lo-fi vs hi-def

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #37354
      Avatarblumantaray
      Participant

      Maybe this is an odd start to a thread because I don’t have any real question per se, I just find it interesting how (and correct me if I’m wrong) as the technology for creating movies and distributing them gets better and better we have websites like youtube and google video where millions of people are watching some of the most horrendously compressed video I’ve ever seen. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking these sites, because they do what they do well — they bring content to the masses with speed and can expose a lot of people to new audiences. But now video production, even for corporations, requires riding this thin line between lo-fi content that can be cheaply and broadly distributed, and hi-def cutting edge content that expresses professionalism.

      I can’t really think of any good examples where a company has done both, which may weaken my argument (maybe you can), but it’s a discussion worth having. What do people seem to want more of these days?

    • #165524
      Avatardomineaux
      Participant

      I presume you are talking about website playback of video

      It’s got a lot more to do with user connection speeds andcomputer hardware when you provide video in HD.

      HDrequires moreresources at the server level.

      If we didn’t have DSL and Cable connections theYoutube would notexist even using standard def.

      Most sites woulddo well to have a standardand Hi-Def choice.

      This way users can click on Standard, whichisn’t that bad in some formats.

      I have an e6600 quad core processor OC to 3.4GHz, 4 gig of ram,nvidia 8800gtxOC 512MB Video cardand DSL connection.WHen I try to play HD I frequentlycannot get a good stream, and must constantly click on the arrow.There are some good formats that playback very good resolution quality and they aren’t HD.

    • #165525
      Avatarjerronsmith
      Participant

      Another issue is that the playback of high definition video requires greater system resources on the viewers computer than the lower definition counterparts.

      One of the rules of thumb in creating content for the web is always to build for the lowest common denominator of your expected audience first.

    • #165526
      Avatarblumantaray
      Participant

      One of the rules of thumb in creating content for the web is always to build for the lowest common denominator of your expected audience first.

      That’s kind of what I was getting at. I guess part of the problem with my question is that I was talking about both production values and content, which is where it gets confusing.

      I finally found an example of what I’m talking about. The company gotvmail recently released viral videos with Gary Busey in them (you can watch them at http://www.garybuseyonbusiness.com). These actually seem more or less professional, shot in a small studio probably, but they also have a kind of lo-f, user-generated feel about them, partly because Gary Busey is so stupid but because they’re so off-the-cuff. I don’t know whether they’re HD or not. But this is the kind of video that could potentially appeal to a youtube surfer while making it clear that it was made by a company with more money than you and your home movie makin’ friends.

      So, to rephrase the question, is it better when companies aim for the kind of idiocy that gets hits these days online, or is there a place for more classic advertisement?

    • #165527
      Avatarjerronsmith
      Participant

      It actually depends on who the audience is. Marketing is targeted to a specific audience.

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Best Products

homicide-bootstrap