Sony F23 or Fisher-Price PXL2000: With the right lens, and the right vision, does it really matter?
We waste too much time talking about acquisition formats. How DVCPRO HD compares to HDV and HDCAM. The benefits and drawbacks of 1080p, 1080i and 720p. The supremacy (or idolatry) of 24fps. The quintessence of 4K. None of that really matters. Recording formats are too removed from subject matter to make a big difference in the quality of a story. This goes for corporate, docs, broadcast, indie and Hollywood work.
Access to the last 90 days of content is always free. Paid subscribers can access older stories as part of their membership.
Posted by Tim Kolb on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 @ 10:50 AM
2.
And fact of the matter is clients and customers will all see the finished product on the same format (DVD or tape) and most have no clue when they see the final product, what format it was produced in. During the DV revolution, colleages would be floored when I showed them I was producing series television programming with a DVCAM. Their impression without utilizing the technology at the time was foreign to them. I agree the "User" has the greatest influence on the quality of the image and is probably the most important variable in all of this.
Posted by Paul Evans on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 @ 11:18 AM
3.
I totally agree, and would like to add that you can do wonders in post, and you can totally degrade and destroy your image in post. You can improve you picture with deartifacting (ala Magic Bullet) and uprez. But you can can also suck the life out of your pictures by not keeping track of video levels, using lossy codecs for editing and losing whole generations laying back to compressed tape formats. There are several books and forums that can help you establish a post workflow that enhances your image, rather than boiling it to death (like fast food cooking).
Posted by Deane Patterson on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 @ 01:11 PM
4.
Your article cuts to the quick with insight and knowledge of the process. Simply put, as always, garbage in ~ garbage out... no matter what the format. Your articulation is most heartening to those in the lower ranks of aquisition in that it is possible to create a quality product with less than a stellular budget with time, experimentation and understanding of the craft.
Posted by Jason Stone on Friday, July 13, 2007 @ 03:46 PM
5.
For optics, lighting and content, I agree. But other area such as commercial values I don't totally agree. Certain networks have to mandate a technical standards such as camera and format acquisition. Otherwise, they'll all be shot on 1/3" prosumer HD. Why don't Hollywood blockbusters all shoot on HD over 35mm film?
As a premium subscriber to virtually all of the HDTV channels on Direct TV, I wouldn't want to be experiencing HD quality w/ 100% 1/3" prosumer HD cam originated content. I can sympathize if it's used due to the physical hardship (such as reality show or undercover footage). There's a huge difference between those prosumer vs. broadcast when I flip the channel. Gosh, my girlfriend with absolutely no technical background whatsoever - can discern the difference between various content quality differences.
Software solution like Magic Bullet is not bullet proof. There're quite a few artifacts and other annoying imperfections. It's a good work around, but not a replacement for the real thing. Same thing goes for FCS2-Color. It's great, but quality is just not there when using it on a real-time DaVinci system.
Posted by Dean on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 @ 05:51 AM
6.
Of course the technical qualities are important. Lighting, camera, lenses, digital design and wisdom can create wonderful appearance on the screen, but can they hold the audience for more than 60min. That is the question.
Editing and good planning of scenes with good technical skills and back up is the basis of the film or video. The contend and what do you want to tell is the essence of this art.
I still watch 16mm shot of “Nanook of the North” and Potemkin BW old old films with interest that never fades.
Posted by Adam on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 @ 02:30 AM
7.
I agree, garbage in=garbage out.
HOWEVER, format is a huge deal in the world of post-production. Compare keying DV footage to any HD format. Regardless of lighting & lenses, the higher resolutions allow for a lot more latitude. This is especially true when it comes to scaling footage, post camera moves, color keying, and vfx integration. Hi-res formats make an editors job to produce a high-quality deliverable a lot easier.
But yeah, you can only do so much with poorly shot footage - a polished turd is still a turd. I hear you there.
Posted by Dan on Thursday, August 30, 2007 @ 10:53 AM
8.
Re: girlfriends noticing different in format...
She must be pretty astute. I've asked dozens of consumers (wife included) watching various programs what they thought of the quality differences between sources obviously shot on different formats. They look at me like I'm weird. Most regular consumers of video don't seem to care about quality differences. About the only comments I get are on HOW the footage is shot, e.g. the latest Bourne movie and the shakiness or home videos with numerous zooms.
Posted by Brad on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 @ 04:26 PM
Post your comments below
