|
|
Posted by Martin Heffels on 10/06/31 11:33
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:44:42 -0000, "Specs" <No.Spam@Thanks.com> wrote:
>The discussion I was having with Nappy was really about what actually
>consitutes HD. If the broadcast industry clots have passed 480p as a
>legitimate HD resolution then why would someone not accept HDV in its
>various forms as HD? It was a question of dogmatism vs pragmatism, ideal vs
>practical.
HDV _is_ a HD variant. I conforms to two of the standards, laid down for
HD. It only uses a lower quality of optics, and a high form of compression,
to be able to record all that data. Even "true" HD camera's scale down the
image to 1440 pixels horizontal, just like a Sony camea does.
In the "true" HD world, there are plenty of variations in what camera's
actually record. You can go all the way up to 1990x1080 at 4:4:4, 10-bits,
but you pay quite a lot more for such a camera, and recording of that
data-stream, and then post-production, is quite costly.
So, the more money you can pay, the hihger quality of HD you get.
cheers
-martin-
--
"If you go through life convinced that your way is always best,
all the new ideas in the world will pass you by." Akio Morita
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|