Move to HD

[CycleWriter]

I was contemplating moving to HD, but the more I think about it the more I think it is a bad idea. In addition to needing a new HD camcorder I would have to buy an HD-capable burner. At least the Blu-Ray standard is assured. Given the problem VS has working with just standard video would I be in even more trouble trying to download and edit HD? Then there's the output. I'm guessing an HD disc will only play in an HD player. That would limit my audience greatly since so few of my friends and family have HDTVs let alone a player. Also, would I need an HD computer system on which to edit? How do you preview HD output on a standard CRT? All that data will probably choke my poor AMD 64X2 system, as well. Maybe just shooting in 16:9 is a better option for now. Seems like HD is a luxury at this stage in the game. Thoughts?

[2Dogs]

I'd say that HD is not mainstream yet. The more fortunate early adopters might be able to afford Blu-Ray burners and blank media, but I certainly won't jump in until prices are more realistic.

The trouble is the HD camcorder itself isn't too pricey - hardly more than decent MiniDV camcorders used to cost.

As you say, however, you need a fairly fast pc to edit the resulting footage, although your Athlon X2 system might be able to cope.

As a halfway house kind of measure, you can record HD video to regular DVD discs. If you used dual layer discs, you could probably make a project with a duration of up to 30 minutes or so, which could play back either on a Blu-Ray player hooked up to an HD TV, or even a PS3 hooked up to the TV.

If you play the HD video on your pc, it generally looks better on an old-fashioned CRT that can achieve the necessary resolution - say 1920 x 1080 - though since just about all CRT monitors are 4:3, it would have to be letterboxed in a 1920 x 1440 display. If you play the video on a more recent LCD monitor, it would look best on one that had 1920 x 1080 as it's native resolution. That normally requires at least a 22" if not 24" widescreen monitor. LCD monitors don't scale resolution very well, giving noticeable "jaggies" compared with CRT displays.

To play HD video that has been encoded with the H.264 codec, you either need a fast pc, faster than your X2, or else have a video card that features hardware acceleration. You can then play HD H.264 video on your pc using a suitable software DVD player which can take advantage of the hardware acceleration. HD mpeg2 video should be OK.

Existing standard definition MiniDV camcorders record footage using only relatively low compression, which is also considered to be virtually "lossless". You can easily and repeatedly edit DV avi files and re-encode them to the same format without losing significant or even noticeable amounts of picture quality.

By contrast, all consumer HD camcorders record either to mpeg2 or the even more highly compressed mpeg4 format. Neither format is as suited to editing as DV avi, and mpeg4 in particular makes heavy demands of your pc resources. Both formats are "lossy", so you have to minimise re-encoding.

Therefore, although HD video gives more resolution and better picture quality, it also introduces a bunch of problems and compromises.

It's understandable that the camcorder manufacturers have taken this route, using more compression, since data transfer rates to the tape, hard drive or even solid state media in the camcorder were limited. As technology improves, however, it may be that the increased data transfer rates would allow an HD camcorder to record in something like the DV avi format, using lower compression. It's doubtful that such a camcorder will ever be made, however, and so I think of the MiniDV era as almost a "golden age" of video editing.

[Black Lab]

And, as you can read on this forum, the editing apps haven't quite yet caught up with HD. Some can do it, others struggle. Until it's more mainstream I'm not going to make the jump either (a raise would also help ).

[CycleWriter]

Yeah, I just got back from Fry's and there would be some considerable cost associated with this move, but that's the least of it. A Blu-Ray burner is only $200, but the recordable media is 3-5 times more than single layer DVDs. HD cameras are relatively cheap, as you say, but the big hurdle is limited compatibility with display devices. To see the complete benefits of HD you have to have a true 1080p TV and DVD player. Those are still pricey. My HDTV is only 720p-1080i. Regardless, the audience for finished HD DVD will be small since few of my friends and none of my family have the right equipment for playback. Since the videos I'm currently doing are for distribution to clients and customers, HD makes no sense at all for me even if price wasn't an issue. I'm going to get a true 16:9 camera as I need the wider field of view (and my current camera only simulates 16:9 by cropping the pic with black bars). I also don't need the added headaches of dealing with HD output as it taxes everything on the computer from drive space to processors. Thanks for the help, guys.

[sjj1805]

I don't think that the move from Standard Definition DVD to High Definition will be as great as the move from VHS to DVD was.

1. VHS tapes took up lots of storage space in the house, compared to DVD which take very little depending upon your chosen method of storage.
You can either store them individually in their own case - lots of storage space, or collectively in a zip up storage bag or my preferred method in a DVD storage box holding 250 discs at a time. I use a Microsoft Access database to catalogue my DVD collection of over 1500 discs. Imagine that many VHS tapes.

2. Presently as you mentioned above the cost of HD is quite high when you consider the costs of a TV monitor, HD burner, HD Player, HD Camcorder, possible/probable upgrades to parts of your computer to handle the HD format.

3. No doubt the quality of HD is better but I can only say what I see.
My youngest son bought his laptop to my home a couple of weeks ago. He had downloaded some sample HD video material off the internet. His laptop has a hdmi ouput, my 32" widescreen /flatscreen TV has hdmi input and he used a hdmi lead. To be perfectly honest I didn't see any difference - perhaps he used bad examples.

I will consider HD when I have to alter something due to wear and tear.
I would rather spend the money on a holiday than upgrade just for the sake of it.

[Microdowns]

I think that the move from DVD to high Definition is far more significant than what has been stated above. I have produced a number of AVCHD video's using VS 11+ and the results have been outstanding. The difference in picture quality is similar to the change from VHS (which in my opinion was unwatchable) to DVD. I am the videographer for the local high school marching band that is one of the best in the United States. When I play my HD footage in a public area on a decent HD monitor, crowds immediately begin to assemble. They are drawn to the picture because for the first time they are able to identify each instrument and individual faces in a group of 150! For those who were at the performances, the HD footage brings back vivid memories of the excitement of being there!

I will go out on a limb here and state that anyone who doesn't see much difference between HD and SD on a good quality flat panel display is either not wearing their glasses, is being dishonest or has gone stark raving mad!!! The difference is really that obvious.

Please note that a 720P (normally 1366 X 768 lines native and roughly equivalent to 1440 X 820 with typical overscan) flat screen will show nearly all the detail from an HD camcorder (1440 X 1080 lines). Even with the latest 1920 line camcorders, the additional resolution would only be noticeable when sitting closer than ~7 ft. from a 50" 1080P monitor. Note that the 30P frame rate will be accurately displayed on any high quality 1080i television, so the 60Hz progressive capability of a 1080P display should be of little or no benefit. However, in theory the new 120 Hz LCD displays should be able to display footage recorded at 24P a little more smoothly because they do not need 3:2 pulldown.

I don't understand why so many people in this forum are so resistant to changing over. The costs are nothing compared to what most people paid for their current gear. Sample costs are summarized below:

1. Canon HD camcorder, 40gb hd, AVCHD - $650 or less

2. Computer monitor to play your video - $0, your current 17" or above model running at 1280x1024 will work just fine for editing and previewing. I generally produce a standard DVD for QA checking to minimize rendering time. Since the HD version will be exactly the same except for higher resolution and different menus, I don't render to HD until I am completely satisfied with the DVD.

3. DVD burner to make HD videos compatible with all blu-ray players - $0. Your existing DVD burner will work just fine. A dual layer DVD at a high bit rate can hold approx. 70 minutes of material.

4. The difference in price between a single and dual layer disk is between 50 cents and a dollar depending on brand.

5. If you have a generic computer, an upgrade to a high performance motherboard with 4GB memory is less than $400. Cheaper if you can just upgrade CPU and memory. Extra hard drive - $150. A complete new high performance computer for $1,000.

6. VS 11+ - $0 to $39 with rebates.


So the total upgrade is between $1,000 to $2,000. Seems to me it wasn't too long ago that a decent computer cost nearly $2000.

With the standardization of a single HD disk standard, more and more people will be purchasing blu-ray units and a significant percentage already own a high-def television.

I currently sell videos of band performances for fund raising. This year 20% HD and 80% SD (same project, only difference is menu). Next year I project that the HD percentage to nearly double. No one has complained about the extra $1 charged for the HD version to cover the higher dual layer disk cost.

I realize that I am quite biased, but I highly recommend jumping on the HD bandwagon ASAP. You'll never look back. For those needing more $$, start saving and go on a cheaper vacation close to home!!

[CycleWriter]

Micro, while I agree with the basic premise of your argument (and have since purchased an HD camcorder), I disagree with a few of your assertions. Cost is still a major consideration in moving to HD as is compatibility with the majority of viewers for your finished output.
1. Dual layer DVDs are considerably more expensive than SL DVDs. More than the 50 cents you quoted, anyway, at least here in L.A.
2. It takes more than an HD camcorder and HDTV to truly enjoy the full benefits of HD material. This requires burning to HD media (Blu-Ray is now the preferred standard) and then playing back in a Blu-Ray player connected via HDMI to a true 1080p HDTV. Most of the affordable HDTVs are only 720p. I think you know this since you say "nearly all the detail" in your post. Granted, the difference in picture quality may be minimal, but who buys a Ferrari to drive it at legal speed ALL the time?
3. HD video recorded onto standard DVDs will not playback on a standard DVD player.
4. Editing in AVCHD format requires serious computing power.

My own brief but exhaustive tests this past week with my new Canon HV20 have proven to me that HDV video even downsampled to SD onto standard DVDs is significantly better than the same footage filmed in SD on the same camera. So, even though I am probably months away from buying a Blu-Ray burner (primarily because I won't be able to share HD discs with most of my friends and family who have little to no HD playback equipment) I will be shooting HD from now on and enjoying the excellent quality it provides to all my videos. But, as I said in another post, if editing HD is your goal and you can't afford to upgrade to a really fast computer, stick with the MiniDV format and avoid the headaches that a DVD or HDD camera will bring you. MiniDV will give the best quality picture and ease of use when editing.

[Microdowns]

CycleWriter:

1. Dual layer DVD's in the SF Bay area cost approx. 80 cents each from Fry's - though I always buy them on sale. Premium brands are $1.50 mail order. Thus my 50 cents to one dollar difference was not too far off.
2. You do not need to burn to HD media to enjoy full benefits of HD material. Blu-ray players read ACVHD files, which can be burned to standard DVD's.
3. For people with normal vision, there is no visual difference between a 1080P and 768P monitor that is 50" or less unless you sit uncomfortably close (usually only kids playing video games sit close enough to see the difference). Also, due to dot size, the current crop of 768P models have higher brightness and greater contrast, so many people will find the picture superior. The next generation of products will minimize this difference since most development is on the 1080P side. There is a noticable difference between 768P and 1080P for large projection systems in home theaters when sitting at the normal distance - but anyone who can afford such a setup will have no problem affording the necessary upgrades fo HD!
4. The buyer chooses the disk for the equipment they own (some buy one of each). I use printable DVD's that are marked with the blu-ray logo or "DVD Widescreen" to identify format. I use the same VS project to produce HD disks for blu-ray players and SD disks for standard DVD players. As you know, most of the effort is in editing the project. Rendering for of the final disks merely takes computer time - either over night or during the day while working on other things on the computer. Today I rendered two 1 hour AVCHD disks and one DVD from AVCHD material while remotely assisting clients via an Internet connection (log-me-in Rescue).
5. I agree that editing takes serious computing power, but this power is available at a very resonable price. Also, extensive editing of AVCHD material will tend to bog down even the fastest system. So I tend to be minimalist when it comes to special effects.

[CycleWriter]

4. The buyer chooses the disk for the equipment they own (some buy one of each). I use printable DVD's that are marked with the blu-ray logo or "DVD Widescreen" to identify format. I use the same VS project to produce HD disks for blu-ray players and SD disks for standard DVD players. As you know, most of the effort is in editing the project. Rendering for of the final disks merely takes computer time - either over night or during the day while working on other things on the computer. Today I rendered two 1 hour AVCHD disks and one DVD from AVCHD material while remotely assisting clients via an Internet connection (log-me-in Rescue).
5. I agree that editing takes serious computing power, but this power is available at a very resonable price. Also, extensive editing of AVCHD material will tend to bog down even the fastest system. So I tend to be minimalist when it comes to special effects.

I won't argue the fine points other than to say on my 50" HDTV the difference is indeed noticeable to me. And the videos I do for money are heavily edited and require the most widely acceptable format possible as the client distributes them to people with varying levels of equipment. That's reason enough for me to not be in any hurry to produce true HD output and to stay away from HDD and DVD camcorders. I do look forward to producing HD videos for myself with my new camera at some point in time. Some far away point...for now.

[sjj1805]

Microdowns
No one will argue the HD will be sharper and clearer than SD - the facts speak for themselves. Higher bit rates, more resolution 1080p / 720p etc.

BUT
Cost IS a factor and converting the $2,000 dollars you mention into British pounds - for many people that is a months wages - or put another way a 12th of their annual net income.

I am talking here about people with families, mortgages, kids school trips, school uniforms, car to run, dog to feed, Holidays, Christmas and so on.
These people will balance what is nice to have against what is necessary to have.

My children are all grown up and left home, Whilst not rich I am not poor either and theoretically I could now retire. I could easily go out and buy all of the HD equipment you mentioned but I have not, why?

No I am not a scrooge I am simply someone who is able to differentiate between what is nice to have and what is necessary to have. I could blow my life savings on getting the latest HD stuff - but no doubt that will also be replaced in the not too distant future by some other medium - probably solid state.

If an item I own needs replacing due to wear and tear, breakdown etc then no doubt I will get the best of what is available at that time. In the meantime I will enjoy the interest from my savings by booking a holiday and spending time to actually use my cameras and camcorder.

[CycleWriter]

Great response, Steve. I think in this digital age where product cycles are as short as 6 months and there are so many emerging/evolving standards that early adoption should be left to the rich and foolish. Like all the people kicking themselves right now for buying into the HD format instead of Blu-Ray. While I would love to play with the "latest and greatest," I have a "yesterday and adequate" budget to work with. I made the jump to HDV, but I'll have to wait a while longer before I can fully enjoy it. In the meantime I will enjoy creating even better SD videos while anxiously looking forward to the day I can unlock the full potential of my new toy.

[dhmark]

My move to HD was not expensive at all. However, I did have to buy an HD DVD player (now defunct) but I bought it as prices were crashing. You can now buy one for $130.
Using this software, I am making perfectly wonderful HD video movies about 20-22 minutes long with standard DVD media and laptop burner, 25 cents a disc.
Hopefully, this setup will last long enough for prices of blu-ray or whatever will replace it to come down. There will be software to translate these HD movies to whatever is next without any loss of quality.
dhmark

[profk99]

Hi, All!

My 2 cents:

I have a Canon HV20 1080i camcorder which I bought last summer before taking a cruise through the Inside Passage to Alaska. I do not have HD recording capability yet, but I do have 10 GLORIOUS HDV tapes that I can:

1. Play through the included component video cable on my old 56" RP CRT 1080i set

2. Play through a cheap HDMI cable on my new (maybe this fall) 65" LCD set.

3. Burn HD excerpts onto DVD+R discs using VS 11.5+ (not tried yet)

4. Burn excellent DVDs either capturing 1440x1080i directly on my computer or letting the HV20 downconvert and capturing 720x480p at a datarate that an older computer can handle.

5 Eventually re-render and burn Blu-Ray or whatever is the newest and greatest thing (that I CAN afford.)

The key is that I chose old-fashioned DV tape over direct-to-DVD or HD, so I can keep all my tapes as long as I want-- and at $2.50 each, I don't need to re-use them.

I also ALWAYS shoot stills at my camera's highest resolution, believing that regardless of how you intend to display them, you can never replace missing detail. For example, my wife borrowed my 8-Mp camera to use on our helicopter flight to a glacier (while I was using the HV-20), and got a stunning shot of the mountains, harbor and our cruise ship which I later printed at 16"x20" Who would have expected a decent, let alone great, shot in a vibrating plexiglass (OK, Perspex) bubble?

So my advice is: Buy an HD prosumer camcorder NOW and give those irreplaceable shots a chance at (eventual) greatness!

Bob K