|
|
Posted by Nappy on 01/12/06 16:10
"Pat Horridge" <pat@remove-spam.vet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dq568e$q09$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Nappy" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
> news:37jxf.146$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.
> >
> >
> I'd have to agree. I suspect a lot of people will be shooting HDV for
> current SD delivery with the hope that it can be re cut later for HD.
> They may well find that the audio they have on their HDV tape, while
> adequate for current delivery methods, may well be lacking for future
higher
> quality delivery methods.
> It was a shame that the audio was so limited where as the picture was such
a
> leap forward in quality.
> Typically we have clients that are looking at having to record DAT audio
at
> the same time.
>
Exactly my point. Sucks that you would have to haul a dat along in these
days.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|