I read a news today, oh boy, [or DV HD is totally shit]

[S8 Booster]

I read a news today, oh boy,
About a lucky man who made a grade,
And though the news was rather sad,
Well, I just had to laugh.
I saw the photograph.

Well, today I had the chance to compare 2 episodes of "Chicago Hope" one being shot on Kodak V500T (Standard) and one (off episode) shot on HD DV.

To those ever trying to tell me that DV HD is "close" or "nearly as good as" the film version I have a good advice. Get out of any film buzz or anything film related immediately. You haven´t a faint idea. Super8 is far to fancy and sophisticated for you.

The magic is totally gone and the imaging is shit. Punktum Finale.

HD originated on film and WP transferred is a different story - to avoid confusion.

R

[christoph]

The magic is totally gone and the imaging is shit. Punktum Finale.

oh, here we go again... hehe...

I read a news today, oh boy,
About a lucky man who made a grade,
And though the news was rather sad,
Well, I just had to laugh.
I saw the photograph.

beatles, a day in the life... *ping*

funny coincidence, i once made a super8 film (well, something like a music clip one could say) about that song, about 10 years ago - actually one of the very first films i've ever made.

maybe i should make a quicktime file and post it (specially for freya, since it was shot on K40 and mostly lit with worklights ;)
++ christoph ++

[mattias]

Well, today I had the chance to compare 2 episodes of "Chicago Hope" one being shot on Kodak V500T (Standard) and one (off episode) shot on HD DV.

i'm pretty sure that was shot on old 60i hd equipment though, which means it's just regular video with some extra lines that you pretty much throw away in broadcast anyway...

/matt

[S8 Booster]

Can´t really tell. The images had "cheap" colours like all Video originated stuff I have seen and looking as "flat"as well.

Here are the details about the HDTV episode:
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/apr99/chicago/pg1.htm
May tell you more.

I can not for my best imagination understand how this shit could ever look substantially better than what I saw.

I will try to post some clips later. I have taped them. It may not be any reference stuff but still the difference may be clearly visual.

The "dark" shots seemed to work better than the better looking shots though. The well lit ones looked really bad.


R

[Old Uncle Barry]

I'm no expert,far from it,on digital media but the best STILL imaging only manages 5 million pixels at this time in technology,whereas film is measured at 48million.
It will take time to match that by which time most of you young people out there will have discovered football or some other dumb-arsed sport to occupy your time!!!! To clarify,yes football is dumb-arsed too--unless you are a real anorak and like to film it..............................

[istvan]

quote from the article booster linked us up to:

"especially when progressive-scan, 1080-line, high-def cameras become available in mid-1999. "

So yes, mathias, HD is looking a lot better now. I worked on a commercial some weeks a go, shot on HD. Haven´t been able to see the final results yet, and I am pretty sure you can tell it not being film, but on the HD monitor it did look pretty good.

Anyone in Norway look out for the next new tv-ad from Rimi, and let´s see what it looks like.

Istvan