The Blu-ray and HDDVD thread

WiteWulf · Post by **WiteWulf** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:15 pm 0

iirc, they claimed that it was harder too do because of the relatively high number of CGI shots per episode.

Now this seems counter-intuitive to me. Surely it's cheaper and easier to knock the resolution up a notch in your rendering software than it is to buy HD cameras and add all the extra detail to real-world sets and props?

Dio · Post by **Dio** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:49 pm 0

Same argument applies though - you have to improve your modelling.

GBH · Post by **GBH** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:00 pm 0

Knowing nothing at all about it, I thought that modellers now just modelled what are effectively close to infinite detail models and LoD software took them down to where they needed to be.

I am more than likely talking bollocks however.

G

pogo · Post by **pogo** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:38 pm 0

WiteWulf wrote:iirc, they claimed that it was harder too do because of the relatively high number of CGI shots per episode.

Now this seems counter-intuitive to me. Surely it's cheaper and easier to knock the resolution up a notch in your rendering software than it is to buy HD cameras and add all the extra detail to real-world sets and props?

Agree. The only real cost is in the sci-fi sets, of which there are only a few each series. Seems incredibly short sighted to not invest a bit more in them and film it in HD. The profits may not be there today, but they need only look at the sales of classic Who DVDs to know that whether it's HD discs or broadcast, sci-fi in HD will in a few years be very valuable.

matt303 · Post by **matt303** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:43 pm 0

GBH wrote:Knowing nothing at all about it, I thought that modellers now just modelled what are effectively close to infinite detail models and LoD software took them down to where they needed to be.

I am more than likely talking bollocks however.

You're getting detail and polygon count confused, poly count isn't really an issue because most things are modeled in high order surfaces (Nurbs, patches, subdivs, etc). What you might have to do is model more detail in and use better textures because the HiDef image will show where things have been missed out that wouldn't show at standard def.

Phineasfool · Post by **Phineasfool** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:04 am 0

Best Buy is having a buy 1 get 1 free deal on some HD-DVDs and Blu-rays so I picked up a couple movies. Nothing really great in the choices, but picked up Shrek the Third and the girlfriend chose Knocked Up.

Governmentyard · Post by **Governmentyard** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:42 am 0

HAHA your missis has great taste in films and you don't

TT · Post by TT » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:07 am 0

Picked up the 30th Anniversary Edition of Close Encounters on BluRay over the weekend - Its got 3 versions of the movie all in 1080p (Original Theatrical version, Special Edition and Director's Cut) and a Special Features disc with loads of goodies on.

Its a great package and nicely boxed up too.

TT

pogo · Post by **pogo** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:43 pm 0

Seems the January sales are starting even earlier this year:

Hitachi 37" 1080p for Â£630

About the same price as 720p was 12 months ago, with Freeview and dual HDMI.

moosedude · Post by **moosedude** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:46 pm 0

pogo wrote:
WiteWulf wrote:iirc, they claimed that it was harder too do because of the relatively high number of CGI shots per episode.

Now this seems counter-intuitive to me. Surely it's cheaper and easier to knock the resolution up a notch in your rendering software than it is to buy HD cameras and add all the extra detail to real-world sets and props?
Agree. The only real cost is in the sci-fi sets, of which there are only a few each series. Seems incredibly short sighted to not invest a bit more in them and film it in HD. The profits may not be there today, but they need only look at the sales of classic Who DVDs to know that whether it's HD discs or broadcast, sci-fi in HD will in a few years be very valuable.

I would of thought that rendering a HD scene would take more time to complete, on account of the extra resolution; which might be a factor and from seeing the dr. who extras they always seem to have a really tight schedule for production. and I would hazzard a guess that the more time its takes to render footage, the more money it costs.

pogo · Post by **pogo** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:33 pm 0

moosedude wrote:
I would of thought that rendering a HD scene would take more time to complete, on account of the extra resolution; which might be a factor and from seeing the dr. who extras they always seem to have a really tight schedule for production. and I would hazzard a guess that the more time its takes to render footage, the more money it costs.

If we assume HD is 720p then you can get a box that renders high quality HD at 30fps, i.e. in realtime, for under Â£200 - the Xbox 360. In TV production realtime is not so important, letting you expend extra processing power on even higher quality, extra effects, or a higher resolution which can be down-sampled to 720p.

In games and TV the main cost is in creating the high quality (polygon/vertex count and texture size) assets and more complex animations needed. But even this is getting cheaper and easier all the time, with software and hardware for character animation, motion capture and 3d scanning more powerful and affordable than ever.

HGFB · Post by **HGFB** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:21 pm 0

So you're suggesting The Mill invest in a couple of 360s then?

I can see this mad conversation isn't going to go away soon. Is Kemper around?

kalmar · Post by **kalmar** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:22 pm 0

I'd wait to hear from Darkflame on this one

skweek · Post by **skweek** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:28 pm 0

pogo wrote:
moosedude wrote:
I would of thought that rendering a HD scene would take more time to complete, on account of the extra resolution; which might be a factor and from seeing the dr. who extras they always seem to have a really tight schedule for production. and I would hazzard a guess that the more time its takes to render footage, the more money it costs.
If we assume HD is 720p then you can get a box that renders high quality HD at 30fps, i.e. in realtime, for under Â£200 - the Xbox 360. In TV production realtime is not so important, letting you expend extra processing power on even higher quality, extra effects, or a higher resolution which can be down-sampled to 720p.

In games and TV the main cost is in creating the high quality (polygon/vertex count and texture size) assets and more complex animations needed. But even this is getting cheaper and easier all the time, with software and hardware for character animation, motion capture and 3d scanning more powerful and affordable than ever.

Surely the PS3 would be better with it's awesome CELL processing and Superlative Emotion Engine.

Bubba · Post by **Bubba** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:39 pm 0

UK PS3s are sadly emotionless

I'd imagine The Mill either have their own renderfarm or have access to one - I suspect they just can't justify the time / money it takes to produce higher quality models / textures. Not that I agree with that mind, I think it's very silly and rather short sighted. But the BBC will be stubborn over these things - I'm surprised someone from the HD side hasn't footed the bill for the transition to HD though as it must be a very popular export...

Cheers

Bubba