16:9

[symetri]

Hey how many of you shoot in 16:9? I know with the FX7 and most cameras you can film in standard 4:3 or 16:9 but I also know shooting in 16:9 using the camera's settings can element pixels etc.  I have shot a couple of weddings in 16:9 and the Bride & Groom loved the widescreen look.  What do you suggest??

[HankCastello]

Only two out of about thirty-three weddings that we did this year were 16:9.  I love shooting 16:9 with my FX1, but of course with cameras that are native 4:3, you lose some resolution due to not using all the available pixels unless you use an anamorphic lens adapter (which would probably eat a bit of light).

I suspect that since the majority of our shoots are in Oklahoma, southwest Kansas, Eastern Arkansas and north Texas, we aren't seeing the number of 16:9 clients that someone like Kevin Shaw, out in California might see.  Even the last half-dozen big-city, east coast shoots we did were all 4:3.

Not only are we not getting any bites on hi-def, but at least two of this year's clients had no clue what we meant when we asked if they would prefer "widescreen"; "16:9"; etc.

[kwshaw1]

I suspect that since the majority of our shoots are in Oklahoma, southwest Kansas, Eastern Arkansas and north Texas, we aren't seeing the number of 16:9 clients that someone like Kevin Shaw, out in California might see.  Even the last half-dozen big-city, east coast shoots we did were all 4:3.

If you have HD cameras it makes sense to shoot everything in widescreen format for demo purposes regardless of what you're giving to the client. And no matter what your clients are asking for today, widescreen viewing is becoming the de facto standard for the 21st century. I deliver all weddings in widescreen format now as a matter of both technical and artistic preference, and wouldn't shoot anything less than HD if I was covering my sister's wedding.

Standard 4:3 video is outdated for professional wedding video purposes. Sell your DV cameras now while you can still get something for them...

[Fitzufilms]

Standard 4:3 video is outdated for professional wedding video purposes

I havnt been in the business as long as most, but I have to say you must be speaking about your market, not mine.  In my immediate area there are no videographers offering HD, not even the top guy.  In my surrounding area there are very few offering HD and even fewer (if any) where it is standard.  I live in NC by the way.

While I don't disagree with you that that is the way it is going, I see another year, if not two of SD products with no problems.  Again, this is in my area.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying but, I just don't see it as "outdated" yet as most of the videographers I run into are still using 4:3 and are still debating on when to upgrade (not if).

You do make a great poing that if you were to sell your equipment now at least you would get something for it.

[HankCastello]

Yeah, I think there is a lot of room for disagreement on just when the "tipping point" is going to arrive for hd vs sd.  

I don't have a crystal ball (shucks!) but I know people from Dallas to Kansas City who have large, hi-def tvs but no hi-def dvd player and only whatever hi-def content is being broadcast.

Now that sure makes for some fat cheerleaders when the picture is stretched for football games, but that's how they watch it and they all seem quite content.  A couple of them have cheapie DVD players that upconvert.  They seem to feel that there is little difference (I gotta agree) between standard DVDs being upconverted and actual hi-def DVDs.

It's going to take something - I'm not sure what - but SOMETHING to cause people to suddenly want to switch.  Perhaps some fantastic movie released in Blu-ray only, etc.

Complicating matters is the hi-def format "war".  A lot of people intend to stay on the sideline at least until that has been settled.

Put me down for saying three to five years before that tipping point is reached, with only a year's difference depending upon locale.

[HankCastello]

If you have HD cameras it makes sense to shoot everything in widescreen format for demo purposes regardless of what you're giving to the client.

I'd be too nervous about my framing and composition to shoot 16:9 with the intention of delivering 4:3.  You just don't frame things exactly the same way and you don't even setup shots the same way for both formats.  Wouldn't work.

[kwshaw1]

What some folks are missing here is that consumers everywhere are buying widescreen HDTVs by the millions, so this is quickly becoming the TV format most people are using to watch their most important videos. If you deliver 4:3 content that's going to look fine on the 13-inch color TV in the dog's corner of the back bedroom, but not so good on a 60-inch HDTV in the family room. Seriously, 4:3 video is outdated in a fundamental way which can only become more obvious to all concerned over time, and it's time to move on from this archaic format whether your customers realize it yet or not.

The only plausible reason to keep shooting and delivering 4:3 video is a business decision based on squeezing the most possible value out of outdated video cameras. But really, if you were going to shoot your sister's wedding would you rather use a 50-year-old format which is clearly headed for the junk pile, or the one which will be standard for the next several decades?

I'm more glad every day now that I dumped my DV cameras while they were still worth enough to pay for one of my HD cameras. The value of all DV cameras just dropped another notch with the introduction of the Sony EX1, and it's just downhill from here as far as resale value goes. If you plan to stay in this business long enough to have to upgrade to HD, you might as well do it now because that's probably cheaper than doing it later when your current cameras are worthless. And don't forget that Uncle Sam will compensate you for up to 50% of the cost of new gear depending on your tax situation, so the real cost of upgrading to HD may be only a few thousand dollars if you do it right.

It's time to get with the program and stop defending an obsolete video format. 4:3 SD is done, over, dead, kaput - stick a fork in it, put a nail in the coffin, etc.  

[kwshaw1]

I'd be too nervous about my framing and composition to shoot 16:9 with the intention of delivering 4:3.  You just don't frame things exactly the same way and you don't even setup shots the same way for both formats.  Wouldn't work.

That's one reason I don't bother offering 4:3 delivery any more unless I'm sure that's what the client needs for some specific reason. It's time to advise wedding customers to move on to widescreen format for the sake of the longetivity of their paid video projects.

[symetri]

The thing is that consumers are getting more and more familiar with 16:9/widescreen formats this is due to DVD and now HD/Blue-ray and they generally don't mind it as much as they used too.

When I first started meeting with clients I would give them a choice between 16:9/widescreen or 4:3/full screen.  The first couple of times they would look at me like "huh?" after the third client I stopped asking.  In my opinion and I'm sure every other Videographer is with me 16:9 just overall looks more professional and just plan cooler then boring dull 4:3.  

For the clients who choose the expensive packages I do shoot in 16:9, unless otherwise asked.  I do offer it in my A La Carte options package.   I have also found that the groom is more up for 16:9 then the bride is. The groom will be setting there not entirely into this, but boom! as soon as they view my demo in 16:9 his eyes light up and he gets excited.  The groom also loves the fact that even if he doesn't have a 16:9 TV it still simulates a widescreen effect with the black bars.  Allot of editing software now offers a 16:9 conversion for 4:3 just for that simulated effect.  Yet still I do run into many who do not understand the format concept or even know what it is.  Yet again when they see it in my demo they do generally like it and ask me to shoot it in 16:9.  The only problem I have seen is a slight difference in color and that's due to the lack of some pixels, but I'm more then likely the only one who would notice this.

As for HD I have spoken with many different videographer's around the states and only maybe between 1-5% actually film in HD and those are from L.A./San Diego areas, everywhere else no one does and they say it's because the equipment is just too expensive. I do have the equipment to edit in HD but no burner, just too dang expensive right now.

I think the word "HD" is just a popular word to use. It seems you can have the worst footage ever shot on camera and call it HD and everyone will love it.  And as brought out before majority of people do not even own a HD 16:9 TV or if they do they don't use the HD because they don't have the proper equipment.  I really don't see HD dominating SD anytime soon, plus unless you have a trained eye the average person wont really notice the difference. (depending on how your post work goes.) So unless someone asks me about shooting in HD which I've only had one person do, I don't even bother with it and I've never had any complaints only great comments about the footage as I'm sure everyone on this board as experienced as well.

[symetri]

I do absolutely LOVE! shooting in 16:9 with my two FX7's it looks so good on any newer TV.  And you get so much more view for the buck.  I did a test just to see if there was a real difference between the two formats and yes there was a huge difference! I was surprised and yes 16:9 overall looked much better then 4:3

[kwshaw1]

As for HD I have spoken with many different videographer's around the states and only maybe between 1-5% actually film in HD and those are from L.A./San Diego areas, everywhere else no one does and they say it's because the equipment is just too expensive.

Two years ago at the WEVA Expo a lot of people raised their hands when asked who was shooting in HD, and since then even the staunchest holdouts have started to warm up to the idea. In Sacramento I've got several competitors starting to shoot in HD and one of them is negotiating with me to burn his Blu-ray discs; a little further south one of our association members has sold ~$10K worth of HD upgrades in the past year or so.  

2008 will be a defining year for HD wedding videos now that proper HD delivery is becoming a reality, plus new cameras are alleviating low-light concerns. HD equipment cost is a negligible issue for new videographers, so it's mainly the old-timers who are struggling with how to pay for their HD upgrades. This is ultimately all just a technical issue which is less important than creating compelling content, but widescreen viewing is becoming standard and HD production and delivery won't be far behind.

[symetri]

Yes I do see that change.  I think it depends on your area as well.  It seems  in the southern areas HD is not a big thing, I've only ran into one customer who asked about it.  I have actully shot 1 wedding in HD and also in SD, the reason being? I have HD editing equipment so I wanted to see if I can render it from HD to a SDVD, and yes I could.  Of course it isn't HD but the footage still looked great! but then whats the point of shooting in HD if I can't deliver it in HD?  

I would film ALL of my weddings in HD no questions asked hands down, if there was a burner that was less expensive then whats there now.  

What have you found to be the less expensive HD/BR burners?

[kwshaw1]

...whats the point of shooting in HD if I can't deliver it in HD?

One benefit of shooting in HD is being able to deliver proper widescreen SD output, which will look better on a widescreen HDTV than 4:3 video. Plus by shooting in HD now you can start building up a demo reel which will come in handy as more and more customers become interested in HD. Once you have HD cameras you might as well shoot all your weddings in HD, deliver widescreen SD or HD output, and if someone really wants 4:3 delivery you can accommodate that if desired (subject to the limitations of doing so mentioned above).

What have you found to be the less expensive HD/BR burners?

There are some Blu-ray burners under $500 now but spending a few bucks more might be worth it to get faster burn speeds. I paid about $600 for a Pioneer BDR-202 drive which can burn up to 4X once the discs are available, and burns data at a rate of about 1 GB per minute on 2X discs.

[HankCastello]

SD is done, over, dead, kaput - stick a fork in it, put a nail in the coffin, etc.

Not so fast...
There are still two mighty obstacles:

  * Low light ability

We've stopped even trying to use our FX1 (which arguably has the best low-light ability of any prosumer hi-def cam) at receptions because in at least three-quarters of them, the image was just too grainy, due to lighting.  Washed-out colors and lots of grain look no better in hi-def than in standard video.

  * The Market

Consumers have not purchased hi-def players yet.  At least, not in large numbers.  Some people say it is due to the format war; some say it is because of prices.  While both arguments are valid, the plain and simple fact is that a standard DVD plays quite nicely on a hi-def TV - even without upconverting, but especially with it.  

Consumers will have to be MOTIVATED to purchase hi-def players, and right now the motivation just isn't there, even though they have the TVs.

[symetri]

HD/Blu-Ray are so expensive right now, unless there is some kind of special SPECIAL sale you can't find a movie in HD under 25 bucks! and the DVD-R's for HD are so expensive also.  Just 1 single Blu-Ray DVD is 20 bucks.  If the time came where a client did request HD I would charge them more for the fact it does cost more to produce it in HD and produce the DVD for it.  

As of now as I have pointed out earlier, I do have HD equipment to edit the footage with yet I do not have a burner.  I know Blu-Ray burners can be found for $5-700 but I'm still very hesitant on buying one.  One major fact is, it's still a new technology for the consumer, therefore the burners are not up to par with your standard DVD burner that can render 2hrs. worth of footage in just a few minuets, it can take up to an hour just for a few minuets to burn on blue-ray, nevermind the fact again 1 blue-ray DVD-R is 20 bucks.  So it it worth it right now?  no it really isn't... I'd say in the next 3-5 years yes it will because the consumer technology will be more advanced and in turn will be cheaper.  Saying that SD is dead, is not a correct statement, it's not dead, but it is starting to fall behind little by little as consumers start recognizing the power behind HD the technology.