Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › General › Video and Film Discussion › is HD really worth it?
- This topic has 7 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 14 years ago by Anonymous.
April 1, 2007 at 4:15 PM #43497AnonymousInactive
i can’t decide if i want the Sony VX2100–not HD but with perfect features–or the Sony HVR-A1U–HD but with less features and too small. Is HD worth it? The low light sucks, and it costs too much for me to get a camera with the right features and HD at the same time. My price range is around $2,000.
I have a feeling that in the next 5 years, everything will be HD and non HD will look horrible.
April 1, 2007 at 5:40 PM #182513AnonymousInactive
Analog broadcasts are scheduled to stop in 2009, replaced by digital broadcasts. That doesn’t necessarily mean HD, but I suspect a lot of people will be switching to HD sets at that time.
Frankly, I think the "low-budget HD production" situation is still being sorted out. From what I read, HDV can show artifacts if too much of the frame moves at once. Granted you could avoid HDV by using a Panasonic HVX200, but those cards are expensive, and not as convenient as an hour-long tape. Burners for HD-DVD and BlueRay have been "almost here" for some time. Has anyone been able to buy one? For what price? And how many viewers own HD players?
My suggestion: If you need to start shooting right now, go with the VX2100. If you can wait a year, the HD situation should be much better for the low-budget videomaker.
My 3 cents worth, 🙂
April 2, 2007 at 9:35 AM #182514AnonymousInactive
This sounds an awful lot like the Megapixel debate among still photographers. One side suggests that more Megapixels doesn’t equal a "better" picture, the other side suggests that more Megapixels always equals a "better" picture.
The Better debate is based on recent findings that show how the average Joe judges picture quality: more on color and contrast, and less on resolution (I’ll hunt this article down if you like).
So, what is better? The answer should depend on our individual wants and likes.
For me, I think there are many non-HD camcorders with a better picture than those with HD. Maybe I’m just an average Joe, but I’d take color and contrast over pixels any day.
*Full disclosure, I am an HD camera owner.
April 2, 2007 at 7:03 PM #182515AnonymousInactive
ok I think I willstick with a non HD. I don’t have much time, and HD, as you said, doesn’t seem to be very good for a good price at this point.
chicoab-that’s a good way to put it, I would take a better looking picture over pixels any day too. Also, I hear HD is much harder to focus manually, since it is so noticable when you can see so much. I don’t like the idea of the camcorder focusing for me.
I have it down to this now: the VX2100 and the Canon GL2. The GL2 is more popular and got better reviews, but I really like the design of the VX2100 more, and low light is important to me. Primarily i will be making wedding videos, but I will also need some random things for a college portfollio-mostly outdoor filming and a lot of green screen. Which do you think would be better? As far as price, B&H has the GL2 for 1750 after rebate, so I’m leaning towards that…but would the VX2100 be worth it?
thanks a lot guys
April 2, 2007 at 7:30 PM #182516AnonymousInactive
thank you, that’s the answer I wanted. I was wondering why you mentioned in an earlier post that low light is important in weddings….yeah, that makes sense. I’ve only done one wedding video and that was with a little camcorder…but apparently i’m really good at it 😀
April 3, 2007 at 10:24 AM #182517dnathanParticipant
I agree. Without a low-light cam, receptions are a pain! A good camera light helps, but then you become as intrusive as those pesky photogs! (Note: *Photogs* are those who step in front of my camera and cannot art-direct to save their lives. *Photographers* are actually cool people, and nice to talk to at long receptions!)
April 3, 2007 at 10:46 AM #182518AnonymousInactive
so what should I (a pro Photographer) call those videographers that get in my way? eg the last wedding I did before I started doing video, the videographer set her tripod up directly in front of my tripod mounted camera (which was set up to do a timelapse video of the ceremony) even after I had politely pointed out the camera to her. Shall I call them vios, viogs, or vidiots?
truthfully, I was tempted to "Accidently" let one of those shots, with her (subject too close to the wide angle lens) distorted ass into the slideshow presentation at the reception….
but I digress…
What did videographers do before the vx2100? did they exist at all?
April 3, 2007 at 11:47 AM #182519dnathanParticipant
Yeah, vidiots works. You might want to capitalize it when they’re really bad. "Those VIDIOTS!"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.