Can U Tell the difference?.....

[jbh]

If some of you would do me a favor I would greatly appreciate it.  I'm trying to tell if there is a HUGE difference between FULL HD and SD to most of the viewing audience, so I'd like as many different viewers monitors of different quality as I can get, just to see if you can see it.  Make sense?

Holtkamp's  were filmed in FULL HD.  The only problem with FULL HD is the HUGE file you have to wrestle around.  It's like using a John Deere 3020 on a 24 row planter.....you can get it done, but it's a struggle most of the time.  These FULL HD videos can be viewed at www.youtube.com/holtkampcattleco

The most comparable day to when Holtkamp's were filmed would be Hueber's vids.....it was a beautiful sunny day.  These were ALL shot in SD or Standard Definition.  They are what I prefer to work with file size wise.  These are found at www.youtube.com/huebershowcattle

Please compare the two quality's as they come through your monitor if you would, and just give me a simple opinion of which you think are better......PLEASE!

Another example of SD on an overcast day (which actually I kinda like) is when we done Sandeen's breds.  If you like you can compare these to the FULL HD of Holtkamp's too.  www.youtube.com/sandeengenetics

I GREATLY appreciate it.  For those of you wondering about Part 2 of Right Turn in Kansas City......I hope to have it done this week.  Sorry, I've been absolutely swamped with calf vids.

 

[bluffcountrycattle]

For what it's worth, I think the daylight and background have more to do with the picture quality from what I can tell.  Holtkamp's videos look sharp...but they default on youtube to a 360p resolution on playback, so don't think that is HD anyways, unless you select 720p HD playback setting.  From experience, I know video editing can really put a strain on your PC...so maximum hard drive space, and RAM are a must to even tackle the projects!  And I'm sure another unknown is the type of camera used for each, as that can make a huge difference.  I like the Angus videos...very crisp and sharp, but don't know how big of files they are.  I think the SD videos for cattle sales are certainly acceptable for what most people want to do.  If you charge by the hour, you may prefer the HD experience!! 

 

[spb]

I seem to like the HD the best but i tend to agree with BluffCC that I think the lighting and and background has a big effect.

 

[chambero]

Somewhat to my surprise, there is a notable difference.  But your goal is selling cattle.  I think you can certainly tell what you need to about an animal with the SD.  I'm on a very fast internet connection, so HD works great for me.  If it is too slow for others, that would be much more of a stronger negative for HD than the positive difference in resolution.

 

[linnettejane]

it took me 4 minutes to watch the 41 second hd video(downloading), didnt like that, but the clarity and lighting was awesome

took me 2 minutes to watch the 57 second sd video, not as "crisp" and seemed darker, but just as effective as far as representing the animal, seemed like these videos were done later in the day maybe, the shadows are more prevelant

 

[ploughshare]

With a monitor setting of 32 bit color and a resolution of 1280 x 1024 I could make out more detail with the 720 HD playback resolution, but not significantly on the cattle. The grass looked better and I could make out the fence construction better, but the cattle were not that much more improved.  My complaint is that even with a fast internet connection, the file buffered throughout the viewing.  Only after the file had played through once was I able to watch it straight through.  Bottom line, the HD would not make me any more interested in the sale lot or entice me to pay more money for the lot. BTW, the Huber cattle looked good even in SD.

We just had family pictures taken and the trick the photographer used to improve the pictures was to soften them up to remove some of the detail.  Apparently that is the ticket for those of us who can't afford the Hollywood makeovers.

 

[DaHerd]

All videos played right away with no buffering or lag for me.  I thought with the HD, and maybe its because they're black cattle, I could get a clearer picture on the calfs body i.e. their "lines" or muscle shape whereas with the SD within the calfs body wasnt quite as clear.  You can still get about the same idea with the SD and it probably wont effect the sale of the calf anywho.

 

[blackcows]

In my opinion the HD vid was better but the SD was certainly good enough.  I did have some buffering with the HD videos and I am on a cable connection so I would think you would be better off giving up a little bit of quality to improve the experience for the user....no one likes to sit and watch videos that constantly buffer.

 

[bluffcountrycattle]

Once uploaded in HD, and switched to full screen playback on Youtube, the Holtkamp videos looked awesome on a 22" widescreen monitor!  However, 95% of the videos I check out are at standard resolution on the normal Youtube layout.  They all look good however, and sure your customers like them, and get positive response from their customers.  One thing I forgot, and which is probably VITALLY important for the Holtkamp sale is that these videos will be broadcast on large screen tv's during the auction!!  Standard Def on a big screen would sure defeat the purpose for their sale format...

 

[jbh]

Thanks a BUNCH to everyone.  You've helped a great deal.  The gest of what I'm hearing is quality of animal coverage trumps viewing in the best clarity possible, and keep the download speed and quality in sync as much as possible.....right?

I'm unsure about one thing that was mentioned about the viewers not actually viewing the HD in HD because it's playing at 360....... I don't think that is entirely true (just based on my own observation).  The reason I say this is because when I upload the FULL HD videos, YouTube brands them with an HD logo in my account, so this leads me to believe you're still viewing them in HD, just NOT full HD.  As someone said, when you play them at 720 I think you're getting more of the FULL HD effect.  If someone knows for sure please let me know.

My operating system is set up to handle HD, but I just hate too if it's NOT going to be a BUNCH better.  I do agree that it's nice to see "people productions" in as clear as possible, and your right, the  creativecattle bunch do a great job.  Crystal if you're reading this.....are you guys filming in HD now?

Marky Mark Sneed.....you got anything to add?

 

[jphelps]

I watched all on my iPad and there was no lag in any of the vids, like most have said theres definintly a noticeable difference between hd and sd but sd is good enough.

 

[rtmcc]

I watched on a 20" iMac with a high speed connection.  I thought the magic combination of clarity and download speed was Hueber's in 480p.  In full screen the HD 720p on Holtkamp's was some better than the 480p in SD but did have some short buffering breaks.  If you want to be shocked nock the quality setting back to the lowest setting and see a great video rendered almost useless.

This as a great topic.  I just picked up a Sony Bloggie flip video camera for vids of the kids and some cattle pr stuff.  I realize this will not give me the zoom and lens quality of of the big cameras but it sure is handy to have in your pocket.  It can shoot in 720p or 1080p.  I haven't played with it enough to comment on the differences in editing, upload/download speed or quality yet but it deffinentily is something to play with some cold winter night.

Brad, it sure would be interesting to shoot both types of cameras simultaneously and edit the same material and upload both to You Tube so we could watch them side by side to compare.  That would be the true test.

Ron
<cowboy>