why does video look harsh?

[Randall Raymond]

[Rick Mac] “Your line of thinking that resolution is somehow the culprit of harsh looking pictures is just flawed to the core.”

Of course, I didn’t say that – what I said was that prosumer HDV cameras tweak the footage to make it look sharper – the result is harshness.

The aside to that was that 720p provides the best ‘film to video’ look – and Apple’s latest white paper on HD formats agrees with that, in part and BECAUSE of the lower resolution.

You may think their line thinking is flawed as well – that’s up to you. But try reducing your footage to 720p and see if the film look is improved on an HDTV and then we’ll talk. (Isn’t that what the cable and sat companies do anyway?)

Shooting for a film print is another animal altogether.

[Randall Raymond]

[DSE/Spot] “Varicam owns most of the commercial spot production market, that’s one I’ll give you, but that’s about where it overall ends.”

Why do you think that is? High-end commercials have always been shot on film. In delivering to SD and HD for national broadcast – why are all these professionals shooting 720p – because it looks less like their work on film???? Or more like film in the living room?

I’ll answer that for you – 720p looks more like film on TV – all things being equal. Now, you can continue to say that resolution has nothing to do with it. Have at it. But it’s not just me who would beg to differ.

[Douglas Spotted eagle]

Interesting…you used the same point to make two different arguments, neither of which are valid.

Varicam has not been chosen for 720p. It’s erroneous to think so. At the time, CineGamma was the only film-like option on a budget. Camcorder manufacturers have been chasing that look for a long, long time before and after 720p was created. These days, more and more commercials are being produced with XDCAM and similar, and while the market isn’t becoming any larger, the number of image acquisition choices is significantly more broad. 99.9% of what will be shot with RED, SI2K, etc will never see celluloid. You’re still suggesting that people are buying those cameras…why? If 720p is the grail, why has Panasonic moved into the 1080 market? Why are we seeing development of 4K cameras and beyond?
No one “chooses 720p because it is more film-like.” It isn’t any more film-like than 480, 1080, 2k, or 4k.
The first part of your argument stems around the “big screen.” Then the point of debate shifts to “will never be transferred to film.” I’m not sure you believe your own points, perhaps you’re arguing for the sake of argument, so like Rick, I’ll bow out of this discussion.
But you continue to believe whatever you wish to believe. As Rick and I have attempted to point out, “film-like” and “resolution” aren’t part of the same discussion, not really.

[Randall Raymond]

[DSE/Spot] “If 720p is the grail, why has Panasonic moved into the 1080 market? Why are we seeing development of 4K cameras and beyond?”

Again, if your intention is a film print – yeah, go to 4k. But that is NOT the topic of this thread.

You’ve already conceded that 720p is the grail by what the professionals use for acquisition in getting the best film to video look for delivery on TV.

Now, they’re all wrong…and millions of viewers. I don’t agree. Call us all stupid if that gives you any satisfaction. I’ll pass it along to all the ad agencies.

Frankly, I cringed when I saw you as a moderator on this forum…you have bullied people on other forums, but I am not going to let you bully me.