|
|
Posted by Ty Ford on 01/08/06 17:36
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:23:41 -0500, Steve Guidry wrote
(in article <1tzvf.1892$WY5.314@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
> 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
Like most things, it starts with acquisition. If you don't have the right
cameras, glass and lighting, the results will be disappointing. That was
demonstrated at NAB years ago in their HD THEATER at the Spring show in
Vegas.
The Utah Olympic HDTV broadcasts were stunning. The recent Greek Olympics
were a big let down.
Don't know what happened; acquisition, satellite transfers, multicasting the
developed in the local TV station between the two events, something else.
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]
|