SD Video, would you consider that quality video?

[newpball]

SD Video, would you consider that quality video?

[Cornucopia]

Trying to justify your opinions again?

There are plenty of situations where SD (or even less than SD - OMG!) is perfectly appropriate & acceptable. And there are plenty of situations where it is slightly worse, more worse, much worse, or even rediculously worse and TOTALLY unacceptable.*
And in all situations - with CIF/SIF, SD, HD, FHD/2k, UHD/4k, 8k, whatever - if it is recorded & processed correctly, it is much preferred than when not.
We no longer live in a monolithic society. I don't see why you expect there to be a monolithic answer to the question.

Scott

*(So stop twisting our words and presenting them as being "go for only SD!")

[usually_quiet]

I decline to vote. This poll, like newpball's other polls, is designed to elicit responses the pollster wants to receive, and is an insult to the intelligence of VideoHelp's membership.

[sophisticles]

I would rather have SD video that was shot with a high quality camera, with a high quality lens, that was properly framed and graded, and shot with a sharper focus than HD shot with a soft focus, poorly framed and graded, and poorly encoded.

But of course, if I could have something shot with Sony 6k camera, properly produced, then obviously I would want that over SD.

You're premise is flawed as there are many other factors more important than just resolution.

[hello_hello]

It must be a slow day for starting arguments.

One minute newpall's interjecting in threads because resolution is directly tied to picture detail and you should never resize down, the next he's posting in threads claiming some posters don't know the difference between resolution and detail while explaining some 1080p is upscaled SD.

It's looks like today he's back to confusing picture detail with resolution and therefore resolution with quality again.

I won't give any credibility to another ridiculous poll by voting.

[newpball]

Resolution is indeed not directly tied to picture detail.

However, since resolution >= than picture detail and SD resolution is barely 1/3 of a mexapixel your point is quite moot.

I could not possibly call a maximum picture detail of barely 1/3 megapixel quality let alone if the picture detail is below that resolution.

[hello_hello]

I could not possibly call a maximum picture detail of barely 1/3 megapixel quality let alone if the picture detail is below that resolution.

I couldn't call a 1080p video encoded at 500kb/s "quality" either.

[newpball]

I couldn't call a 1080p video encoded at 500kb/s "quality" either.

That pleases me!

[hech54]

The term "HD" has been abused since day one by marketing a§§holes. Most people believe that VEVO downloads from YouTube are "HD".

[lingyi]

Content is King!

A great film is a great film regardless of its video quality.

I’ve watched Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai on broadcast TV, videotape, LD, DVD, Blu-Ray and in the theater over 40+ years and the experience has always been one of wonder and awe at Kurosawa’s brilliant direction and composition.

Seven Samurai is in B/W and 4:3, and can be viewed through a screen door (which is pretty close to how it was back on 60’s broadcast TV), and you can still see and appreciate the brilliance of the film.

Maybe it’s nostalgia, but for me the Blu-Ray is almost too perfect, bringing forward background details (which Kurosawa carefully composed) that were meant to be seen and appreciated subconsciously. Ironically, with the advent of "High Definition" (yes I include DVDs in that definition) for the home, I can appreciate details that I couldn't on the grandeur of the big screen. Still, when Seven Samurai becomes available on 4K & beyond, I’ll get those editions also in that elusive quest to “See movies as they were meant to be seen”.

The one true gain I see in "higher quality" is when a movie is PROPERLY remastered to correct color / B/W and remove physical artifacts (i.e. scratches, dust, hair, etc) which subconsciously momentarily takes the viewer out of the viewing experience.

Here’s to great content, regardless of video quality!

[smrpix]

@lingyi, I was with you all the way until the second to last sentence -- I love Seven Samurai too. But for me, the remnants of some minor dust and scratches enhances the sense of watching a film. Part of the joy for me is recognizing and and being enveloped by the technology of the era a particular film was made. Certainly, the detail of current digital prints can bring out the most from older negatives. I do appreciate the fact that older movies and TV shows look better than when first released, but where do you stop? The lenses, film stocks, lighting, grain, etc were equally artistic responses to the available technology.

[lingyi]

@lingyi, I was with you all the way until the second to last sentence -- I love Seven Samurai too. But for me, the remnants of some minor dust and scratches enhances the sense of watching a film. Part of the joy for me is recognizing and and being enveloped by the technology of the era a particular film was made. Certainly, the detail of current digital prints can bring out the most from older negatives. I do appreciate the fact that older movies and TV shows look better than when first released, but where do you stop? The lenses, film stocks, lighting, grain, etc were equally artistic responses to the available technology.

Yes, "...where do they stop?" is indeed a fine line that is sometimes crossed in improperly remastered films / videos. I fully agree that if removing a dust speck or scratch removes the inherent grain or other intended aspect of the original, then it shouldn't be done. However if it can be done without modifying the "artistic intent" of the director or the era, I believe it should.

Sadly, I suspect this generation and beyond won't get the joke of an intentional stray hair, dust speckles or melted film. Yes, all part of the wonder of cinema past.

[hello_hello]

When it comes to removing grain, which I don't like, I tend to look at it from the point of view that "film grain has always been unwanted noise". It's been a problem for so long that older, grainer film has definitely taken on a "look" of it's own but I don't think there's too many instances where you could refer to it as "what the director intended".

If Seven Samurai was remastered at 4K I'd be interested to see how much of that resolution goes toward increasing the picture detail, as opposed to increasing the resolution of the noise. Only time will tell......

One of the tricks used when trying to convey the impression a section of a movie consists of much older film, is by adding blemishes and scratches and noise and the wobble from worn film sprocket holes.... whatever that's called..... all the stuff which is rarely added to a newer film because it apparently looks better, only for effect.

Anyway..... no doubt much of how you want old films to look comes down to personal taste. I can handle lots of "oldness" and even black & white is acceptable, but I find excessive noise distracting.

I don't recall the Seven Samurai Bluray being "too perfect" because for me there was too much noise in the way (I'd have to go back and look at it). I guess I won't be popular, but I noise removal-ed it when hard-coding the subtitles. As much as I could without damaging the underlying picture detail too much. It still looks like an old B&W movie to me. Just with less distracting noise and blemishes.

So much of it is personal taste, and somehow I managed to pause on a subtitle that expresses the same opinion.......

[hello_hello]

I couldn't call a 1080p video encoded at 500kb/s "quality" either.

That pleases me!

I'll bite then. Now you've acknowledge HD can be low quality, the point of this thread is???

[newpball]

I couldn't call a 1080p video encoded at 500kb/s "quality" either.

That pleases me!

I'll bite then. Now you've acknowledge HD can be low quality, the point of this thread is???

The point of this poll is to get the opinions of the membership if SD video is considered quality video.

That's kind of what a poll does it polls people's opinions.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar you know!

[Cornucopia]

Not to go too far OT, but the Kurosawa clip reminded me: I've been checking out the Leica M Monochrom cam lately. It is a full sensor digital cam that shoots 24Mpixel stills or 1080p 24/25 video. What is special about it is that it does not have a Bayer- or any type of CFA in front of the sensor (just microlenses & minor AA/OLPF), so it ONLY shoots in Black &White (aka grayscale, luma) and it can save to RAW files (can grade the look).

O...M...G!!!
What glorious footage this puts out!
Makes me remember just how powerful that old B/W medium could be - like Kurosawa, Wilder, Wells, Eisenstein, Truffaut, Bergman...

Please take a look, it's worth it.

Another example of an old technology aesthetic that still has a lot going for it.

Too bad it costs $6k+.

Scott

[LMotlow]

That image in post #13 looks artificially enhanced. It doesn't look like film, certainly not like the director's visual style. It reminds me of some over enhanced BluRay and DVD film transfers that I've thrown away or returned to Amazon. Of course the owner can "fix" whatever they want to suit themselves. There are people who like to watch "movies" and people who don't care for movies but would rather watch "video". I'm often struck when a viewer writes that "Wow, you can see every pore in the guy's face!" Some people do get pleasure from watching pores. Like most folks I've seen poorly made transfers that were just plain sloppy work, and many digital releases that wrecked the original 1940's Technicolor which I have read is difficult to emulate digitally. Many people prefer the original, for various reasons. Many are media-trained to make everything look like DV and have never seen an original film print projected on the big screen. A matter of taste and cultural conditioning, of course. Unfortunately film restoration is a disappearing skill, replaced by sharpeners and hefty denoisers.

The Criterion DVD issue of Seven Samurai looks pretty much like the motion picture I've seen many times in many theaters. The last time I saw it, it was a digital projection rather than a film print, that made me feel I'd been ripped off at the ticket booth and should walk out of the place. Many people see no difference. I always felt that the craftsmen who made most of those celebrated classic b&w and color movies knew exactly what they were doing. The results they got are the outcome of the combination of their vision, skill, and the technology of the day. The last thing I'd want to see is an "enhanced" version of Queen Christina that shows every one of Garbo's facial pores. The point of the movie is the impression the creators wanted to create. If you think of a movie as nothing more than an "accurate recording", you miss the point. If anything, most movies were never intended to be minutely "accurate" in every detail.

[smrpix]

I tend to look at it from the point of view that "film grain has always been unwanted noise". It's been a problem for so long that older, grainer film has definitely taken on a "look" of it's own but I don't think there's too many instances where you could refer to it as "what the director intended".

Grain is always a tricky argument. In the 70's particularly, as faster color stocks became available the "grainy" look became popular as well as necessary. Eventually it became almost a shorthand for gritty reality. Even today, artificial grain mimicking various film stocks is frequently used to mellow the digital look.

I agree with LMotlow on this:

I always felt that the craftsmen who made most of those celebrated classic b&w and color movies knew exactly what they were doing. The results they got are the outcome of the combination of their vision, skill, and the technology of the day.

One minor crime, for example, was doing wire removal on the cowardly lion's tail in Wizard of Oz. On the other the hand, the film as a whole quite literally looks better than ever.

[hello_hello]

That image in post #13 looks artificially enhanced. It doesn't look like film, certainly not like the director's visual style. It reminds me of some over enhanced BluRay and DVD film transfers that I've thrown away or returned to Amazon.

Please tell me you looked at it at full resolution and not resized in the browser, because if it looks anything like it looks to me resized
(I guess it's the forum software doing the resizing?) then yes, it looks over-sharpened and somewhat horrible. If you open the image in it's own tab and make sure the browser isn't resizing it, it should look different.

When I remove noise I try to do nothing but remove noise, which is of course impossible, but I try to get as close to that as I can. Sometimes, but not in this case, I use LSFMod to apply a little sharpening. As a general rule I don't like sharpening but LFSMod doesn't make a video look "sharpened" in small doses, so I use it a bit. As I said though, not in this case. Hopefully what you're seeing is just the forum software resizing the image.