Does full HD capability even make sense for typical churches?

[NdEd]

I have become very sceptical about the topic of trying to put full HD capability into a typical church worship center. Here is a summary of how I got to this point:

1) Using the "rule of thumb" on screen size (i.e. the screen height should be either 1/8 of the distance to the back row or 1/6 of the distance to the back row depending on whose thumb you use), and a typical small/medium sanctuary with about 50 feet front to back row seating we come up with a suggested screen height of about 6' to 8'. Let's go with 7' for this discussion.

2) If you're going to do HD, you pretty much have to go 16:9, so we're talking about a 170" diagonal with the 7' x 12.4' screen (I won't editorialize about how shocked they are when you say they should put in this size screen).

3) Now consider the viewing resolution capabilites of the human eye with 20/20 vision (disregard any members of the congregation with less than perfect vision), which is able to discern details at about 1/60th of a degree. This human limitation is charted fairly nicely at http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09...o-screen-size/ with the following diagram:


If we take the 85" diagonal column and double the numbers, we have the details for our 170" screen. This allows us to draw the following conclusions:

- You need to be seated within 22' of the screen to really get the 1080p experience.
- You need to be seated within 33' of the screen to really get the 720p experience.
- People sitting in the back of the sanctuary might as well be watching a standard definition broadcast at 480p.
- If you wanted the 1080p experience in the back row, you would need a diagonal screen size of about 380"
- If you can settle for 720p quality, you only need to increase the screen size to about 250" diagonal.

Now let's take this out of the rule of thumb and talk realities. It has been my experience that a church will undersize the screen size to fit better with the constraints of the room (can't block those pretty organ pipes). Pretty much every traditional and blended sanctuary I've visited would be guilty of this crime of settling for where the screen fits. Only a new building project comes close to following the 'rule of thumb'.

Does anybody here have an IMAG implementation that is truly viewable 1080p for their whole congregation? How about 720p?

It seems to me that if you can't see it, you probably shouldn't buy it.

Thoughts?

[cmchamp]

IMHO the drive to run HD in your church shouldn't be the IMAG, but the end product of post production. If the church produces high quality video for broadcast or for evangelism and that ministry is successful, then the highest quality that can be afforded should be utilized. If just for broadcast, it is my understanding that most broadcasters are still going to have up-converters, or just broadcast digital SD media, so that may not even be a concern.
FWIW, we still shoot SD-anamorphic.

[NdEd]

We are sticking with SD IMAG cameras for at least several years.

[tomtv]

wow, great tech info that i am going to store and keep...

i agree with corey that the outreach value with quality should be one of our goals to bridge the gap. you are right about what broadcasters are doing. there will be SD material on for most of the rest of our lives. hdv will be the new vhs, sorry svhs.

imho, the quality of HD issue is also to be considered. Using a basic sony hdv type camera is being pushed as HD when used with one of the lesser known brand switchers etc, etc. Then you have the larger and very expensive HD broadcast cameras with a lens that cost more than many churches budget, which can allow more detail etc. It just seems like the path to some level of HD quality gear for IMAG, final output or whatever has come down faster than the SD path ever did.

your point about the human eye is very good and i have never seen it laid out that way. So Thank You for the education, it is appreciated.

[cmchamp]

Oh, but what am I gonna do with my Sony Betamax?

[Gracetech]

You could argue that the 1080P would be neccessary for quality if...

Your screen was 30' wide in a auditorium that has a furthest seating position of 150'. Now the likehood of that is low but i've seen screens' pushing 40'to50' wide which pretty much lined the back of the stage. Now in that case i think your into specialty resolutions but don't ever rule out something until you've weighed it's value in the situation.

Good graph btw.

In our Auditorium we have decided to go with 720P simply because our screens are going to be 22' wide and the closest seating position will be 40' away. It would be a waste of resolution when only the stage could actually see it. Now in one of our smaller venues we have a 16' wide screen that they decided to go with a 720p but really should have went with a 1080p setup. The reason is that the screen comes down in the middle of the stage(video venue) and the closest seat is 10' from the screen and the furthest is 60'. At the back of the house it doesn't look that bad(even though i can tell) but up close it looks pretty rough.


crt

[tomtv]

i think the smithsonian is looking for a couple. they were great quality though.

[cmchamp]

Whew, I've got two of them. (I think)

[tedanderson]

Oh, but what am I gonna do with my Sony Betamax?

Use it to transfer all of your favorite videos and new-release movies. When you have company over, you won't look like a jerk if you refuse to loan them out to your friends.

When they ask to borrow your movie you can say, "Sure, no problem. Do you have a betamax? No? Well if you get one, you are more than welcome to borrow anything that I have."

[rlahoda]

I think in addition to broadcast and other finished products, things even as minor as additional viewing locations in the church should be factored in. We have a number of HD plasmas in our lobby that are currently showing an SD image on them. They don't look good. At all. With the lowered cost of entering in to HD and the fact that at some point (many many years from now) HD will be the standard and almost nobody will still have an SD tv, it seems worth it to go ahead and get yourself future proofed for the unknown. The most important (and expensive) parts to the system will be projectors, cameras and switcher. If you even get an HD switcher that can run SD (like the Panasonic AV-HS400a) that's one piece of gear you don't have to upgrade when someone in the leadership decides it's absolutely critical to go HD ASAP.

Most churches are buying new LCD and plasma displays that can do HD so even if the theoretical reasoning on the primary screen doesn't always work, what about the lobby, master recording, DVD, possible Blu-Ray, webstream and everything else that will use that feed? an HD original signal will look really nice when downsampled for SD output.

[timato]

I agree that it depends on your end product and that if you're just doing DVDs, public access TV, or even IMAG, it's not justified to go to HD.

However, it is important to remember, as was mentioned above, that the standard has changed and eventually, that standard will reach churches, no matter where they are at.

I have to mention that if a church is looking to make its first purchase into video equipment that it makes absolutely no sense at all to purchase brand-new SD video gear; that's a waste of money and poor stewardship.

But, if the church wants to spend less up-front and has a plan to upgrade to HD down the road, then quality used SD gear would be a fantastic purchase. Purchasing with no plan for the future is just not smart.