|
|
Posted by David McCall on 10/15/85 11:48
"Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in message
news:e54pgl$ss9$1@news01.intel.com...
> "David McCall" wrote ...
>> When people think MPEG-2 they immediately think we are
>> talking the bandwidth available on DVDs. That has almost
>> no bearing on HDV. HDV is recorded at the bandwidth of
>> DV tape which is much higher than DVDs.
>
> There is significantly more information in an HD frame than in
> an SD frame. By your own admission, that information all gets
> compressed to fit into the SD-sized DVtape bandwidth. Ipso-
> facto, it is more highly compressed. If you are satisfied with that,
> I am happy for you.
If there was no delta compression then there would definitely
be heavier compression. It is probably be more anyway.
But I'm not sure I care. DV is a consumer format, and the
engineers hate it just like they hated SVHS, Umatic, and Hi8,
and I'm sure they will hate HDV just as much. All of those
crappy formats made it to broadcast, and I'll not be at all
surprised if HDV manages to find it's way to broadcast as well.
I have never claimed that it was just as good. Yes, HDV is
heavily compressed, but then so is DV. Yes, you do have to
be more careful about how you use it, but that applies to DV
as well. Admittedly you have to be even more careful with HDV
than with DV. But then you also have to be extremely careful
with motion when you shoot progressive too.
I do agree it is not as good as 35mm with a full kit and crew.
David
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|