|
|
Posted by Specs on 10/05/17 11:38
"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JISdnQIKnMLg4EbeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:06:58 -0500, Specs wrote
> (in article <43da531f$0$6972$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>):
>
> >> Exactly. The misguided premise that HDV is as good as true HD, which
> >> surfaces
> >> here periodically is just plain wrong. That's my point.
> >>
> >> Ty Ford
>
>
> > To my knowledge that assertion has NEVER been made on this group.
> SNIP------
> > I question your motivation to keep posting "HDV is not real HD" when you
> > offer no evidence to the contrary. I have never used HDV professionally
but
> > have seen enough to know it is a valid format just like DV was before
it.
> > What surfaces on this group periodically by a select few, including Ty
Ford,
> > is nothing more than eliteist snobbery reminiscent of the day that DV
was
> > introduced. If you don't like it TY don't use it. Just stop posting
> > ingorant groundless rubbish you are a stuck record.
> >
> > Get over yourselves HDV has the ability to produce absolutely stunning
images
>
> > in the right hands.
>
> Again, Spec, or whatever you name is. You delight us all by contradicting
> yourself in your above statement.
>
Exactly how did I contradict myself?
> I go back to the top and point out that apparently you and I do agree. HDV
is
> not as good as HD. In a recent article I wrote about post production
> facilities, it was revealed that Discovery has a 20% limit on HDV shot
> content. I'm not sure how they police that. I'm sure for some slow or no
pan
> shots it's passable. The point is, folks other than me can see the
difference
> and know why.
Internet nobody writes article about something he doesn't understand shokka!
Ty, there are hundreds of nonentities like yourself massaging their egos by
writing articles about subjects they know f*ck all about. When was the last
time you produced, shot or edited a contemporary programme for national
broadcast?
You say I contradicted myself well I'd take a good look at what you wrote in
the para. above. If HDV was as shit as you maintain then Discovery would
have no problem spotting it would they. As you say its not HD so it would
jump out the screen as such.
>
> I think part of the problem is the letters themselves. HDV and HD just get
> sort of smeared together, especially by those who don't know the
difference.
> I hear it ALL THE TIME when talking to video folks, semi pro and pro. It's
> sort of like lumping all betacam, (analog, SP and digital) into the same
> category.
>
Its not the letters its people like you TY that are the problem.
> I never said HDV was crap. I said it wasn't HD. When someone makes that
> mistake, here, or elsewhere, I will point it out. It's not rubbish, it's
not
> ignorant and it's not groundless. It's technical specs.
Once again you fail to define what HD actually is? Stop writing articles
for womens magazines and define HD. What's stopping you. Define your datum
point and thus prove HDV is not HD it is after all technical specs. Should
be simple for a man of your intellect.
Simply define what you believe HD to be (resolution, format, colour res, bit
rate etc) and put this discourse to bed.....
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|