HD clips: are they a must for producers nowadays?

[The Last Laugh]

I'm sorry if this isn't the most appropriate forum for this thread, but I'm not really sure what's the best place for it. It's about tickling clips, but it doesn't feature any actual clips. I also apologize in advance for the length of this post. I provide a certain amount of context to explain my situation, and I tend to have trouble being concise to begin with. If you prefer to go straight to the main issue I'm concerned about, you can skip the next three paragraphs.

In any case, people who are aware of The Last Laugh may know that I haven't been very active lately and haven't released anything new in some time. But it's not because The Last Laugh is dead. I still intend to add new clips to my store sometime in the future.

What happened is that, about a year ago, the camcorder I'd been using for many years (a Sony DCR TRV-900) died on me, the necessary repairs being too expensive to be worth it. I wasn't too thrilled about having to replace it, and almost decided to call it quits, but in the end I decided to buy a new one (a Canon VIXIA HF20). Not the same quality as my Sony (which cost me over three times as much back in 2001), but it being HD (High-Definition) and about 10 years more modern partially makes up for it. Though there are times that I miss my old Sony.

I've actually done several shoots since then, perhaps 10 or 12. However, I must admit that I've been so intimidated at the prospect of learning new software after using the same software and production process for about 8 years that I've only just begun to get off my procrastinating ass and figure out how to process all that new raw footage I've accumulated.

Since the more recent footage I've captured is in HD, and not SD (Standard-Definition) like my old clips, there are many new things I need to learn and many decisions I must make. One of the most critical decisions is what screen size to make my future clips. Some kind of HD resolution seems like an obvious choice. I'd say 1280x720 would be enough for me.

However, I'm also tempted by a smaller but still fairly common 852x480 size. The main reason is that a smaller screen size makes for a sharper, better-looking picture. That's especially useful in my case because the very poor lighting conditions in my apartment, as well as my lack of technical know-how, prevent me from getting the best results out of my new camcorder (after all, using an HD camcorder doesn't magically result in a perfect picture). I've done some tests, and while I guess most of the shoots look ok enough at 1280x720 (and some really good), I really do prefer them at 852x480. And that size is already about 1/3 larger than the 640x480 size I've been using so far.

Of course, the problem with this is that more and more producers are offering larger clips nowadays, which I think need to be at least 1280x720 for the HD label to be accurate. I'm worried that if I offer clips that aren't as large what many customers have gotten used to, I might lose too many sales. The simple fact of not being able to advertise my clips as HD might be especially harmful. I mean, the original footage was shot in HD (more specifically 1920x1080), but if the final clips are 852x480, technically I can't call them HD, right?

So what should I do? Should I stick with smaller clips that may look a bit better and be happier about my work? Or should I go for HD, accepting a picture quality that I'm not quite as pleased with but that's still ok enough? Of course, I could always offer both, but that would still mean that many (probably most) of my customers would get the larger, not-quite-as-sharp versions. Are people generally tolerant of smaller screen sizes as long as they like the action, or have HD clips become so standard that a producer really needs to offer them to have any level of success nowadays?

Any comments/advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

 

[Tickle Touch]

Francois,

I made the HD switch last year, to the exact camera you have, in fact. You're right about quality: it's far from automatic (or easy). HD just means more pixels. It's still up to us to put useful content into those pixels (lit well, framed/composed, etc.). And HD actually makes that harder, not easier 🙂

852x480 is just widescreen, not HD. Those extra 212 horizontal pixels make a bigger picture, but it's not technically any higher resolution than 640x480. I would think that if you publish in 852x480, you should call it "widescreen," not "HD."

Anyway, why not publish both SD (640x480) and HD (1280x720)? Of the HD-capable titles I've published (with both HD and SD versions), about 80% are HD sales. The SD purchases are almost certainly bandwidth-related, as HD files can be really big. I have some clips over 1GB, but that's just the price for high-res, I guess.

Your c4s store is easy to navigate with only one entry per clip, and it certainly can clutter up a c4s store to have the same clip listed multiple times for each format. But you could always open a second store for the SD material and link to it in each clip description...

Undef

P.S. Not sure what editing software you use, but be aware that AVCHD files demand a lot of CPU horsepower. I upgraded to a quad-core Intel CPU just to survive. I'm a geek-type, so it's overclocked and blah, blah. But with the dual-AMD I had before, it took overnight to create just the temp file to let me run the editor at all. (Corel VSX3)

 

[marcusb]

Horsepower is right. I'm using an i7 quad with 10k RPM drives... HD still takes a very long time to render and the raw files are huge. I have 23 min of footage that is about 120GB before rendered to wmv.

To answer your question, yes, HD sells better. For the clips I offer in both SD and HD, HD outsells 3:1. But, it also has it's headaches... I've had people buy HD clips only to find their PC was not fast enough to play the clip. In those cases, I had to offer ways for them to DL the SD version.

1280x720 is what I would recommend if you plan on going to HD.

Francois,


P.S. Not sure what editing software you use, but be aware that AVCHD files demand a lot of CPU horsepower. I upgraded to a quad-core Intel CPU just to survive. I'm a geek-type, so it's overclocked and blah, blah. But with the dual-AMD I had before, it took overnight to create just the temp file to let me run the editor at all. (Corel VSX3)

 

[will.co.sc]

Francois,

I don't make videos like you do but I work with several 3D programs and when it comes to postproduction the format is a very important factor. What really matters in my opinion is that the final result has to match or exceed customer expectations.

HD is the right choice to make according to what the market has to offer right now. As soon as quality reaches a certain standart it will only become better, never worse.

You shouldn't be worried about sales offering a higher quality, especially when you offer HD quality for the same price as SD. The minimum resolution for HD is 1280x1024 on a standard or 4:3 monitor/HDTV and 1280x720 on a wide screen or 16:9 monitor/HDTV.

The only drawback might be the larger size of the HD format. But not really, due the fact that fast internet, large hard drives and high resolution monitors are already standard nowadays.

Looking at myself as your customer I would prefer higher quality clips. They're just one step closer to reality...

 

[Mastertank1]

That's especially useful in my case because the very poor lighting conditions in my apartment, as well as my lack of technical know-how, prevent me from getting the best results out of my new camcorder (after all, using an HD camcorder doesn't magically result in a perfect picture).

Guy, if you live in a city as big as Montreal, you can find schools that teach courses in the technical know how you say you lack. You will also find that there are places that will rent the lighting equipment if you want to see if it makes the difference you think it will before making the investment of actually buying it. That also has the advantage of letting you try out different setups until you figure out what works best for you before you buy. Don't disguise the problem by fiddling the resolution, fix it!

BTW, most folks I know, including me, will maximize a clip on the computer screen whenever we play it, so selling at lower res will make it look really bad blown up!

 

[The Last Laugh]

Obvious solution: Buy some portable supplemental lights and stands, rather than making excuses for presenting deficient material as "professional" because you can't be bothered to obtain appropriate equipment.

Wow. It truly takes all kinds to make a world.

I actually do have lighting kits: two 500W ones with softboxes. But they're just not quite enough due to a combination of a location that's less than ideal as a studio, a camcorder that's decent enough but nothing to writ home about, and my admittedly limited video-making knowledge and skills due to not having any formal training or experience outside of my tickling shoots. I never claimed to be a professional, you know. But while my work is clearly not for you, I think I do an ok job under the circumstances.

 

[Inverse]

Don't you guys have to worry about storage space as well? That's gotta be a hit in that department too. Can't be fun.

 

[The Last Laugh]

Francois,

I made the HD switch last year, to the exact camera you have, in fact. You're right about quality: it's far from automatic (or easy).

I must admit that when I got it I kind of expected something more. I mean, HD is supposed to be awesome, right? Heh! When you're about to make the switch to an HD camcorder, you kind of think it will make everything better and easier. But it's not necessarily the case, is it?

To be fair, it's not bad at all, and the HD factor is a significant advantage compared to older camcorders. But compared to my old Sony I find that my Canon has more trouble getting good focus in situations that aren't so-so lit, especially when zooming in on background elements (not sure if it's really a zoom thing or if it's just because the background is darker).

Also, I guess making technology smaller and lighter is a good thing overall, but I find that my Canon is simply too light for me to get a reasonably stable picture when I hold it. So not only do I use my tripod most of the time, I also leave it attached when I pick up the camcorder so as to add weight. Frankly, I preferred the comfortable weight of the Sony, which made it more stable in my hands. Oh, and of course the Sony was a 3-CCD camcorder, which was pretty sweet.

852x480 is just widescreen, not HD. Those extra 212 horizontal pixels make a bigger picture, but it's not technically any higher resolution than 640x480. I would think that if you publish in 852x480, you should call it "widescreen," not "HD."

Yeah, that's the main problem I have with that option. Advertising clips as HD seems to be a big deal, and I'd lose that advantage if I stick to 852x480.

Anyway, why not publish both SD (640x480) and HD (1280x720)?

Well, if I do 640x480 the clips would have to be letterboxed, so the picture would actually be smaller than my old clips. I'd rather go with 852x480 for future clips. As for offering both 852x480 and 1280x720, like many are doing now, I guess I could, but I'd still have a personal preference for the 852x480 clips. Then again, one is his own worst critic, and most customers might not see that big a difference, just being happy with a larger 1280x720, I don't know.

Your c4s store is easy to navigate with only one entry per clip, and it certainly can clutter up a c4s store to have the same clip listed multiple times for each format.

True. That's another reason why I'm not too crazy about offering two format of each clip. I've seen some stores like that, and they do looked somewhat cramped and a bit more tedious to browse. It's a little more work for the producer, too.

But you could always open a second store for the SD material and link to it in each clip description...

That's an option. I don't know if I'll go that route, but I'll consider it.

P.S. Not sure what editing software you use, but be aware that AVCHD files demand a lot of CPU horsepower. I upgraded to a quad-core Intel CPU just to survive. I'm a geek-type, so it's overclocked and blah, blah. But with the dual-AMD I had before, it took overnight to create just the temp file to let me run the editor at all. (Corel VSX3)

My SD software is Premiere 6.5, but my new AVCHD-capable software is Sony Vegas Movie Studio (Platinum, I think). I've barely started learning how to use it. It's not that hard, but it's not a fun process. I wish I could go back to doing it the way I have have been for the last 8-9 years.

I was worried about my computer not being able to handle the job. But it seems to manage it well enough, at least the way I do it. I'm rather relieved that way.

 

[The Last Laugh]

Horsepower is right. I'm using an i7 quad with 10k RPM drives... HD still takes a very long time to render and the raw files are huge. I have 23 min of footage that is about 120GB before rendered to wmv

.

Well, I had to change the way I produce my clips. When working with SD material, I create an AVI version of each edited clip and keep it on DVD for potential future use. Then I convert it to WMV. But I don't think my computer has the power or space for the 1920x1080 equivalent of those in-between files. So the way I'm doing it right now is to go straight to WMV from the storyboard. My computer can manage that easily enough, it seems.

To answer your question, yes, HD sells better. For the clips I offer in both SD and HD, HD outsells 3:1. But, it also has it's headaches... I've had people buy HD clips only to find their PC was not fast enough to play the clip. In those cases, I had to offer ways for them to DL the SD version.

1280x720 is what I would recommend if you plan on going to HD.

Yeah, it makes sense that HD sells better. Although I wonder how big the difference in sales would be if I sold only 852x480 compared to only 1280x720, as opposed to offering both. You know, if the smaller clips were the only option. Still, I guess I'll have to offer 1280x720 eventually, even if I do prefer the smaller sized versions. Otherwise I might lose too many sales.

Do you think offering both sizes makes a significant difference compared to just 1280x720? For instance, in your case, do you think you would lose close to 20% of your sales if you didn't offer SD versions? If I only lost, say, 10-15% of all potential sales if I only offered HD clips, it might be worth it to avoid the extra work and to make my store less cluttered. Then again, as you say, there's the problem of customers buying HD clips only to find out their systems can't handle them. Very inconvenient. I'll have to get used to that, I guess.

 

[skelyrata]

I tested an $300 HD camera last month and didn't like the final results. It was like going back to the VHS era. Yes it gives you full 1920 X 1080 resolution but the picture quality is low end, unless I spent a few grands and still I am not sure I will get the same great quality I get from my 3CCDs cameras. Also for some reason I feel my videos are safer on a MiniDV tape than on a smcard, or a camcorder harddrive.

I will wait until the HD market stabilize. Until then I'll stick with 3CCD.

 

[The Last Laugh]

No HD isnt necessary if your content is good and unique, and SD is the only option you have it wont matter. My best selling clips EVER were only ever offered in 640x480 BUT let me state they are not poor grainy quality SD they are quite crispy and clear, I say they are HQ

On the other hand I have super clear HD clips that haven't sold all that much...

Interesting. So content does matter a lot. That's a comforting thought.

Still, it makes sense that the simple fact of having HD clips on one's store probably attracts customers.

I don't know if my material is good and unique enough for me to stick with SD. I mean, I think I do decent stuff, all things considered, and I have regular customers who obviously enjoy my work, but I can't help but think I might need to go HD to survive. Then again, my sales have been acceptable so far, even with ordinary 640x480 SD, and even 852x480 is larger, with better overall quality. It might be enough. But for how long? Damn, I really don't know what to do.

Even with the best HD camera, if you have poor lighting OR if you have good lights but they are not set up right your video picture wont look good.

True enough. While I think my HD clips will be an improvement over my old SD ones if I decide to go HD), I'm afraid customers shouldn't start expecting professional masterpieces. My filming technique, while ok enough, hasn't changed much since I started using my HD camcorder.

 

[The Last Laugh]

HD is the right choice to make according to what the market has to offer right now. As soon as quality reaches a certain standard it will only become better, never worse.

You shouldn't be worried about sales offering a higher quality, especially when you offer HD quality for the same price as SD. The minimum resolution for HD is 1280x1024 on a standard or 4:3 monitor/HDTV and 1280x720 on a wide screen or 16:9 monitor/HDTV.

The only drawback might be the larger size of the HD format. But not really, due the fact that fast internet, large hard drives and high resolution monitors are already standard nowadays.

Looking at myself as your customer I would prefer higher quality clips. They're just one step closer to reality...

I guess you're right. I should at least offer HD versions. It's just that, even though the HD clips I've produced so far are a definite improvement over my old SD clips, I still prefer the 852x480 versions, which are also superior to my old clips. Then again, it's the customers who buy the clips, not me. So if people have a strong preference for HD...

 

[The Last Laugh]

Guy, if you live in a city as big as Montreal, you can find schools that teach courses in the technical know how you say you lack. You will also find that there are places that will rent the lighting equipment if you want to see if it makes the difference you think it will before making the investment of actually buying it. That also has the advantage of letting you try out different setups until you figure out what works best for you before you buy. Don't disguise the problem by fiddling the resolution, fix it!

I thank you for the advice, but that's just too much for me. I'm not a professional video-maker. I don't do this for a living, it's only a little sideline. I'm actually a medical lab technician working full-time. I don't have the time or the resources to take special video courses.

Besides, I won't be making tickling videos for that much longer anyway. I was thinking of doing this for another year, maybe two, then move on to something else. Hell, I'm moving this year, and I don't even know if shooting videos in my new apartment will even be an option.

So I'm afraid an investment in time and money like you suggest, while certainly good advice for people who are more serious than I am about making videos, simply isn't for me.

 

[The Last Laugh]

While I certainly appreciate all the advice for improving the quality of my videos, it makes for a very heavy thread. I think it would be best if we kept to my main interrogation, which is how essential is it for a producer to offer HD clips in today's market if he/she wants to survive. Thank you.

 

[skelyrata]

The straight answer

While I certainly appreciate all the advice for improving the quality of my videos, it makes for a very heavy thread. I think it would be best if we kept to my main interrogation, which is how essential is it for a producer to offer HD clips in today's market if he/she wants to survive. Thank you.

HD clips are not essential for me yet. I haven't seen any dramatic impact by staying in SD. However, my SD clips are in the top end of SD which scratches HD, and the 3CCDs gives me broadcast quality images.

I have played my DVDs on Blu Ray players and I am proud to say that mine match pretty good the low end Blu Ray movies. The only difference is that mine look a softer, which works in my favor since I am selling erotic fantasies!

Hope this works for you!

 

[will.co.sc]

Then again, it's the customers who buy the clips, not me. So if people have a strong preference for HD...

That's exactly what I meant!

 

[GEORGIATKLER]

Were there no useable Sony cameras on EBAY?

I think this helps answer the "What does it take to be a tickling video producer?" threads. Find the "perfect" camera and then its only a matter of models, ideas, bondage equipment, lighting, editing, dealing with c4s, legal issues and taxes. Like seeing Fred Astaire dance crossed with Yul Brenner in "Westworld" It looks so easy, what could go wrong...go wrong...go wrong...All the producers do a great job. My amateur private vids from my ancient RCA CCD camera show just how good you pros really are. I would think HD clips would be better viewed on full screens. Thanks for a behind da lens look at your real world.

 

[mabus]

I got an HD camcorder about a year ago, a Canon, that uses the HD MiniDV tapes.
I'd never go back to a regular MiniDV one!

However, HD is complicated, because my co-worker got one of those little, $100 "HD Camcorders" she's not even a video person...and she HATED it! She recently went on a vacation, and wanted to borrow my regular 3 CCD MiniDV camcorder!! She hated her cheap HD that much.
Another problem some HD footage has is, when rendered in older programs, or the wrong settings, the video file has the black bounding box around it, like in letterboxing, there was a black bar at the top and bottom of the video. However, when you blew the video up, the black box would expand with it! There are many videos on Youtube where you see this effect.

My answer was to get a new program, the Sony Vegas Studio...the $100 dollar version, because I'm poor..... It worked fine after that, and gave me twice as many options as Adobe Premiere gave me.

My suggestion is read, read, read, search and search some more. Learn as much as you can about that, about proper lighting, study photography books, play with the lighting with some inanimate objects, etc. There are youtube videos galore for us humble video guys, Francois.

Type in (whatever you're trying to figure out,) and "tutorial" and you'll find webpages and videos with guys who'll help. Special effects, cinematography, sound, microphones, follying, lighting (lots on lighting), etc.

Hope I could help a little, and good luck in the future!

 

[fantastic8]

To me not really, HD stuff tends to be bigger file sizes and the quality isn't THAT much better that it's worth it in my opinion. I'd rather the clips be a dollar cheaper or maybe sell longer clips then have them in HD.

 

[jaba]

While I certainly appreciate all the advice for improving the quality of my videos, it makes for a very heavy thread. I think it would be best if we kept to my main interrogation, which is how essential is it for a producer to offer HD clips in today's market if he/she wants to survive. Thank you.

The format doesnt really matter to me, Francois, i've always enjoyed your work for the ladies you choose, not the format. In fact, I can't think of any clip from any source where I enjoyed the sample but wouldnt buy the clip simply because it wasnt in HD. Some of the best tickle talent i've seen has been made on simple amateur home video footage.

Brazil tickling seems to be re doing all of their clips in HD format, and re selling the same old content in HD. I haven't seen or purchased any new content from them in months, and they were one of my favorites. I don't know how they are doing sales wise, but it would seem to me that for every customer buying an old clip re done in HD, they are losing customers like me who won't buy until they get new content.

 

[gigglemakr]

Has anyone noticed that when you download an HD clip that the sound is fine but the video is jerky, that action stops at times, sometimes for as much as 10 seconds(while the sound goes on) and, bottom line, such videos are not much fun to watch. Never happens on the non-HD videos.

 

[solescratcher99]

As a customer, it really doesn't matter whether the clip is in SD or HD. The content is usually what matters more.

 

[skelyrata]

Has anyone noticed that when you download an HD clip that the sound is fine but the video is jerky, that action stops at times, sometimes for as much as 10 seconds(while the sound goes on) and, bottom line, such videos are not much fun to watch. Never happens on the non-HD videos.

That's a good point. Remember that is not just the camera, is also the computer where it plays in, if the computer can't handle HD video, it will be hard to watch.

 

[gigglemakr]

That's a good point. Remember that is not just the camera, is also the computer where it plays in, if the computer can't handle HD video, it will be hard to watch.

I don't know what to do about my computer not taking HD videos properly, if, in fact, that is the problem. Anybody have any ideas? One possible solution would be for producers to have non-HD as an option. Those always come out just fine for me.

 

[gigglemakr]

As a customer, it really doesn't matter whether the clip is in SD or HD. The content is usually what matters more.

Not so. See my post below.