...High Definition Could Be a View Too Real

[A_DeAngelo]

intersting read on the topic of HD in this morning's times... on the subject of one of the major stumbling blocks we became aware of a while back when we were faced with shooting HD videos...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/bu...ewanted=1&_r=1

[Paco]

All I can say is :haha: !

I always wondered if some of these people look in the mirror and become disapointed when they see what is truly there.

Many from Hollywood are complaining about the same thing.

One thing is for sure: the automotive paint booth for humans will once again become popular!

[tombarr]

I just got my first HD TV and wow what a difference! I can see that it would take a lot to hide imperfections in this format than in previous TV standards....

I sure wouldn't want to be on my TV screen!

[A_DeAngelo]

All I can say is :haha: !

I always wondered if some of these people look in the mirror and become disapointed when they see what is truly there.

Many from Hollywood are complaining about the same thing.

One thing is for sure: the automotive paint booth for humans will once again become popular!

it really is too FUCKING unreal - personally, I hate make-up (not just on me) but on models - it comes off and leaves a mess on everything unless the make-up artist uses fixatives and all kinds of other chemicals and, its real scarey looking into the face of another model who is all made-up - and its all such a waste to spend all of that money when it comes off

my bitch - for a morning full of it already (awakened by helicopters to early this AM)

[IdolKnights]

Funny, a year ago I asked about models with Pimples on their ass.

The answer was "The surfer likes that" "makes it more real" "It's so hot"

[A_DeAngelo]

Funny, a year ago I asked about models with Pimples on their ass.

The answer was "The surfer likes that" "makes it more real" "It's so hot"

yeah, but regular pimples are one thing - huge "in-your-face" HD super Hi-Rez pimples are "pimples of a different color"...

[citiboyz]

Ugh. Who would've said that?? That's not what my customers like to see. Ugh. But anyway, I've been saying since the start of HD that I didn't think watching porn in HD would be that great because of just the reasons stated in the NYT article. If we shoot in high enough quality to begin with, and keep that high quality throughout the editing and manufacturing process, it looks good enough to me, in my opinion, and I am in no hurry to switch to HD. Having said that, I'm sure that everything will be HD in the years to come, but for right now I don't think our customers are going to care about it.

Funny, a year ago I asked about models with Pimples on their ass. The answer was "The surfer likes that" "makes it more real" "It's so hot"

[XXXWriterDude]

I certainly don't want to see HD porn. Personally, I like the grittiness of the old '70s flicks. That's grainy quality is what makes them so hot.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... contemporary porn is too well shot. It's overlit, it's overstaged and it's overdone. Who has sex in bright lights? Who wants to see every nook and cranny of someone's body? I like sex in the shadows. It's more real.

[basschick]

i saw articles about this in both mainstream and webmaster articles.

there ARE ways to set most camcorders to record in a more flattering portrait mode, and that should help. certain lights are more flattering and there are probably things you can do in the video processing as well.

the way i look at it, if HD makes us more money, it's worth hiring a makeup artist for a few hundred a day. i'd avoid students and bargain makeup artists without seeing plenty of their sample work, though, as you could end up really LOOKING made up or even worse, have every spot covered with cover up showing clearly so you'd have spots :shock:

[gaysearch4sex]

, I heard on a mainstream site that cameron diaz's face looks AWFUL in HD, even with makeup on... it exposes all the stars flaws that they try to hide

[gaybucks_chip]

We're experiencing the same thing.

We are shooting in HD now (HUGE pain in the ass, it's a tapeless format, so you capture to memory cards or a portable hard drive, then transfer the 75 gigs worth of files to the PC and back it up on the RAID array).

But HD is very unforgiving. Not only is it unforgiving to the model -- every ass hair is shown in exquisite detail -- but focus becomes a very sticky issue... you have to have it in precise focus or it's really noticeable, unlike regular DV video, where the lower resolution will cover minor focus imperfections. And the camera's viewfinder or built-in LCD display isn't capable of displaying the high resolution -- not enough pixels -- so to check your fine focus, you have either use an external monitor or the "focus assist" which blows up a small portion of the image on the LCD display to refine focus.

The main reason we started shooting HD content was to have the highest quality for the assets going forward... people may not want it now, but in 2 or 3 years, it might end up being a standard... so we figure the more assets we capture now, the better off we will be.

But... we will most likely continue to downconvert all of our HD material to SD for release on DVD or on the websites. And once downconverted, it looks pretty similar to regular DV content.

[basschick]

chip, sony is making an HD mini dv. does the panasonic not use it? it may if it takes regular mini dvs as well as whatever else it takes...

can't WAIT to see what you've done with it so far. you know i was salivating over the panasonic months before it was released

[SPACE GLIDER]

With HD You find out that there are a LOT more freckled people in the world, I'll tell you that

[Jasun]

Funny.. we're not going to get into it just yet.

But when we do, we did a test... and it's not going to be a problem for us.

I hate perfect 20 year old men and I can't wait til they're old and fat and have wrinkles and no hair.

[gaybucks_chip]

chip, sony is making an HD mini dv. does the panasonic not use it? it may if it takes regular mini dvs as well as whatever else it takes...

We looked into the Sony product. It's not full HD; in order to fit the amount of data onto tape (about 5x the amount of data as regular def), they compress the hell out of it, discard a significant portion of the color data, and convert to MPEG-2, which is basically compressed DVD format, albeit at a higher bitrate than regular DVD. It's still decent 720p, but you can't get full 1080p resolution with full color depth out of it. The ultra-compressed Sony/JVC format is called HDV; true 1080p is called DVC-HDPro (well, Panasonic's name, anyway) and it outputs data at a rate of 100MB/second. vs about 25MB/second for HDV.

Believe me, it would be much easier to use tape, but we felt that the quality difference would make the added effort worthwhile in the long run. We do have the option of using tape in the Panasonic HVX, but it would be at the lower resolution.

I'll be interested in seeing the material as well. We haven't even started to look at it in any detail yet, I'm sure it will be interesting to say the least