|
|
Posted by doc on 10/24/00 11:26
i agee on the backsides comment AND the $100K cam. we used a cinealta f900
and while it was fabulous, one look at the result of this $85,500 camera
says that while it is fabulous, is it work 1 Gb of data to handle every 8
seconds and the computer system that it will take to handle that? hmmmmm
thanks for the input.
doc
<mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1126351722.189302.4470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Antony Lacey wrote:
>> I can' think of any problems with it as such. Most professional
>> cameramen I have spoken to have said it's useless at fast panning, but I
>> don't need (or plan to) do fast panning. Whether they've tried it or
>> read this I don't know,
>
> Personally I suspect they're talking out of their backsides: I've tried
> to break the compression with fast pans, but it works OK for me. I
> wouldn't be surprised if there are some artifacts if you freeze-frame
> in a pan, but I haven't seen anything significant while watching it as
> video.
>
> On the other hand, I _have_ seen awful compression artifacts in
> broadcast HD when they've done a fast pan on a $100k HDCAM and then
> compressed it to MPEG-2 for broadcast. So if the shot would break up
> when shot on a Z1, all that effort and expense they're going to in
> order to shoot on a format where it won't break up is totally wasted by
> the time it gets to Joe Sixpack's TV screen.
>
> Mark
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|