We switched completely to HD last year (we were doing short docs,
application videos, stuff for fashion companies and AOL - lots of
requirements and the clients cared less about format and more about
results). We were also doing a lot of greenscreen work, and doing it on HD
worked out really well - more information to work, greater depth of field,
etc. We had to upgrade cameras, storage and software, but it was worth it.

Now in my new company, I make HD a requirement for our new projects (inc the
new videoblogs we are workin on). More flexibility in editing, lots of our
work might get repurposed for CDRom or broadcast later on, there are a
hundred reasons.

I would recommend HD to someone who is already doing video - yes. Starting
out? No - for all the reasons Steve mentions below..

On 12/16/06, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   Id say it depends on their budget, how long they are expecting to go
> before buying another camera, and what sort of content they make.
>
> Im sure that SD and the current below-SD 320x240 type resolutions that
> vlogging often uses will be around for a long time. For all the
> poo-pooing of video on the net for being 'in a little window' in years
> gone by before the viral video, vlogging etc revolution, it seems
> clear that for short clips people are quite happy to consume the video
> in this way.
>
> Futureproofing side of the equation may also involve the idea that
> even if it takes 10 years or more before HD internet publishing for
> the masses becomes the norm, people may want to archive their footage
> of events in time and space in a nice high res format for non-internet
> use or so they can republish this stuff in higher quality when the
> time comes.
>
> Even if mot publishing in HD or even half-HD resolutions, I still
> think the right HD camera can give nice results with the final output,
> I guess rocketboom would be an example of that.
>
> Other technical reasons for recommending HD would include stuff to do
> with interlacing, the right cameras can use a progressive mode that is
> sought-after by some people who want to emulate the look&feel of
> traditional film.
>
> ETchnical reasons not to go for HD include the limitation in options
> when it comes to editing software, the increased processor etc costs
> of editing/re-rendering HD, and the fact that there is more than one
> HD format around so its not as straightforward as well-established
> standard definition DV. The ability to use most HD cameras in SD mode
> when appropriate can cancel out these issues though.
>
> As you can tell I dont think theres a simple answer anymore, maybe it
> does come down more to what they are creating. I laugh at unintended
> boradcast TV side-effects of going HD such as viewers complaining
> about presenters with hairy hands. My dad finds himself watching
> nature documentaries on TV since he got HD, even though thats not his
> cup of tea, it looks so good.
>
> Steve Elbows
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, "[
> chrisbrogan.com]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't been. I keep telling folks that, even if we've started to
> > presume (most) everyone has broadband, it's still going to be a while
> > before HD content on the Net is encoded and presented that way.
> >
> > Am I wrong? And what are you telling people, now that HD cameras are
> > out there in numbers, and within range?
> >
> > --Chris...
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------
Sean W. Bohan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.seanbohan.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to