|
|
Posted by Rick Merrill on 02/24/06 17:56
on the other hand, remaing SD as long as possible, means assurance of
future
work if for nothing else but to "remake" and "update" existing archives.
it's already happening. one producer i spoke with said he'll stop
producing
SD when he's told that unless the program is shot in HD the buyer won't
accept the show, and to date no one has said that to him. moreover,
several
of his clients have said that when the format converts to HD they'd like
him
to reshoot some of his former work - - and of course - - getting paid to do
it. good thinking on my part. this was part of our reason for deciding to
go SD 4:3 and SD 16:9 and let all those with big budgets "play around" with
the HD market until it gets zeroed in on which formulated version is best
let alone the software editors multiple versions of service paks until it's
finally a go for me too, but without the expense and at the liberty of
"redo'ing" some of the SD to HD.
wha'da'ya'tink?
drd
mv@movingvision.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> Your main problem Doc is that you clearly don't know what you are
> talking about. It seems almost troll like the way you came on this forum
> with loads of questions about what camera and formats you should get,
> for what if I member rightly was a somewhat reactionary religious
> organisation, the answers to which you then perversely rejected with
> stunningly shallow analysis. You now seek to reassure yourself , in the
> face of so much genuinely expert advice, that buying consumer standard
> definition DV was a good move for your church's local TV aspirations.
> Sorry Doc but you still made the wrong decision and you still have no
> idea how HDV and HD formats are being deployed in the real world of
> network television and serious broadcast applications. Your half baked
> and somewhat eccentric theories concerning anything you've shared with
> us so far to do with television, film and video are really too tedious
> to debate. But just for the record you don't have SD 16x9. You have
> ersatz 16x9 which even at it's best true anamorphic ratio, uses 4x3
> CCD's that cut the top and bottom off the picture and stretch the
> remaining image into a 16x9 picture, resulting in a huge 25% reduction
> to what's already a low resolution picture. But then I told you all this
> before you made your purchase.
>
> I doubt you are in touch with producers or broadcasters that work beyond
> the most parochial TV level, because those still in the SD 4x3 domain,
> with the exception of a few residual 4x3 Beta SP and Digital Betacam
> type applications, are clearly not involved in major TV broadcast
> production, as such one shouldn't take their cases for a generality.
>
Doc may be a lone wolf, but his reasoning makes sense for him. - RM
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|