|
|
Posted by doc on 02/25/06 00:02
hey, very well written. thanks for the comments. truly i follow what your
saying and don't for even the slightest disagree with your comments, other
than the station (which are nbc, abc, and cbs, affiliates . . and therein i
believe that they do know what they're both doing and are fairly expert at
it) AND the program content. the content is viewed by thousands upon
thousands in 7 on over 70 cable channels and 28 air channels (of whom all of
them are i haven't a clue, because that's not my job, mine is to direct and
produce the show and where it goes once i deliver the goods, who knows)
also, not being an expert and not claiming to be, i offer suggestions herein
not as an authority (although i might sound like one because it's my
personal nature) but i try to say that "it's my 2 cents worth" or "my
opinion" or ??? because i have found in here and on 8 other boards that i'm
a member of, that there are a lot of people either doing what i'm doing,
trying too, or just putz'ing around, that . . like me . . haven't a clue and
are looking for answers. but instead of getting the "top shelf" answer from
me that often costs a fortune or parks one self in a box to have to beat
their way out with a lot of dollar bills, i offer simple, no nonsense, easy,
solutions if we in fact have tried and done a particular thing. like the
eartec, we tried it, it works, but it's not the best in our opinion. like
the audio-technica U100 series, we tried it, it was a total floop and
returned it. and dozens of tests. i come from a strong engineering
(chemical & mechanical) background and have "some" experience in
electronics, having built my own novice transmitter by the age of 12 using
from the schematics in the radio amature's handbook 1962 edition, p 161-162,
and built my own am radio station later that year and broadcast daily after
school that even the local constabulary used to tune in and listen . . and
thus, i offer plain jane help and input.
much like others who put in their two cents, i try to. maybe not always
what someone wants to hear, but as a graduate in the school of political
science and psychology i've learned this, if you don't say what your
thinking, then someone else's input is the output. just trying to help.
btw, we don't do 16:9 as you say. we do it externally. i'm sure you know
about this, i can tell you know it all technically. i didn't i asked in
here or elsewhere and got answers that would give me the best solutions with
the best outputs . . not reduced resolution. one of the "experts" said to
do it the way you mentioned (with the camera settings) but a novice (like
me) said to do it externally and that's what we did. there is a visible
difference doing it the way the expert said and the novice's
recommendations. the latter was right on and decidedly non-textbook/manual
as the BBS expert recommended.
well, there's my 2cents (pun intended)
but in closing, thanks for your comments and i do like your write up. and i
mean that. i would love to read more of what you have. your both a good
writer and good presenter. your thoughts have reasonable logic and not
something often seen here. i love to read and especially material that is
well versed with melodic wording. mine are just off the cuff, unedited, and
not that good. just me :o)
BTW John Lubran, God bless you and yours AND i do sincerely mean that.
drd
<mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:51kHmTOF1z$DFwbE@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> 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.
>
> --
> John Lubran
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|