|
Posted by Specs on 10/06/29 11:33
"Nappy" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
news:X3mjf.28327$Zv5.27726@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Specs" <No.Spam@Thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:438d6875$0$63067$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> > Interested to read your definition of HD.
>
>
> 1920x1080 4:4:4 10 bit
>
> HDV does not even come close. Not even nearly close.
>
> And I didn't even mention the audio.
>
> But Specs.. I wouldn't think this discussion would be necessary. Are there
> really folks out there who think HDV is HD?
>
> >
> >
>
>
Skillfully dodged the issues. So clearly Dv100 and HDCAM are not HD in your
book. OK.
No, is not necessary. I know what HD is but I was surprised at your
elitism. HDV fullfils a role just as DV did.
I know of no one working in 1920x1080 4:4:4 10 bit. The preferred flavours
at the moment are HDCAM and DVCPROHD in the places I have worked. Full
raster HD is just too damned expensive for the extra quality (unless chroma
keying where it is absolutely necessary) one attains.
Anyone who compares the output from a $115,000 camera to a $3000 camera is a
cunt. Said a DOP to me recently....
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|