|
|
Posted by Steve Guidry on 10/24/12 11:36
I haven't worked with it personally, but DVHS supposedly can handle HD
program material. I've heard it touted to be the lowest-priced tape
solution to transferring this kind of material by a couple guys that (in my
experience at least) aren't usually wrong.
Steve
"Bill Fright" <billfright@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:SXxvf.32156$9e.9582@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
>
> Wondering_1 wrote:
>
> > 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...
> >
> >
> I've been preaching about this for years. Digital quality is as obscure
> a term ever used to sell supposedly premium quality. Especially in the
> way the cable and satellite folks use it. Their is no bench mark and
> even if there was I don't think they'd use it for their comparisons. I
> think Richard mentioned it was a dollar to bandwidth issue and I agree.
> Large corporations aren't interested in quality - they want just enough
> quality to make the sale and they want to sell as much as possible.
>
> I blame a lazy population for this issue. But let's remember most people
> are watching television for content and not image quality.
>
> Like your VHS story I actually saw a sales poster that touted a high
> definition VHS deck. They had to send a mop to that aisle because I
> peeded my pants laughing.
>
> Even in the pro area they touted DVcam to be superior to betacamSP. Just
> the aliasing of DVcam is enough for me to stick with betacam. I have a
> camera that will dock both formats and still my clients ask for betacam
> except on rare occasions. Also I'll take an analog audio channel over a
> digital one any day.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|