Yes, but the great majority of programming looks like garbage on these sets (assuming you're talking about LCD) and will for quite some time because legacy TV programming (as well as most current shows) are in SD. Most HD LCD's have 768 vertical pixels, which is fine for HD (just cut off 48 pixels) but how do you display 480 lines on 768? It looks blocky.dongmin said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
SD is near its last breath
- Thread starter Alpinism
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think I'm 90% sure about this. Projects shot in DV and HDV take up exactly the same amount of space on the hard drive. Both formats have a bit rate of 25 mbps. So that part of the argument is moot.Dave00 said:
NTSC is DEAD
I just went through this when trying to buy a new television a week ago.
It looks to me that most 'Digital sets" are really SD. Many Plasmas and LCD flat panels I looked at could do no more than 480p. Most projectors, both DLP and LCD were ~720. Some ( like Samsung ) would lead you to believe that they really had 1080i sets, but the pictures just blew in comparison to the real 1080i sets from Panasonic and Sony. With the last CRT based Projector on it's way out ( from Hitachi ) so goes the affordable 1080i sets where you can really see the clairty and afford the set at the same time.
I settled on a Sony 3 LCD projector with the imager resolution at 768, and while it looks good, it looks nothing like the 1080i set that was also on display running an HD reel. Fortunatly, it cost nothing like the 1080i set either.
I think true HD is still a ways off for joe consumer. TV stations will be broadcasting more 480 and 720 material than 1080i , and people will be buying the cheap crap that, in all reality, will not look much better than a really good NTSC set.
Still, the better the source material, the better the end result. We may see nothing but HD ENG cameras here in the near term available for sale.
BTW, the cost of sets I looked at:
Sony 36" 1080i CRT Set : $1100
Panasonic 42" 480p EDTV Plasma:$1450
Hitachi 1080i 57" CRT projector: $1200
Sony 55" 720p Projector : $1399 ( on clearance, $2200 otherwise )
Sony 60" 1080i 3LCD Projector: >$5000, but really nice looking.
SD is alive, NTSC is dead........HD????
Max.
Dave00 said:
I just went through this when trying to buy a new television a week ago.
It looks to me that most 'Digital sets" are really SD. Many Plasmas and LCD flat panels I looked at could do no more than 480p. Most projectors, both DLP and LCD were ~720. Some ( like Samsung ) would lead you to believe that they really had 1080i sets, but the pictures just blew in comparison to the real 1080i sets from Panasonic and Sony. With the last CRT based Projector on it's way out ( from Hitachi ) so goes the affordable 1080i sets where you can really see the clairty and afford the set at the same time.
I settled on a Sony 3 LCD projector with the imager resolution at 768, and while it looks good, it looks nothing like the 1080i set that was also on display running an HD reel. Fortunatly, it cost nothing like the 1080i set either.
I think true HD is still a ways off for joe consumer. TV stations will be broadcasting more 480 and 720 material than 1080i , and people will be buying the cheap crap that, in all reality, will not look much better than a really good NTSC set.
Still, the better the source material, the better the end result. We may see nothing but HD ENG cameras here in the near term available for sale.
BTW, the cost of sets I looked at:
Sony 36" 1080i CRT Set : $1100
Panasonic 42" 480p EDTV Plasma:$1450
Hitachi 1080i 57" CRT projector: $1200
Sony 55" 720p Projector : $1399 ( on clearance, $2200 otherwise )
Sony 60" 1080i 3LCD Projector: >$5000, but really nice looking.
SD is alive, NTSC is dead........HD????
Max.
ftaok said:
I believe that HDV is based on MPEG2, and DV is based on MJPEG.
You are right about the space requirments...
Max.
Here's a question for everyone who has commented on this thread: I'm a video n00b, know nothing about video formats, and have a iMac G5. I've read the whole thread because I'm thinking about purchasing a higher end Panasonic MiniDV camera in the next few months, which I believe is still a SD model. I don't watch TV and only rent movies via Netflix.
If I want to take videos of my niece, shoot memorable moments at birthday parties and other events, and in general have an excellent quality camera to play with video and do edits in iMovie or Final Cut Express/Pro and burn to DVDs, why should I pay more for a HD camera? It seems like if what I'm doing is shooting nothing but Americana moments of my family and its adventures, and I'm able to edit these on my iMac and burn DVDs, then alls well that ends well, no? In that regard, I would venture a guess that a lot of folks might feel the same way.
I ask because on MR, we're all some form of geek in our own areas, and I wonder how much of the debate so far on this thread is above the heads of the average consumer (very different from the "prosumer" market that I think is a little smaller and more specialized). Someone above said that they still saw 8mm cameras out and about, and if folks are still using these, then they obviously have the means to play them back, copy them, and enjoy them.
I think it is true that the "prosumer" market is always seeking the bleeding edge of technological advancement, but the larger consumer market I would posit looks for good value equipment that will last long enough for them to feel they made a good investment (and by this, I mean that the equipment doesn't break down, not necessarily the format). Since major companies are still manufacturing record players, cassette tape players, and obviously DVD players, I'd venture that as long as the everyday person can pick up a SD camera, shoot video and play it back then the format isn't "dead". Heck, I just bought a brand new slide projector for my partner for Christmas.
So, if I buy that nice Panasonic and use it with my iMac, my expectation is that both pieces of equipment will last at least 3-5 years. Since folks are still using G3 iMacs from 2000 with Tiger on them, maybe even longer. And since folks are still shooting with older cameras, I'd like to get 5-7 years at least out of my future new Panasonic. I'd feel differently if I could get a new iMac for under $1000 and a HD camera for under $500, but I can't.
The world around me will change, and more folks will be using HD cameras. But in terms of support, editing, and burning DVDs, I'll bet I'll still be able to do this even 10-15 years from now. In fact, I'll just be able to fit more of my little movies on one DVD, if market hype is to be believed. It just seems like everyone on this thread is talking like in 5 years that everyone using a SD camera will go blind and no equipment or software will work with them - the consumer base just seems to be too large to support changes this quickly. It also seems to me that editing software won't suddenly stop supporting the SD format - it would be like Photoshop ceasing to support a Compuserve GIF because the file format is old. There will be plenty of footage around that folks will still need to be able to edit and produce playable products using SD. And in the meantime, the TV stations and prosumers can use HD for everything else. Unless I'm wrong, HD TVs will still play SD footage, yes?
*pops in a mix tape from the early 1990s*
If I want to take videos of my niece, shoot memorable moments at birthday parties and other events, and in general have an excellent quality camera to play with video and do edits in iMovie or Final Cut Express/Pro and burn to DVDs, why should I pay more for a HD camera? It seems like if what I'm doing is shooting nothing but Americana moments of my family and its adventures, and I'm able to edit these on my iMac and burn DVDs, then alls well that ends well, no? In that regard, I would venture a guess that a lot of folks might feel the same way.
I ask because on MR, we're all some form of geek in our own areas, and I wonder how much of the debate so far on this thread is above the heads of the average consumer (very different from the "prosumer" market that I think is a little smaller and more specialized). Someone above said that they still saw 8mm cameras out and about, and if folks are still using these, then they obviously have the means to play them back, copy them, and enjoy them.
I think it is true that the "prosumer" market is always seeking the bleeding edge of technological advancement, but the larger consumer market I would posit looks for good value equipment that will last long enough for them to feel they made a good investment (and by this, I mean that the equipment doesn't break down, not necessarily the format). Since major companies are still manufacturing record players, cassette tape players, and obviously DVD players, I'd venture that as long as the everyday person can pick up a SD camera, shoot video and play it back then the format isn't "dead". Heck, I just bought a brand new slide projector for my partner for Christmas.
So, if I buy that nice Panasonic and use it with my iMac, my expectation is that both pieces of equipment will last at least 3-5 years. Since folks are still using G3 iMacs from 2000 with Tiger on them, maybe even longer. And since folks are still shooting with older cameras, I'd like to get 5-7 years at least out of my future new Panasonic. I'd feel differently if I could get a new iMac for under $1000 and a HD camera for under $500, but I can't.
The world around me will change, and more folks will be using HD cameras. But in terms of support, editing, and burning DVDs, I'll bet I'll still be able to do this even 10-15 years from now. In fact, I'll just be able to fit more of my little movies on one DVD, if market hype is to be believed. It just seems like everyone on this thread is talking like in 5 years that everyone using a SD camera will go blind and no equipment or software will work with them - the consumer base just seems to be too large to support changes this quickly. It also seems to me that editing software won't suddenly stop supporting the SD format - it would be like Photoshop ceasing to support a Compuserve GIF because the file format is old. There will be plenty of footage around that folks will still need to be able to edit and produce playable products using SD. And in the meantime, the TV stations and prosumers can use HD for everything else. Unless I'm wrong, HD TVs will still play SD footage, yes?
*pops in a mix tape from the early 1990s*
HD camcorders are drastically dropping in price from even 2 years ago, when the entry level was around $4000. If what you're shooting is important enough for you to justify paying the difference in cost between a SD and HD camera, then go for HD. iMovie can edit HDV footage easily and in due time, the footage will be burned onto any number of HD disc formats. It's still early in the game, just like when people moved from b&w to color film stock. No doubt if forums existed back in the mid-1930's, there would be a raging debate over the usefulness of color film.
SD footage will play back on HD TVs but either the picture will be stretched so everyone looks 50 lbs heavier or you'll get ugly black bars on the sides of the picture frame.FoxyKaye said:
So the black bars will be the vertical versions of the horizontal ones that currently exist whenever I play a widescreen movie on my TV or iMac?spicyapple said:
The stretching, that just sounds plain annoying though - would there be a way to turn it off?
Unless you are a gadget freak there is no reason, IMO, for a consumer to get an HD camera to shoot little bobby's birthday. Especially since these events will be shot in available light and, all other things being equal, an SD camera is going to have better low light performance (HD has more pixels, which means smaller pixels, which means less light sensitivity).
Lethal
Correct.FoxyKaye said:
Many TVs have an option to select to "pillar" or "column" 4:3 video so it doesn't get stretched.
Lethal
That's where I'm going - at least in this area, I'm not a gadget freak at all, I just want video memories. If I turn into a video gadget freak after I start playing with my new camera, well, then that's a different story...LethalWolfe said:
Good news on the TVs, though - as long as the 4:3 will display correctly, I can live with the vertical bars.
Thanks!
Fox,
A half decent 3ccd camera (panasonic gs500) will cost near $800-$900 and canon just recently announced this today,
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Breaks-into-the-Consumer-HDV-Market-with-the-HV10.htm
The final street price would be much lower than the advertised MSRP.
In a few years, your niece would appreciate that you preserved her "life moments" in HD instead of the dead, "blast from the past" incompaitable SD format. For the moment you can either just down convert HD to SD or watch HD on your computer.
But if your budget is below $500, then SD all the way.
A half decent 3ccd camera (panasonic gs500) will cost near $800-$900 and canon just recently announced this today,
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Breaks-into-the-Consumer-HDV-Market-with-the-HV10.htm
The final street price would be much lower than the advertised MSRP.
In a few years, your niece would appreciate that you preserved her "life moments" in HD instead of the dead, "blast from the past" incompaitable SD format. For the moment you can either just down convert HD to SD or watch HD on your computer.
But if your budget is below $500, then SD all the way.
Alpinism said:
Agreed. While nothing is future proof or idiot proof
when a potential client wants HD you have to be able to provide it.Lucky for people in L.A., we have rental shacks every other block.
But if the majority of new clients even ask, "what about HD?", then you have to be able to say, "I do that."
If you can't rent the cams on demand and know they are always available near you then I would recommend getting an HDV cam.
I tried telling people the whole HD isn't ready thing, but other people tell them what they want to hear. So, you kinda have to "keep up with the Jones'."
Business: Yes Sir, we do shoot in HD and also SD. Check out the imagery that HD brings (pointing to the HD TV with footage).
Client: Wow, that is real pretty clear & impressive.
Business: Yes, it is the future. By 2009 the govt is mandating all tv boxes be switched to HD.
Client: Hmmm .... But We dont have a HD TV right now for viewing.
Business: Oh, no worries, for now, we can just convert the HD to SD so you can still view it on your current TV set. We will also keep or give you the HD copy so when the future comes calling, you will still have the footage recorded in HD. Plus also you can currently view HD in your computer.
Client: Wow, that is real pretty clear & impressive.
Business: Yes, it is the future. By 2009 the govt is mandating all tv boxes be switched to HD.
Client: Hmmm .... But We dont have a HD TV right now for viewing.
Business: Oh, no worries, for now, we can just convert the HD to SD so you can still view it on your current TV set. We will also keep or give you the HD copy so when the future comes calling, you will still have the footage recorded in HD. Plus also you can currently view HD in your computer.
Actually, It's funny you mention the Panasonic GS500, because it is exactly the camera I had in mind. It's not HD, but it is 3CCD and having used Panasonics before I have an affinity for the brand. Plus, the GS500 can be had for under $700 these days from reputable online retailers. Though the Canon one you link to above seems pretty interesting, too...Alpinism said:
^
In 1998, I bought a Hi-8 camcorder for $750. The miniDVs were still way too new and way too expensive. I needed a new camcorder last year, and in anticipation of needing a pro camera down the line, I bought a floor model 3CCD Panasonic for less than $400. It has worked well as a handycam, and I don't regret buying a more expensive miniDV for exactly this reason.
In 1998, I bought a Hi-8 camcorder for $750. The miniDVs were still way too new and way too expensive. I needed a new camcorder last year, and in anticipation of needing a pro camera down the line, I bought a floor model 3CCD Panasonic for less than $400. It has worked well as a handycam, and I don't regret buying a more expensive miniDV for exactly this reason.
Alpinism said:
Question...
If everything needs to be HD in 2009, then how will I watch re-runs of "I Love Lucy on" (HD)TV
Answer:
SD and HD will be around, NTSC ( analogue ) will be gone....
Max.
Or they'll just take the SD masters and upconvert them to HD. Or they'll go back to the actual film and make brand new HD transfers. Or if they already have high definition masters (which were the sources for the current SD masters) they'll just clone those and send them out for b'cast.maxvamp said:
I know of at least one network show that mastered to SD, made an HD upconvert of that SD tape and used that to b'cast on their HD channel. By the time the signal gets to the viewers home it's so beat up and compressed I doubt anyone noticed they were watching SD content on their HD channel.
Lethal
I'm not sure, but either you're wrong or we're talking about two different things. HD video clearly takes more space than standard def (has much higher resolution, hence the need for Blu-Ray/HD DVD to save to disc). On my DVR, an HD program takes up much more room than an SD program.ftaok said:
Dave
Dave00 said:
The HDV format has the same data rate as the DV format so they both take up about 13 gigs per hour. Talking about just "HD" and "SD" is way to vague and generic because things like different formats and different amounts of compression have to be taken into consideration.
Lethal
SD upconverted to HD doesn't look so hot, at least on LCD screens; and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the great majority of television programs were recorded on video, not film. They seem to make a big deal of it when a program is recorded on film...LethalWolfe said:
Dave
Get one of these
http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxh/watchdog.php
and one of these to use as a deck or B Cam
http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/canon/hv10images.php
This is going to be a superb Xmas Very broke but superb
p/s: Hope Panasonic is going to respond and revamp the DVX100b. Some said Panasonic is going to make the DVX100b in 16 x 9 with AVCHD. If this happens, I would be the first in line to get the "dxv100hd" just for that pana 24p look.
http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxh/watchdog.php
and one of these to use as a deck or B Cam
http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/canon/hv10images.php
This is going to be a superb Xmas
Very broke but superb p/s: Hope Panasonic is going to respond and revamp the DVX100b. Some said Panasonic is going to make the DVX100b in 16 x 9 with AVCHD. If this happens, I would be the first in line to get the "dxv100hd" just for that pana 24p look.
In the US nearly all scripted shows are shot on film (16mm or 35mm) or HD. Soap operas are the main exception and are shot on video (and I'd assume they'll start using HD soon if they haven't already). Things like talk shows, game shows, and reality TV are shot on video (but have started migrating over to HD). Most of the documentary content (on like the History or Discovery Channel) is shot on video as well, but the move over to HD has started there too.Dave00 said:
If you use the air master or original tapes you can upconvert SD to HD and get acceptable results, IMO, as long as you do it properly (properly meaning spending a nice chunk of change on professionals who do this type of stuff for a living). If professionally shot content on MiniDV (far from the highest quality SD video) can get massaged into looking acceptable on the big screen (28 Days Later, Open Water, Murderball, etc.,) than it can get massaged into looking acceptable on HD (especially once it gets to the consumer and the signal has been beat to hell and gets watched on a consumer grade set).
Lethal
canon hdtv $1300 camcorder HD review
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/technology/10pogue.html?_r=2&ref=technology&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/technology/10pogue.html?_r=2&ref=technology&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Artofilm said:
Here in Europe the technical specification for HD have been decided by the EBU, the European Broadcasting Union and all members have agreed to that and use that as target. How and when the individual broadcasters get there is another matter, but once EBU has decided, for Europe at least it's been brought to the next level.
By the way, Europe is way behind the US in these matters.