|
|
Posted by doc on 02/24/06 23:45
hey, i like this one. yes, i'm legend in my own mind (clint eastwood,
magnum force)
drd :o)
"Rick Merrill" <rickZERODOTmerrill@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:H4-dnRshBfla1WLenZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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]
|