What's the deal with # of p? 480p, 720p, 1080p?

[1337assassin]

its really like saying you need to have an 18 megapixel camera.. because 10 megapixel makes crappy photos.., when the only real difference is resolution..

and there are many people who insist that 12 megapixel cameras are superior to 6 or 8 megapixel cameras, without regard to censor, brand, firmware, etc..

and still others who believe that a film DSLR is inferior to Digital SLR's, which is absurd as well

[edDV]

well.. all my point really is, is that i dont think its sane, rational, or intelligent for people to be touting around who's cameras better than who's..

and that i personally would not buy a high end camera unless i had already purchased everything else i needed which is much more important

Camcorders vary widely in performance and are targeted to different users and workflows. Owning a particular camera says nothing about operator or video making skills.

tell me this.. which do u think is honestly more important, having a High end camera that can record 1080p but that will almost always be compressed to 480, or having one of those giant, extendable hollywood filming cranes that can go anywhere, in any direction, turning the camera at any angle, etc.. and a track and cart

which do u really think produces the best movies? the camera.. or the cart and crane?

These are just tools that may or may not be needed for a particular production. For most students I'd point to standard def DV format as most practical with the least technical or cost barriers.

When you get to the point you want to do a serious production, all the tools can be rented as can staff to run them.

any camera would work.. to produce movies that were 1000's of times better than the guy holding his "prosumer" camcorder which isnt even shoulder mounted..

in fact, most of those high-end consumer cameras look like really cheap crappy ones, simply because the video is so difficult to hold still and move around smoothly

True but perfect stable framing and exposure are not needed to learn the craft. Lighting skills are far more important. You do the best you can. Understand the principles. Worry about hardware after film school when you have a budget.

[1337assassin]

and i've been to many photography exhibitions where the scene and model or product was set up with the lighting and everything just right, and there probably isnt a single person who took a photo with their own little camera who didnt walk out of there with a photo equally as beautiful or more beautiful than many of the DSLR users there

[edDV]

and i've been to many photography exhibitions where the scene and model or product was set up with the lighting and everything just right, and there probably isnt a single person who took a photo with their own little camera who didnt walk out of there with a photo equally as beautiful or more beautiful than many of the DSLR users there

So you are arguing camera designs not user skill or a script. If you don't understand the differences you lack appreciation of what a pro camera is for.

Your personal needs are probably different. If you want a pro job or produce pro results, you will need to learn the difference.

First you need to define your production goal. The equipment choice will follow.

[1337assassin]

True but perfect stable framing and exposure are not needed to learn the craft. Lighting skills are far more important. You do the best you can. Understand the principles. Worry about hardware after film school when you have a budget.

i personally dont see the need to go from DV to HD.. honestly, if you have a great Prosumer 3CCD camera.. i honestly dont think you will ever need HD..

Are you burning BlueRays? doubtful.

Do all the people going to watch your movies have Blu-ray players? even more doubtful..

Are you going to be broadcasting online in HD full format? way way more doubtful

so.. all you are really left with, is professional production, for hire, and for output to HD.. as your source of income.., or in a studio or on a set, in which case they will provide the camera for you..

to use HD you need to be able to store ALL of your footage in HDD's, without compressing below HD as well, meaning you will need 20 different 3TB drives,

90% of people with HD capable camcorders are also recording in 720 format.. the same as 90% of the people with 12 megapixel cameras are dropping them down to 2 megapixels for their online use.. except for professional photographers

i just dont see how anyone can justify it, unless they are making money with it..

and to render a decent film in HD in a reasonable amount of time, to blu-ray specs.. you are going to need a computer that hasnt been invented yet

[1337assassin]

First you need to define your production goal. The equipment choice will follow.

exactly my point.. the only factor is your production goal.. and unless your end use is going to be a sky-scraper-sized billboard.. theres no reason for 20MP's.. ever... period.. and is only for those being paid to produce that content.

and the same thing as there is absolutely no use for HD camcorders except by those professional HD content creators paid to do it

[guns1inger]

First you need to define your production goal. The equipment choice will follow.

exactly my point.. the only factor is your production goal.. and unless your end use is going to be a sky-scraper-sized billboard.. theres no reason for 20MP's.. ever... period.. and is only for those being paid to produce that content.

and the same thing as there is absolutely no use for HD camcorders except by those professional HD content creators paid to do it

Based on that logic, there is no reason for most people to use cars when perfectly good horses exist.

[1337assassin]

Based on that logic, there is no reason for most people to use cars when perfectly good horses exist.

more accurately, its like theres no reason to buy a car that goes 200 mph, when the maximum speed limit is 60 mph

[edDV]

and i've been to many photography exhibitions where the scene and model or product was set up with the lighting and everything just right, and there probably isnt a single person who took a photo with their own little camera who didnt walk out of there with a photo equally as beautiful or more beautiful than many of the DSLR users there

Sure if they set lights flat for limited dynamic range. Still the the resulting pictures will differ due to lens characteristics, depth of field, sensor properties and file compression artifacts.

[1337assassin]

or more like buying an F1 car.. when it can only be used by professionals..

[hech54]

This reminds me of the "megapixel" talk in still cameras. My little Canon 10 megapixel camera, with a lens the size of my pinky nail and a sensor about the same size is absolutely demolished(quality wise) by my old 6 megapixel DSLR with a lens that my son can almost fit his head into and a sensor the size of a CF card.....but that portable camera is going to produce "HD video" and store it on an SD card?
NOT a chance. In the short time the term "HD Video" has been around it has already been completely misused and trampled on by advertising and marketing execs.

[1337assassin]

right.. and if people know what they want and want it, well, great.. but the problem is that most people dont really know what they want, nor why they want what they think they want..

alot of beginners especially, will think they have to go out and buy the nicest camera on the market, without even knowing much about the art..

a 6MP DSLR is all anyone needs, actually..except for people doing it for other professionals with specific needs

and i'm willing to bet that even with your 6MP DSLR, you have never shot in RAW format, nor ever used a picture at the highest resolution..

when 6MP DSLR's came out they were considered almost perfect in terms of fulfilling their purpose. that performance hasnt changed

but alot of consumers keep spending their money on these things, and they hardly even use them, and may not even really understand how to use them, nor even if they really needed them and why

its important for people to know that they dont need an HD camcorder, and that its not going to do anything for them but cost them time and money, in making upgrades to their system and workflow, for something they will literally never ever use, even for the most sophisticated of home video hobbyists

they dont make big enough storage devices, nor fast enough computers to deal with HD video on a consumer level.. nor is the storage media in the HD recording devices themselves adequately large and efficient enough to be used by anyone without the absolute need to market and sell it

and same with DSLR's.. theres simply no reason you need a bigger MP camera, but there are newer functions you may have your eye on, but your MP will not be any more maximized or used more than they currently are

[1337assassin]

however, when QuadHDTV's come down in price to the level of current HD TV's, and work as computer monitors and there is a real tv/internet merging.. then there may well be use for much higher MP's and HD.. provided all the computer processors and Storage devices are adequately large and fast enough to make them as easy and usable as DV is with what we own today

many years down the road

when tv becomes "QuadHD TV", and we are beyond Terabytes

[1337assassin]

all the lenses are the same on the HD devices as they are on the standard DV ones..
the ONLY difference between standard DV and HD, is the same difference between 6MP and 20MP.. size difference

instead of already needing to compress your DV movie to fit on a disk, you now have to compress it 4 times more. wait 4 times longer, need a computer thats 4 times faster, need 6 times the storage space, all so you can end up with a final product that looks identical to what you had before..

[hech54]

and i'm willing to bet that even with your 6MP DSLR, you have never shot in RAW format, nor ever used a picture at the highest resolution.

Don't bet on it.

[edDV]

True but perfect stable framing and exposure are not needed to learn the craft. Lighting skills are far more important. You do the best you can. Understand the principles. Worry about hardware after film school when you have a budget.

i personally dont see the need to go from DV to HD.. honestly, if you have a great Prosumer 3CCD camera.. i honestly dont think you will ever need HD..

Are you burning BlueRays? doubtful.

Do all the people going to watch your movies have Blu-ray players? even more doubtful..

Are you going to be broadcasting online in HD full format? way way more doubtful

so.. all you are really left with, is professional production, for hire, and for output to HD.. as your source of income.., or in a studio or on a set, in which case they will provide the camera for you..

to use HD you need to be able to store ALL of your footage in HDD's, without compressing below HD as well, meaning you will need 20 different 3TB drives,

90% of people with HD capable camcorders are also recording in 720 format.. the same as 90% of the people with 12 megapixel cameras are dropping them down to 2 megapixels for their online use.. except for professional photographers

i just dont see how anyone can justify it, unless they are making money with it..

and to render a decent film in HD in a reasonable amount of time, to blu-ray specs.. you are going to need a computer that hasnt been invented yet

OK it seems like your goals are home video.

Standard def DV is still fine for many shoots and certainly for computer upload. Problem is standard def won't come close to what most people see on their broadcast HDTV. Quality expectations are changing. Consumer HD cameras and camcoders show nicely on an HDTV when played directly from the camera. The skills required for editing and encoding to Blu-Ray are generally lacking. Many are slow to geek up. There are many ways to do it.

People can watch from Blu-Ray players, game consoles, HD media players or computers. In another year, most homes will have an HD player of some sort.

The main issue is whether the video you shoot today is expected to have longevity. DV will soon be like S-VHS and Hi8 after DVD was introduced. Still usable but not up to the new standards of quality.

I like to recommend HDV format for this period of transition. You can record HD but transfer and edit direct to DV and DVD. The added camera quality comes through to the DVD. The HD camera master is there for the future HD edit. This arguement has fallen on deaf ears for most. They run out and buy AVCHD cams then don't know what to do next. AVCHD requires a fast computer for editing and a lossy downsize for DVD.

Still those that want to edit HD (HDV or AVCHD) can do so with the latest versions of hardware and software. Most encode to MPeg2 or h.264 in an m2ts transport stream playable from DVDR media on a Blu-Ray or game player. Others go to MKV wrappers for playback on HD media players. No big deal. New HDTV sets will soon be able to play these files directly. So far HD is being adopted faster than DVD was.

Pro video is on several tracks for the HD conversion. Equipment and techniques vary for news, sports, advertising, training, event videography and film style (TV series or movies).

[1337assassin]

and i'm willing to bet that even with your 6MP DSLR, you have never shot in RAW format, nor ever used a picture at the highest resolution.

Don't bet on it.

right,, and then you must be printing them out.. and then it depends on how large of a photo you aim to be printing out..

and then you'll find that you need to drop the DSLR altogether and go with a large or medium format camera..

and then you'll realize you really dont need that afterall,

and then you will go back to a DSLR.. realizing that 6mp was really all you needed

[1337assassin]

I like to recommend HDV format for this period of transition. You can record HD but transfer and edit direct to DV and DVD. The added camera quality comes through to the DVD. The HD camera master is there for the future HD edit. This arguement has fallen on deaf ears for most. They run out and buy AVCHD cams then don't know what to do next. AVCHD requires a fast computer for editing and a lossy downsize for DVD.

Still those that want to edit HD (HDV or AVCHD) can do so with the latest versions of hardware and software. Most encode to MPeg2 or h.264 in an m2ts transport stream playable from DVDR media on a Blu-Ray or game player. Others go to MKV wrappers for playback on HD media players. No big deal. New HDTV sets will soon be able to play these files directly. So far HD is being adopted faster than DVD was.

Pro video is on several tracks for the HD conversion. Equipment and techniques vary for news, sports, advertising, training, event videography and film style (TV series or movies).

i definitely recommend holding off

we are maxed out at 3TB.. and our processing power isnt the greatest and Windows 7 is still young and in desperate need of development and acceptance

of course, as i stated, except for those comprehending and understanding professionals needing to market and sell their HD quality material.

and yes.. all anyone else on the planet with an HD camera is doing is encoding them to portable or streaming format or to regular DVD whilst imagining they are getting better quality.. hence, the lack of any use whatsoever for HD..

[edDV]

...they dont make big enough storage devices, nor fast enough computers to deal with HD video on a consumer level.. nor is the storage media in the HD recording devices themselves adequately large and efficient enough to be used by anyone without the absolute need to market and sell it

HDV can be nativelly edited with a reasonable speed Core2 Duo. The i5/i7 handle AVCHD ok. Disk size isn't an issue vs. DV. HDV and AVCHD top out at the same 25 Mb/s as DV. 2TB drives are now under $100. Software is there for smart render HDV (zero generation loss camera to DVDR/Blu-Ray disc). AVCHD still needs a recode unless you cut on I frames.

It is an advanced hobbiest game but so was DV editing and DVD authoring. Few did it then and few will with HD. Most don't even know how to dump to hard drive. Sandisk stock is going sky high.

[hech54]

and i'm willing to bet that even with your 6MP DSLR, you have never shot in RAW format, nor ever used a picture at the highest resolution.

Don't bet on it.

right,, and then you must be printing them out..

I can't remember the last time I printed a photo. I had an Adorama Photobook printed for my folks last Christmas...that's about it. I only own little HP Deskjet printers and all of mine have died from lack of use - gathering dust literally.

[jagabo]

Show me an epic film that was shot in 4 pixels by 3 pixels.
Reprocess gone with the wind or whatever to 4x3 pixels, it will lose some impact.

Gone with the Wind was shot at 1.37:1. Very nearly 4:3 (1.33:1). So was Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane, and pretty much every other film before 1953.

[guns1inger]

Some of GWTW was shot with a three camera widescreen process that required three projectors for playback. It was only shown this way in a handful of cinemas though. But yes, many great films were made before widescreen became the norm.

It's not the frame, it's what you put in it that counts.

[jagabo]

Some of GWTW was shot with a three camera widescreen process

I was going by what IMDB listed.

Aspect ratio
1.37 : 1 (intended ratio)
1.37 : 1 (negative ratio)
2.20 : 1 (70 mm prints)

I assumed all the widescreen prints were pan-and-scan crops of the original.

Wikipedia has this to say:

The 1954 release was the first time the studio issued the film in widescreen, compromising the original Academy ratio and cropping the top and bottom to an aspect ratio of 1.75:1. In doing so, a number of shots were optically re-framed and cut into the three-strip camera negatives, forever altering five shots in the film.[27] The 70 mm re-issue of the film cropped the film further, to a very narrow ratio of 2.20:1. The 1998 theatrical reissue and the VHS and DVD releases restored the film to its original aspect ratio.

[bendixG15]

another thread gone to hell

[Inertially]

Show me an epic film that was shot in 4 pixels by 3 pixels.
Reprocess gone with the wind or whatever to 4x3 pixels, it will lose some impact.

Gone with the Wind was shot at 1.37:1. Very nearly 4:3 (1.33:1). So was Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane, and pretty much every other film before 1953.

....so...
I said 4x3 pixels, meaning 12 pixels total, 4 horizontal pixels and 3 vertical pixels.
Not 4:3 resolution (proportion)

So what I learned from this topic is I need a better camera .
This topic was never about convincing everyone that they need the most expensive camera for requirements that will be satisfied with a cheaper one.

How do you get an idea of what quality of footage from a camera with video capture abilities or camcorder?
With photos, it's the sensor size, lens is major but I don't know how you can check lens quailty by looking at a spec sheet, and then it's looking at sample photos.

Besides looking at sample videos from the camcorder or camera, how do you get an idea of its video quality? From its spec sheet listed on the manufacturer's site? As I've questioned in the topic question, the "number of p" boasted by ads by manufacturers and retailers do not give a good indication. Is MJPEG compression bad?
(This is not a question asking you to convince me that quality absolutely does not matter and to convince me that 128x96 pixelated smeared video is absolutely fine (without any supporting samples), which this topic was hijacked to become.)

I think what you are missing is 480p, 720p, etc are not an indication of quality.

No, that's what I said in the first post. but people decided they would rather do an off topic rant.


1337assassin, if that is your real name, what is your background is what equipment do you use if the camera does not matter?

[jagabo]

Show me an epic film that was shot in 4 pixels by 3 pixels.
Reprocess gone with the wind or whatever to 4x3 pixels, it will lose some impact.

Gone with the Wind was shot at 1.37:1. Very nearly 4:3 (1.33:1). So was Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane, and pretty much every other film before 1953.

....so...
I said 4x3 pixels, meaning 12 pixels total, 4 horizontal pixels and 3 vertical pixels.
Not 4:3 resolution (proportion)

Ah. I misinterpreted your post because movies in the GWTW era were shot on film -- which doesn't have pixels. So I thought you meant aspect ratio.

[1337assassin]

1337assassin, if that is your real name, what is your background is what equipment do you use if the camera does not matter?

thats my real name.. my family and friends just call me 1337 for short..

i generally purchase what I need..

I have been in professional desktop publishing since 1991, I'm an amateur film maker, and a have my own Photography studio, and come from a family of long-time professional photographers

i began with the first version of Adobe Photoshop ever made

And while I do not think the first version is highly useful in todays demanding environment, I will say that I do not think anyone needs to buy the latest version of Photoshop, if they have one 2 or 3 versions back, unless there is specific features you know you need

honestly, the time you may or may not save with certain new features is generally offset by the time it takes to learn it fluently, and the larger footprint it leaves on your computer.

they come out with a new CS version every year.. and no professional can spend all their time learning the latest CS except for people in the market for a job, or people selling that skill, or training others for that skill

so i will tell you straight out, that anyone who just buys the newest and best thing on the market is someone with more of a pathological disorder, like narcissism, and is really only doing it for the benefit of what they look like to other people.

If you happen to be a first time buyer, and you are in the market, or its been a while since you upgraded, or you know exactly what features you absolutely want to play with.. get the latest version, by all means

same thing with after effects, or premiere..

You can honestly do everything you need to do with premiere 6.5, if you can get your hands on a copy.. in fact, its even more powerful in many ways than the latest versions which kowtow to the film industry's demands for copyright protections and other such nonsense.

people made a great deal of money using the first Photoshop,, and they made a great deal of money an professional films with premiere 6.5, as did a lot of photographers make and still make alot of money with cameras the so-called 'techie' crowd laughs and scoffs at as they tout around their spanking new camera without spot or scuff as a type of adornment and idolatry

real photographers may have a very beaten up camera, used as much as possible, and as long as possible.. even years after several new models have already came out, and even if they do buy the latest model now and again, they often use the older ones as back-ups, or for extreme conditions, etc. and make just as nice and perfect photographs as they always did, and get paid just the same

i will tell you that I am still waiting for a camera that is one to 3 generations beyond the D700 before I make a purchase from the D300, and I can tell you that between the D200 and the D300, nobody needs the difference except for novices without vast photography and camera experience, and I can tell you that the D70s can take identically beautiful photos to any of the cameras since, up to the max resolution of the D70s

and I can also tell you that I am not going to buy HD until we are beyond Terabytes. as any video or film maker who is even semi-serious has more footage from regular DV than he can possibly fit on storage which is currently available, and unless all you shoot is family Birthday parties, you will never have enough space for Semi-serious film shooting and clip collection using HD..

yes, they are both the same size when unleashed on your HDD fom the miniDV cassette, only one is about 10 minutes long..

[1337assassin]

in fact, i can guarantee you that 95% of the industry is not using Photoshop CS5

[1337assassin]

and the only people needing HD are people marketing and selling that, where people would buy or use their service because it comes on Blu-ray disks, over other competitors services who dont offer them, such as wedding services, etc..

there is no independent film maker that needs HD

[1337assassin]

its really quite a strange social anomaly and odd fluke that the term "Techie" should even be affiliated with Photography and Filmography

honestly.. i dont think "techies" really get either one of them..