameras can't do well. And any new videographer can offer entry-level HD for essentially the same price it's costing old-timers to do SD, so at some point that's going to force everyone to convert to keep up. When to do so is an important business decision not to be taken lightly, but if you have an annual budget for new equipment then it may be time to start spending some of that.

Bill Edmunds · July 26th, 2006, 09:19 AM

UPDATE: I'm the original poster of this thread. I wound up buying a JVC HD100u. I ultimately decided it was pointless to invest more money in an SD camera when the HD100 can shoot both SD and HD, 4:3 and 16:9, etc. So far I like it a lot and find the low light to be fine -- there are a million adjustments you can make to achieve an acceptable image in poor lighting.

Dan Minor · July 26th, 2006, 12:48 PM

[QUOTE=Kevin Shaw]Why do you suppose TV networks are investing many millions of dollars in HD if customers don't care? Do they know something we don't?
QUOTE]

Because they have a viable, operable means of delivering the content to their customers in both Satellite and Cable HD offerings. We don't! You couldn't output and deliver HD to a customer who could view that now even if you wanted to. Everything is up in the air!! If I could deliver the stuff and my clients could watch it on their Blu-Ray or HD-DVD players than I might consider. I pay $10 more a month to get HD programming on Directv. That is why TV networks are investing millions of dollars in HD! The technology IS better but we can deliver it effectively and our customer are not demanding it. Why upgrade just to be able to say I shoot HD? Maybe it's an ego thing?

Bill Edmunds · July 26th, 2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Minor

Because they have a viable, operable means of delivering the content to their customers in both Satellite and Cable HD offerings. We don't! You couldn't output and deliver HD to a customer who could view that now even if you wanted to. Everything is up in the air!! If I could deliver the stuff and my clients could watch it on their Blu-Ray or HD-DVD players than I might consider. I pay $10 more a month to get HD programming on Directv. That is why TV networks are investing millions of dollars in HD! The technology IS better but we can deliver it effectively and our customer are not demanding it. Why upgrade just to be able to say I shoot HD? Maybe it's an ego thing?

I'm going to offer a package that will include an HD DVD player with their wedding video. I think we have to be proactive with the new technology. Separate yourself from your competition.

Kevin Shaw · July 26th, 2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Minor

You couldn't output and deliver HD to a customer who could view that now even if you wanted to.

I can and have, but for now the biggest benefit of shooting in HD is being able to make good widescreen DVDs. If you already own true widescreen SD cameras then that's no big deal, but few videographers do. So like I said before, there's a benefit to shooting in HD now for regular DVD output, and there will be more benefit soon when HD delivery becomes more commonplace.

If your business analysis says shooting in HD today won't gain you anything then don't do it, but start making your plans for when customer expectations change.

P.S. Better frame grabs too. Sell some prints.

Kevin Shaw · July 26th, 2006, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Edmunds

I'm the original poster of this thread. I wound up buying a JVC HD100u.

Congratulations Bill! Welcome to the world of HD video production, and happy shooting.

Matt Trubac · July 26th, 2006, 01:59 PM

I have two HDR-FX1 cams. The low-light has not been an issue for me. I think the FX1 provides very acceptable low-light performance. The gain is much cleaner than the GL2's I used to have, as well as the DVX100a. Last weekend was the darkest reception I had been to in a while. The first thing the photographer said to me when she walked in was "its dark in here."

I had my gain at 15dB and my shutter at 30. The picture looked alot better than I was expecting it to look when watching it back on my 57" HDTV later when I got home that night. I was impressed.

I think 16:9 adds value to my product as well. Especially as 16:9 tv's gain popularity which is happening exponentially.

Chris M. Watson · July 26th, 2006, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Edmunds

UPDATE: I'm the original poster of this thread. I wound up buying a JVC HD100u. I ultimately decided it was pointless to invest more money in an SD camera when the HD100 can shoot both SD and HD, 4:3 and 16:9, etc. So far I like it a lot and find the low light to be fine -- there are a million adjustments you can make to achieve an acceptable image in poor lighting.

Hey Bill,

Congrats on the new camera. I'd love to see some weddings shot with that cam as the 720P appeals to me. Can't wait to hear your reaction when you see the footage you shot with it on an HDTV.

Chris Watson
Watson Videography

Peter Jefferson · July 27th, 2006, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Edmunds

UPDATE: I'm the original poster of this thread. I wound up buying a JVC HD100u. I ultimately decided it was pointless to invest more money in an SD camera when the HD100 can shoot both SD and HD, 4:3 and 16:9, etc. So far I like it a lot and find the low light to be fine -- there are a million adjustments you can make to achieve an acceptable image in poor lighting.

THANK YOU BILL!!!!!

If only more people would bother to tweak the settings.. of EVERY camera in this range. then this stupid low light argument would die in the arse...

K. Forman · July 27th, 2006, 09:03 AM

You kidding Peter? I've had it a month and I'm still playing with scene files, learning about knee and stretch... how to assign user buttons... and it is paying off big! Now, to find Jim Cantori's cameraman and learn the art of steady shots...

July 26th, 2006, 01:59 PM	#52
Matt Trubac Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 286	I have two HDR-FX1 cams. The low-light has not been an issue for me. I think the FX1 provides very acceptable low-light performance. The gain is much cleaner than the GL2's I used to have, as well as the DVX100a. Last weekend was the darkest reception I had been to in a while. The first thing the photographer said to me when she walked in was "its dark in here." I had my gain at 15dB and my shutter at 30. The picture looked alot better than I was expecting it to look when watching it back on my 57" HDTV later when I got home that night. I was impressed. I think 16:9 adds value to my product as well. Especially as 16:9 tv's gain popularity which is happening exponentially. __________________ Matt Trubac

July 27th, 2006, 09:03 AM	#55
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	You kidding Peter? I've had it a month and I'm still playing with scene files, learning about knee and stretch... how to assign user buttons... and it is paying off big! Now, to find Jim Cantori's cameraman and learn the art of steady shots... __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

July 26th, 2006, 09:19 AM	#47
Bill Edmunds Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Conway, NH Posts: 574	UPDATE: I'm the original poster of this thread. I wound up buying a JVC HD100u. I ultimately decided it was pointless to invest more money in an SD camera when the HD100 can shoot both SD and HD, 4:3 and 16:9, etc. So far I like it a lot and find the low light to be fine -- there are a million adjustments you can make to achieve an acceptable image in poor lighting.

July 26th, 2006, 12:48 PM	#48
Dan Minor Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 64	[QUOTE=Kevin Shaw]Why do you suppose TV networks are investing many millions of dollars in HD if customers don't care? Do they know something we don't? QUOTE] Because they have a viable, operable means of delivering the content to their customers in both Satellite and Cable HD offerings. We don't! You couldn't output and deliver HD to a customer who could view that now even if you wanted to. Everything is up in the air!! If I could deliver the stuff and my clients could watch it on their Blu-Ray or HD-DVD players than I might consider. I pay $10 more a month to get HD programming on Directv. That is why TV networks are investing millions of dollars in HD! The technology IS better but we can deliver it effectively and our customer are not demanding it. Why upgrade just to be able to say I shoot HD? Maybe it's an ego thing?