|
|
Posted by Ty Ford on 01/31/06 00:03
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:37:57 -0500, Martin Heffels wrote
(in article <6bfst1h931nhut3u6afienq99mpi1qupf9@4ax.com>):
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:50:08 GMT, "David McCall" <david.mccall@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> You see, I wouldn't think compression would have anything
>> to do with it either, but I think it is the compression that make
>> Ty reject it as an HD format.
>
> Also in reference to Ty's answer to you, his worry is the stacking of
> compression-errors, which indeed can happen very quickly on a highly
> compressed format. But that doesn't make HDV not a HD-format. HDV is in my
> opinion (YMMV) perfect for ENG-work, documentaries, simple short/long
> features, these kind of things which don't have a long post-production
> path, and go straight to DVD or broadcast (no film-outs).
> Of course, with treating the material well, you can push HDV further, but I
> reckon this will take so much time that it might work out cheaper to rent a
> decent HDcam.
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
>
Good thoughts Martin. You make an excellent argument for its use as a
semi-disposable format, but I guess really most of 'em are at some level
except 4k. And didn't they shoot some 6K in LA recently?
Regards,
Ty
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|