|
|
Posted by Moving Vision on 09/20/05 09:24
I guess this is a group for all and not everyone has been here long
enough to have seen the same issues and thoroughly debated solutions
arising time after time again.
Budgets and value are usually an important consideration in business but
cheap solutions more often than not turn out to be expensive ones in the
long run.
Don't listen to those ludite nerds who swear blind that High Definition
is not an important consideration. All sorts of HD technologies are
advancing on an exponential time line. HD will not only dominate the
industry by next year it will shortly make all SD obsolete except for
home movies and cheap weddings. That's' why the Z1 is currently the
worlds fastest selling camera and is likely to continue to be so for a
while yet. JVC's 720p offerings will attract the specialists but as far
as HDV and television goes it's the 1080i format that will prove the
most useful and better able to post convert into any other format as
required. I suspect that Sony will shortly announce an HDV version of
the DSR570, hopefully with switchable interlaced and progressive modes,
in the $16,000 range, without lens, which would become the worlds most
useful, cost affective and therefore most successful camera of all time.
John
In article <DULXe.19795$265.3758@trndny07>, doc <doc@drdimento.net>
writes
>thanks John and maybe your right. maybe i just read and read and read and
>read and just can't seem to find the PERFECT solution which a perfectionist
>like me always strives for. but when someone dumps a point of fear in my
>plate i've always beat the thing to death trying to find out whether or not
>that person is right or whether or not it's just an opinion. if it were my
>money it would be a lot easier decision than it is when it's theirs. if we
>buy this stuff and it's a bummer and not up to the quality it was, then
>shame on me, but worse their show is in jeapordy. i wished it were only so
>simple as get the gear, try it out, and if it's wrong just correct it.
>however, the latter isn't an option. it has to be right the first and only
>time. i can't afford to correct, after all when the plant i worked for
>closed in 1999 i spent new years eve in a cheap motel when the bank evicted
>me from my home, so a buck to me is a lot of money and as it is for my
>client and thus that is why they are unable to continue the betacam
>production and why i'm in the picture (pun huh?) at all. to this end, i
>know this thread is long but IT IS surfacing some serious conversational
>comparisons of video and audio quality which after all is what this group is
>all about right?
>
>doc
>
>"Moving Vision" <mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:TbC$yAD$sbLDFwdI@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> Doc, Who ever it is you keep getting 'information' from just talks
>> bollocks and lots of it. Who ever he/she is couldn't tell his /her
>> proverbial arse from his/her proverbial elbow and is certainly not
>> remotely professional or learned on the subject. You might as well go get
>> your direction from a hair dresser. This convoluting, circular and
>> increasingly pointless strand about HDV and Z1's has reached it's
>> ridiculous conclusion. If you think a Panasonic DV100 is a better camera,
>> in way at all than a Z1 after all the first hand advice that's been given
>> here then go for it mate. All that stuff about AM radio, (early FM ???)
>> and colour distortion is just plain silly, as is any decision to invest
>> good money in Standard definition only 4:3 formats. Even if you considered
>> the MPEG audio of the Z1 in HDV mode to be insufficient for music
>> recording the Z1 still provides both DV and DVCAM mode with 48K PCM and
>> quiet pre-amps that no other compact class, including the DV100 gets close
>> to, and you have true 16:9 options as well as HDV and a whole shed load of
>> superior features. You've been give excellent advice, its been thoroughly
>> explained to you, and yet you come back with this utter tosh.
>>
>> I'll get me coat.
>>
>> In article <lz3Xe.5860$iv5.5707@trndny03>, doc <doc@drdimento.net> writes
>>>we've given up on the Sony's altogether because we've learned that the
>>>sound
>>>quality absolutely SUX and that it is somewhere between AM radio and low
>>>end (early) FM and our show is going to have singing. moreover, we've
>>>also
>>>learned that trying to capture the 16:9 ccd material (SD 16:9) from either
>>>of the sony's (or any other 16:9 format) into SD 4:3 will result in
>>>terrible
>>>color distortion and even worsen when exported/output to DVD, tape, etc.
>>>
>>>thus, looks like we're moving in the direction of native 4:3 like in the
>>>Panasonic DVX100A.
>>>
>>>anyone have any additional thoughts or comments to this conclusion? would
>>>be most pleased to hear some conjecture. please feel free to be bold. we
>>>want to find as much a pristine result as is possible for the limited
>>>budget
>>>constraint that we're forced to operate within :o(
>>>
>>>doc
>>>
>>
>> --
>> John Lubran
>
>
--
John Lubran
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|