“The reason is simple, more people can appreciate the difference with improved picture quality than improved sound quality.”
This above linked post caught my eye the other day. It kind of goes against one of most important things to remember when producing film and video programming: the idea that people will forgive bad picture but they will not forgive bad audio. They will just change the channel or stop the stream.
Engadget HD is obviously looking at this from a consumer electronic point of view in that it’s true that people do seem to spend much more money on getting a good picture as opposed to good audio in their home theatre. But as any good producer of film and video content will tell you, if your viewer has to strain to hear what is going on and can’t understand an important piece of dialog then it is way more frustrating than some blurry video or something being off screen. To this day it amazes me how some of the not-so-good producers won’t spend the money on a proper audio mix and then question why their audio doesn’t sound better, Soundtrack Pro be damned! I think Survivorman is a great example of this whole concept. Yes it’s shot in HD but very often the picture leaves something to be desired. Of course the guy is alone in the wilderness filming a tv show all by himself .. but the audio is always spot-on. If the camera mics don’t capture it then they post-produce it with good voice over. Picture is important but audio is still king. That is if you want to keep that viewer engadgeted … I mean engaged.
Blogged with Flock