Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn
Mutt, I find that hdv footage when lit really nicely looks better to the observer in the final encoded state at say WMV with 4500 Kbps video bitrate than a comparable bitrate SD WMV file would. You can most notice the difference in details like the texture and color of a model's flowing hair and in things that glisten, like say saliva dripping off a hard cock. To my eye, even at a glance there is a whole pseudo 3D look that hi-def footage has that makes it pop off the screen a bit more than SD footage does, again assuming expert lighting in both cases.
|
I think that regardless of how you output the file, the source counts for a ton. Saying that you can get comparable finished product from a 6MP camera and a 22MP camera is just silly. The 22MP is getting soooooooooo much more source information that it's image will just be better, regardless of the final size. Why do you think almost all major publications shoot cover shots with 4x5 and 8x10s rather than 35mm???
The same holds true for the video production. A camera in HD will get a better source to work with than an SD unit. When you downsample it is noticable.
I agree with you regarding the depth of an HD unit... it has a more realistic feel to it than SD.