|
|
Posted by doc on 06/22/06 04:46
i just did two vhs today because a client said, "we don't like dvd's" o
well :o)
"jakdedert" <jakdedert@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:h7rag.18466$qd2.4869@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> David McCall wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>> 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.
>>
> 4-Tracks vs. 8-tracks vs. cassettes? Beta vs. VHS? 78's vs. 33's?
>
>> They were all right on the day they said it, but they became wrong
>> much sooner than they ever imagined.
>>
> Wrong in that the 'new' standard was supplanted? I'm not sure what you
> mean.
>
>> 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?
>>
> It doesn't matter what you capture the footage on, as long as you can
> losslessly edit it, and then dup it to some common format for
> distribution...whatever the popular format happens to be at the moment.
> I'm duping things to DVD which were created before DVD was....
>
>> 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 :-(
>>
> For what...it doesn't matter. You can dub to any format for which you
> have recording gear...some of my clients ask for VHS.
>
> jak
>
>
>> David
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|