|
|
Posted by doc on 06/22/06 04:45
sure and we all know it, but don't push it cause the whole format is up for
grabs and anyone jumping on board now may find themselves in a trick bag
once the format settles and they don't have it. as for our company, we're
waiting out the storm and see what settles as "THE" format. for now, in our
opinion HD is really hard to distinguish from 720. OTO the old 320 lines
well, that's a different story. but . . . is there a station still
broadcasting that other than no-where's-ville AK
drd
"David McCall" <david.mccall@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ftpag.3883$oN2.3622@trndny02...
>
> "Steve Guidry" <steveguidryrem0veth1s@earthlink.ditnot> wrote in message
> news:I7pag.3000$x4.988@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Yeah, yeah, yeah.
>>
>> I've been hearing the same ol' tired refrain about HD since 1991 or so.
>> In
>> fact, the first NAB I went to - - in 1985 - - featured an HD prototype
>> transmission/reception setup.
>>
>> But when I talk to real engineers at real TV stations (in non-top ten
>> markets) , they've _all_ told me that they plan to keep their analog
>> gear
>> for its full duty cycle. Sure, they've added a digital router layer to
>> the
>> plant, and they plan to add digital and even some HD stuff as the old
>> gear
>> breaks, and they plan to air the network's HD stuff (only because they
>> have
>> to do it) as it comes down the satellite, but if you think HD is soon to
>> be
>> everywhere, then boy are you deceived. I'd even go so far as to say
>> that
>> people who believe this line are just the kind of chumps that
>> manufacturers
>> LOVE to see coming down the trade show aisle.
>>
>> Make no mistake, real HD (as opposed to this HDV bastard child that's
>> so
>> popular right now) _IS_ closer to widespread use than it's ever been.
>> But I'm not selling the farm until it I have to do so, OR until my
>> customer base demands it. And, oh, by the way, Mr.. blackburst, when
>> did
>> you ever have a client tell you, "I'd do this project with you, AND
>> spend
>> an extra 50% for it if you _just_ had HD" ? Maybe yours are ready to
>> do
>> that, but I'm not holding my breath here in East Texas.
>>
>> I hope this doesn't come off as a personal attack, because I don't mean
>> it
>> that way. I just get damn tired of manufacturers who told me all too
>> recently, "buy this, it's great" now acting like it's no longer worth a
>> plugged nickel.
>>
> Yeah, I heard the same thing about chip cameras vs. tubes,
> analog vs. digital, Phonograph records vs. CDs, Synthesizers
> VS organs and pianos, Horseless carriages vs. those with horses.
>
> They were all right on the day they said it, but they became wrong
> much sooner than they ever imagined.
>
> Of course there will still be people 10 years from now still using SD.
> The question is; will those be the people you want to cater to?
>
> You are perfectly free to snub your nose at HDV. It doesn't begin
> to compare to the systems that cost 10 times as much. However
> people that have jumped on that bandwagon can offer HDV for
> less than you could even if you were using Betacam and tube cameras.
>
> I have not jumped on that bandwagon either, but then I didn't even
> buy a professional DV deck (DSR-45) until last year because I
> didn't want to go there. Why would I want to compete with everybody
> that had a DV camera and a personal computer? I wanted to go to
> Digital Betacam, but unfortunately my clients didn't have a need for it.
> They eventually needed DV though :-(
>
> David
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|