|
|
Posted by doc on 02/24/06 15:45
on the other hand, remaing SD as long as possible, means assurance of future
work if for nothing else but to "remake" and "update" existing archives.
it's already happening. one producer i spoke with said he'll stop producing
SD when he's told that unless the program is shot in HD the buyer won't
accept the show, and to date no one has said that to him. moreover, several
of his clients have said that when the format converts to HD they'd like him
to reshoot some of his former work - - and of course - - getting paid to do
it. good thinking on my part. this was part of our reason for deciding to
go SD 4:3 and SD 16:9 and let all those with big budgets "play around" with
the HD market until it gets zeroed in on which formulated version is best
let alone the software editors multiple versions of service paks until it's
finally a go for me too, but without the expense and at the liberty of
"redo'ing" some of the SD to HD.
wha'da'ya'tink?
drd
<mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1140780149.496603.271780@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> doc wrote:
>> until the broadcast industry catches up with the HDV standard of sizing,
>> what's the use?
>
> 1. There's a lot more to the world than America, and I've been told by
> people who should know that soon a number of broadcasters outside
> America are going to stop accepting shows shot in SD before long (if
> they haven't already).
>
> 2. Stations may not broadcast your footage in HD today, but if you're
> shooting SD then the shelf-life of your product is going to be short:
> who's going to want to broadcast SD content on an HD channel without a
> very good reason?
>
> If you expect to sell your video to non-US broadcasters or to US
> broadcasters a few years in the future, you'd better be shooting HD.
>
> Mark
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|