|
|
Posted by Steve Guidry on 10/06/21 11:36
Well, yes, digital video has its limitations. But they are mostly the
doings of the users than the fault of the fact that it's digital. I have
seen plain ol' analog composite properly displayed on a broadcast-grade
monitor look absolutely stunning. On the other hand, the best of the
digital world runs rings around it. I was particularly impressed with the
picture quality of the Rose Bowl the other night, and I watched it via
DirecTV.
As an aside, when we're shooting gigs with our truck, (pics at
www.videoworksinc.com) I routinely have to laugh at the "digital video boys"
who show up to do their coverage of the event. It's just hilarious to me
when they're so surprised when their XL/TRV/BR-DV something or other doesn't
match up to the quality of my 10-year-old Sony 2/3" broadcast cameras. And
these guys are supposedly "in the biz".
Steve
"Wondering_1" <nonono2@spam.com> wrote in message
news:TOdvf.40079$X25.866589@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Thats my point....gullible uneducated public is snapping up these HD TV's,
> thinking it's the best thing since bread, yet the source material is
> absolute crap...
> Reminds me of a post I read here years ago about a guy who purchased a
S-VHS
> VCR and taped shows off cable, then complained that these was no
improvement
> in picture quality...
>
>
>
> "Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in message
> news:dpjnq4$pkq$1@news01.intel.com...
> > "Wondering_1" wrote ...
> >> To shoot and edit and create, digital is great, but as an end consumer
> >> product, I have to say, I'm disappointed.
> >>
> >> lately, as I wander through all the best Buy and Circuit City and Sears
> >> stores and look at the 42" Plasma or LCD or DLP monitors, each
> >> pre-viewing the latest hollywood blockbuster, I begin to cringe as I
take
> >> a close look at the images on these screens.
> >>
> >> Compression artifacts, giant square pixels that dance around,
strobe-like
> >> shimmering static backgrounds, all makes me long for the days of
analog.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming that all "digital" means "heavily compressed".
> > If you are talking about the lowest-common-denominator, end-user
> > distribution of HD/widescreen, you're likely right. Because the actual
> > data requires such a huge bandwidth, it seems unlikely that we poor
> > consumers will have to go the the neighborhood digitally-equipped
> > theatre to see HD video that isn't horribly compressed.
> >
> > OTOH, note that DV and its variants (mini-DV, DVCAM,
> > DVCpro25, Digital8, etc.) are rated slightly *above* BetacamSP
> > which was considered "broadcast quality" for many years.
> >
> > Ref: http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html
> > "How good are the DV formats compared to other formats?"
> >
> > Even SD video on most of the direct-broadcast satellite services
> > contains a lot of visible artifacts of JPEG compression as the
> > sattelite providers try to cram more channels into their limited
> > bandwidth.
> >
> > This is also happening with the satellite radio services. People are
> > complaining about the low quality of the audio as they cram more
> > and more channels into the constrained bandwidth.
> >
> > This is an economic and competitive issue, not really a technical one.
> > These quality tradeoffs are made consciously by the providers and
> > we are getting what they think we want. They are likely right as most
> > of the general public seems to be just fine with it.
> >
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|