- This topic has 14 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by Anonymous.
[quote="compusolver"]Shucks, the disks are a double-sawbuck each! Shoot, I burned three dozen DVDs today – that would have cost over seven hundred smackers!![/quote]
I know sometimes it’s nice to be on the cutting edge of technology but this is one time I’ll be glad to site back and wait a while for the prices to drop!
I think I’ll be sticking with regular DVDs for the foreseeable future! 😀
I remember several years ago, when I bought my first CD burner for $400. It was a 4x drive. I vaguely recall paying about $100 for a 25 pack of CD-R’s. Today, the guy who runs the computer store down the road gives them away because they’re worthless to him, and you can buy 100 48x or better CD’s for under $10 in places.
Just a few years ago, I dropped a whopping $650 on my state of the art 2x/4x capable DVD +/-R drive, and almost $100 for 10 DVD-R’s. I saw an ad in the paper on Sunday for a 16x DVD burner for $29, and I can buy DVD’s for about a quarter each.
Sure, I COULD drop a grand on this burner (which takes 45 minutes to burn one disc!), and spend another grand on enough disks to maybe get me through a month. But I’ve already made that mistake twice in my life. Besides, in my mind, I still have to deal with the issues that:
1 – There’s still no guarantee that blu-ray will emerge as the consumer standard, and it wouldn’t be the first time that a superior product invented by Sony took the wayside to a more affordable solution. Can we all say "Beta"?
2 – I still don’t think it’s the right time for event videographers to move into High Def. For Television broadcast or "prerecorded" stuff such as promo videos, etc, hi-def is quickly becoming a must have. But the vast majority of my work is live event videography, where there’s usually not a makeup team that will prepare those on the video with the intentions of being filmed. This means that unlike staged events, whre the intent is to produce a video, the bride/groom/others will all be in "normal" makeup (or lack thereof) which means that all Hi-def is going to do is make every single wrinkle, blemish, and mark stand out.
3 – High definition video cameras are still being perfected. It can take years before a product is debugged. Like software, cameras are usually pretty rough in their first edition, and need to be updated. That’s why Sony didn’t stop with the VX-2000, and Canon didn’t give up the XL-1 or the GL-1. On all three of those cameras, serious performance improvements were made, and it wasn’t even very long before their updated counterparts started production. We’re still early in the pioneer era of hi-def. People are trying out new things, coming up with new concepts, and not for another year or two, in my mind, will the hi-def field become one that I would be comfortable entering into. Sure, I can drop $10,000 today to get all the cool hi-def stuff. But what’s thepoint? None of my competition are doing hi-def yet. None of them want to from what I can tell. And next year, the price on all this stuff will drop substantially, moreso in another year when the next generation of hi def cameras come out.
Plus, if I spend $20,000 or better today to upgrade to hi-def, it will be a big financial hit to my business. But here’s the rub. When the other competitors see that On a Roll has gone hi-def, they’re going to do the same if only to keep up with the competition. I’ve seen them do it before. Heck, I’ve done it myself before. But if they wait a year, they might only pay $10,000 for what I’ve spent $20,000 to get this year, which means that unless I make an additional $10,000 this year by switching to hi-def, I’m the loser in the local area.
4 – Finally, every minor glitch is accentuated in high definition. the camera gets slightly bumped, and it’s astoundingly obvious. minor issues that are easy to fix in post now could become monsters that give me editing nghtmares. I’m not really ready for that challenge yet, personally.
I’m not against high definition. Quite the opposite. I would love to have hi-def gear now, and I do believe it will be the future of video. Until we can figure out how to record and display video in true 3-D, hi-def will be the most impressive thing we can have. I think in a few years, I’ll likely switch to high definition, once the technology stabilizes more, and the prices drop. But for today, my plain old DVD burners and affordable disks are the way I’m going.
Plus, there’s NO WAY my wife would EVER let me spend $1000 on a disc drive! 🙂
I have to say that as far as I’m concerned anyway, you hit it all on the head. Very well put! I too am thinking that maybe by 2010 (give or take a year) that Hi-Def will be the norm. I have to say that I can’t wait either. All I have to do is watch a standard show on my 53" HD DLP and then a HD show and the difference is absolutely amazing.
OK… I do have to laugh pertaining to your comments about make-up. It is true because when I watch HD shows on my big screen, you can actually see the pores on people’s faces not to mention every little wrinkle. All of the big NLE’s companies will have to come up with a new filter. They’ll have to call it the "Wrinkle Blender" X-D
Looking at the market research only about 10% of people own HD sets right now. By 2010 depending on who you believe it will be between 50-60 %. Blu-ray and HDDVD don’t offer enough more than that of DVD so people will probably not be as compelled to buy them. The only two things that they have over current DVD is space and interactivity. As far as space goes with the new codecs the data-rate is the same or only slightly higher than SD DVDs. So current DVDs could work fine for HD. On the interactivity side first off most HD disks will not take advantage of these options(especially since the person authoring the disk will have to learn a customized java script to do anything more than dvds can do now). Just look at current DVDs. How many of your disks take advantage of the interactivity features of the format. Moral of the story DVD was a gigantic leap over VHS and it still took 3-4 years to really take off and these formats just don’t have the revolutionary leap over DVD. Since one will eventually win over the other though my money is on HDDVD as it will have the ability to have a layer with a SD version of the film that will play in normal red laser dvd players and then (once you upgrade to a HDDVD player) will utilize the other layers on the disk which will contain the HD version. This is a much more consumer friendly option. Future and past proof this is good. Blu-ray may have more space but consumers (who will ultimately decide the victor of this format war) will go with the option that most benefits them which if Toshiba can implement this forward/backward compatibility by putting both the SD and HD version on one disk HDDVD will win the war. But it is anyones game right now so I wouldent waste my money on any burner unless you have the need to burn large ammounts of data to an optical disk. Other wise wait.
But you’re right about one thing – it’ll all be market-driven. When clients start wanting HD, I’ll deliver HD.
And there it is. Once again, Hank sums up in about a dozen words what I spend a dozen paragraphs on. 😀
I’ve been in video production for a decade, and specifically doing wedding videos here the last almost 4 years now. I can count on one hand the number of people who have asked if I did HD. And ultimately every single one of those people were still happy to book me after I told them "no".
Just to break even, without even turning a profit on going HD, I would need to have someplace in the ballpark of 20 weddings which insisted on HD. So far, I’ve yet to encounter one.
I’m sure in a few years the requests will build, and I’ll give in to the evil underlords of tecnological advancement, but until then I’ll keep clutching onto my SD gear for dear life.