--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "[chrisbrogan.com]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All really good points. Well, okay. Maybe I'll switch to HD in 2007. > My personal production is for small screen only, so I'm not really > thinking much about it, but if I'm doing field work FOR someone else, > I should have a decent rig for them. > > --Chris... >
Windows Media HD Content Showcase: http://tinyurl.com/lrsj7 >System Requirements >> Minimum configuration for 720p >>> 2.4 GHz processor or equivalent >>> 384 MB of RAM Obviously, 1080p requires even more firepower. Placing HD content on the net is useless to everyone except those with the top-of-the-line computers right now. It's not even a download/bandwidth issue. Even if they download it, they can't play it. 720p = 1280w + 720h @ 60fps iPod = 320w + 180h @ 30fps other = 480w + 270h @ 15fps So... Basically, as long as the optics are good on whatever you choose to shoot with (and it's well lit), you can capture with anything that has a resolution and frame rate equal to or higher than than your output specs and get stellar video. As someone mentioned already, if you think that something you're shooting now is going to be tapped for inclusion in HD programming, then shooting and editing in HD is what you want to do. Other than that, it's not worth the time, money, drive space and potential need to upgrade hardware. Another decent option, assuming someone is using an editing system that reads timecode from the tapes and allows you to re-digitize the footage automatically, is to shoot in HD, but let the camera down-convert to SD when you load through firewire. That way, if your show gets picked up by an HD channel in the future, they're going to ask you to bring your project files and tapes to a professional for loading, editing, sound mixing, sweetening, color correction & quality control. -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid.TV
