Jonny Jones Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 Hi people, We've been discussing HD (High Definition) cameras and its uses at university recently and im just interested in what you all think - as far as the web is concerned. Do you think it's ready for HD? Bear in mind, HD means stupidly high resolution and stupidly high file sizes (even when using .MOV with H264 compression - see apple.com about this)... so really its only suitable for people with really good internet connections - i.e. 2mb and above? Basically, HD means that when filming using an HD camcorder, you are using 1080 lines of resolution, instead of the standard 625 (PAL) lines which is what all MiniDV camcorders record at. It stays at 1080 if you're shooting using a Progressive Scan camera (which means all the odd and even lines in each frame match up together) - most camcorders are not Progressive, and this is why you get nasty lines across the screen when your slowing footage down or applying effects - if not, then you have to de-interlace your footage when editing, so this brings it down to 720 lines - not that much more impressive than standard DV (625). Id love for you to share your opinions if you're not confused by this.. if you are then fair enough, its not widely talked about all that much yet. Jonny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 So what kind of files sise are we looking at? :lol: I think most people now have been upgraded to 1MB so i say bring it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexm Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 I don't really think it's necessary. Not for web and not just yet. I would happily download a huge file but unless you are going to light every shot and build tracks and cranes to run your cameras on then I think I wouldn't notice the difference. Expensive on your end as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicH_87 Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 TV ain't even ready yet, never mine the internet. too many people adapt far to slow (in the UK especially) for videos to be HD. Theres people on here who are still using 56k "it's fine for what i need" they say, yet they are the first to complain about poor web hosting and large file sizes. I'm ready for HD, if only i could afford the equipment to use it. But on the whole, no-one is any where near ready, and won't be for another 2-4 years. (america's new deadline for full HD television is April 2009 i think) and the UK is always a year or so behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-Stop Junkie Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Once you downsize for the web, don't you loose the resolution anyway? How many vids released are 625 pixels high? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonPace Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 hd will just make file sizes bigger and is pretty much unnecessary on the internet as regular mpegs are high enough quality anyway, in my opinion. it'll be very beneficial in the television world as it improves the quality dramatically and for dvds too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLCTrials.com Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 I believe the new Lee Shiming video was shot with HD? not 100% positive, but to answer ur question, go for it!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp101 Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Eh, it'd be pretty, but that's about it. The downloads would take longer, don't mind the uploads. Most webhosts would abhor it ( a lot of bandwidth, with a lot of space ). High Definition for everday things, for shits and giggles? Why? It's like the electric scissors. Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Jones Posted October 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Thanks for your comments people. Most of the comments are helpful... Ratcliff proved a good point about the reduction of resolution when exporting/compressing for the web. Also, very true about the fact that this country is behind on this kinda thing. I watched some HD movie trailers from apple.com on an iMac G5 this morning and even the 1080 version couldnt fit on the big screen the Mac had. Played it ok though... on the 720p setting - smaller frame size. All this said, I don think the net's ready quite yet. I only started this thread as im 'uming and erring' about which camcorder to get next. Theres an affordable HD camera on the market with professional features... but it is 1700 quid and if im not gonna use it (the HD feature), theres no point in spending the money. Give it a few years and im sure the prices will come down on cameras, there will be more of them and the UK will actually be ready, not to mention hosting will be pretty impressive! MiniDV camera it is hehe! Jonny. P.S. - Bit of a selfish thread, sorry :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that NBR dude Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Good thread Jonny, as Im in the same boat. I think the HD Cams for web use, is overkill, as you will never really benefit from the amazing quality. For professional film making though, I think go for it. As soon as I have the dosh, the Sony HVR A1E will be mine (and judging from the £1700 you quoted, you're thinking the same as me) its an expensive gamble, and depends on what you plan to do, but I think eventually, it will be worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank_rider Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 i'd say that until we are being limited by the present crop of cameras (not the file size) then its not worth it. As has been said, its not like were seeing videos being put on the net at full resolution and quality as it is, so there would be little call for it initially. However, faster connections are springing up in more and more places round the country so it can only be a matter of time before file sizes begin to creep up and we begin to be limited by shooting resolution. Personally i would like to see two versions of videos available now, one at full resolution and quality for download by those with fast connections and another for those on slower connections. I remember when this was the "norm" a couple of years ago when broadband was emerging, but 56K was still the norm. What sort of file sizes are we talking about for an HD video or say a typical bike vid length of approx 4 mins? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Jones Posted October 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 (edited) I really dont know, but by the way information on apple.com suggests, a 4 min video might be around 80mb?! Plus/Minus a few mb? - this is for 480p - the lowest frame size for HD. Ive been talking loads about it today at Uni and apparently you can film stuff in HD and theres a function in the camera that lets u capture at normal definition, but the quality is still slightly better than a normal MiniDV camera, so theres that aspect!! I know ive said 'Standard MiniDV it is then!'... but I think HD is a good idea - cos my current camera has been with me for about 5 years now... so if people invest now, it will last!! Jonny. Edited October 24, 2005 by trialmedia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBProductions Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 I was using the HD camera at Bristol , Plymouth and Glastonbury and it frigging rocks its got soooo many features and is just off the scale, internet there is no need but if your like me and do client based work there is a need. The only trouble with upgrading to HD is that factor of having to update all your editing sweet to compensate for hd!!! Best off sticking with high quality dv until web speeds get faster I reckon, no need for Hi Def as you're only going to loss some of the quality when compressing e.t.c although my h264 codec is working wonders at bringing file sizes down so for 2-3 min videos I reckon you might get away with it. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trials_rocks Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 I think for just viewing it on a computer, its not very necessary. But it would be good if you wished to put vids onto a DVD and watch them on TV, would be very nice indeed. Not many people would have the patience to download them though, apart from us lucky few with a fast-b*****d net connection. The connection in my uni room is 100.0Mbps ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 You don't need a HD video for trials though. I know it's nice and everything, but you can tell what's going on just fine on a Standard MiniDV video, compressed to Mpeg. When everyone has 10meg lines and you can stream HD, then perhaps it's worth it. Or if you're gonna make DVDs or somesuch other stuff. But I don't really see the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank_rider Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 having just downloaded a load of hd vids off the microsoft site i would say its defo worth making a vid in high def, then compressing it down (if poss) to the usual size, i think the ability to see every detail in a move can really add to the feel of a vid, specially technical stuff. Even if the vid is 300MB i would still download it. I guess you would then be limited by hosting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Jones Posted October 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 You don't need a HD video for trials though. I know it's nice and everything, but you can tell what's going on just fine on a Standard MiniDV video, compressed to Mpeg. When everyone has 10meg lines and you can stream HD, then perhaps it's worth it. Or if you're gonna make DVDs or somesuch other stuff. But I don't really see the point. 10 Meg lines will be readily available sometime next year, a mate at uni already has one at home. HD TV's will also be big next year.. this means they will become way more affordable than they are at the mo. It's not Trials, but check this video of a couple of Kittens chilling on a couch I found - http://tv.isg.si/site/?q=filebrowser/trialmedia/HD (11mb for about 20secs I think it is - WMV) If you think we dont need HD for trials, im sorry, but your mind and imagination is simply bland (Y) - Im sure after experiments etc, everybody's minds will be altered. Jonny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that NBR dude Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 10 Meg lines will be readily available sometime next year, a mate at uni already has one at home. HD TV's will also be big next year.. this means they will become way more affordable than they are at the mo. It's not Trials, but check this video of a couple of Kittens chilling on a couch I found - http://tv.isg.si/site/?q=filebrowser/trialmedia/HD (11mb for about 20secs I think it is - WMV) If you think we dont need HD for trials, im sorry, but your mind and imagination is simply bland (Y) - Im sure after experiments etc, everybody's minds will be altered. Jonny. Thats insane!! all the more reason for me to get that Sony cam afterall. All the fine details are brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Booth Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 it would be good to be using Hd cams, but to be honest, a good mini dv is easily capable of the job, and the file sizes of that hd footage was insane!!! it didnt even work properly for me by the time it had loaded 11 meg, it had run the 25 seconds. As Tomm said, a decent mini dv, converted to mpeg (Y) genreally good filesizes, good quality, everyones happy. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modx-lite Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 (edited) I don't really think it's necessary. Not for web and not just yet. I would happily download a huge file but unless you are going to light every shot and build tracks and cranes to run your cameras on then I think I wouldn't notice the difference. Expensive on your end as well. I'm with this guy - OK HD is realy nice quality and maybe worth the big download as more and more peopale get faster lines, I don't see the need in trials. When you consider how most of our vids are filmed - usually just filmed by riders with camera held in hand, less than perfect light, straightforward angles etc... Fair enough if we were making videos with perfect lighting, professional smooth filming etc, but the majority of riders are just out to show some people some amazing riding! Althouh I definitely wouldn't complain at more high quality profeissional videos being released... EDIT: Just watched that kittnes clip - I take it all back, I want HD! Really is amazing how good quality that is, so I'm defintely gonna say anyone who wants to make a vid in HD, go for it! Edited October 26, 2005 by modx-lite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 If you think we dont need HD for trials, im sorry, but your mind and imagination is simply bland :) - Im sure after experiments etc, everybody's minds will be altered. Trials videos need good moves/nice lines. Not stupid camera angles, shots of sky/sunset and hi-res. I look forwards to your experiments though (Y) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 I don't see why Tomm's imagination is "Bland" just because he doesn't feel the need to see every molecule of a rider's body in perfect detail? People have made well edited, enjoyable videos before without ultra HD cameras, in the same way that people have made utterly shite videos without HD cameras. At the end of the day, it might be more detailed, but if the editing is shit then it's not really going to make up for it, is it? Without naming names or anything, a lot of videos in recent months have been let down by the editing side, and to be honest, using stuff like HD cams won't make a blind bit of difference to this. TM1, if edited the same but filmed as it was and with a HD camera wouldn't be any different. File sizes would get f**king silly, but that's about it, really. It's not like the quality was low on TM1 enough to impair the visual entertainment of it. Not to mention most of the times in trials moves the action is so quick you wouldn't really get to savour the fact that it looked so detailled you could almost touch the brickwork on the wall the rider was hopping up, would you? I'm sure it'll be all fine 'n' dandy for the super serious film makers out there, but for amateur videos on the internet, why bother? Worse to host, worse to download, and worse to have to keep on your computer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 Everyones getting faster connections fair enough (i managed to stream a few of the 720 hd trailers off the quicktime site) but bandwidth limits on servers aint rising (Y) which means whos going to pay for all this extra bandwidth being used? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexm Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 The bitrate on that video was too high for my computer to handle properly. it was jerky. Looked like my cat that ran away (Y). having said that, it looks nice but i'm still not convinced it is worth it, definately not for trials on the web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBProductions Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 Yes but have you any idea how much it takes to upgrade to edit HD and to also buy the camera for the market your in I wouldnt bother. We have only decided to use it as we film events like Goldcoast and Glastonbury. In my opinion unless people get richer and decide to spend money on their internet connections and computers HD should stay with the likes of dvd, live streams at gigs e.t.c A lot to gamble considering. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.