|
|
Posted by Ty Ford on 10/11/35 11:33
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:44:42 -0500, Specs wrote
(in article <438f5307$0$63087$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>):
>
> "Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Z96dnVa-GeakjRLenZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:20:39 -0500, Nappy wrote
>> (in article <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?
>>
>> Yes, I run into that all the time. It's amazing how much lack of
>> understanding or denial exists when the marketing departments get involved
>> and the prices drop into the area where almost anyone can afford the gear.
>>
>> The stuff I see on the air, the blocking and artifacts. When an AUDIO guy
>> like me can see them, they really can't be denied.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty
>>
>>
> I guess you are the sort of chap that owns a Sony HDCF 950, a HDCAM SR Deck,
> offlines in digibeta, conforms on a DS Nitris to produce HD wedding videos?
> Is that the market you are in? Why would you be worried that anyone can
> afford good quality affordable production tools? Cream floats to the top
> right? I am all for the democratisation of the media and whatever that
> brings.
One might take offense by the above. I'm over it.
> 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.
Because of the massive degree of data compression required to achieve the
published specs. Please DO buy and use whatever you want. Just don't bother
to piss on my foot and tell me it's raining.
> If you really don't want bocking then more bandwidth has to be made
> available for delivery but with the seemingly popular poker and shopping
> channels, currently on Sky in the UK, sucking bandwidth that blissful view
> is unlikely to be realised. Its not us producers that are supplying
> programmes that look like shit, we not all of us. The hoops we have to jump
> through to ensure in spec programme delivery for it to be then put through
> the digital blender. Laugh, well maybe...
I feel your pain, my brother.
Regards,
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|