|
|
Posted by Smarty on 01/12/06 02:51
Nappy,
Just to put this to rest, I guess we have been violently agreeing that the
choice to use mpeg encoding on the audio (and for that matter the video) is
a reduction in quality. And a lot better captures would be possible if the
25 MBit/sec limitation of the DV tape transport (writing speed, magnetic
flux density, etc.) were not so restrictive. And HDV is a compromise, and
may be considered poor in comparison to some other method.
Since the original poster has elected not to me to take me up on the request
I will leave the email / spam issue die a natural death. It has taken up way
too much time for both of us already.
Thank you for your replies.
Smarty
"Nappy" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
news:37jxf.146$Jd.29@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:YKKdnbtgquKiKVjeRVn-sg@adelphia.com...
>> Your specific words were:
>> ".....the audio from HDV
>> cameras is very very poor".
>
> I'm Ok with that statement.
>
> For ~$5k the audio should be pristine. As I have said before I think the
> HDV
> / MPeg marriage is a mistake and a step backwards.
>
>
>
>>.........My point was (and is) that the HDV
>> format does not inherently capture very very poor audio.
>
> I believe the format limits the quality off the audio in favor of a
> compression method and bitstream that will conform to 25Mb
> Seems the audio will always be of lesser quality than even an old Porta
> Dat.
> We differ there.
>
>
>> And both of us certainly agree that the very same recording, if done with
>> true PCM audio capture and uncompressed HD video capture would be
> superior,
>> both initially, and especially after editing.
>
>
> Si!
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|