|
|
Posted by PTravel on 10/05/31 11:52
"Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in message
news:e8ui3p$bkc$1@news01.intel.com...
> "PTravel" wrote ...
>> From Adobe:
>>
>> "This digital format has many benefits, including excellent picture
>> resolution, relatively low camera and tape cost, and no generational loss
>> during the duplication and editing process. It is a format that is being
>> rapidly adopted throughout the video industry."
>>
>> http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/199904/19990419.prequicktm.html
>>
>> A google search revealed scads of similar statements from other sources.
>> So, you'll forgive me, but I'll take Adobe's word over yours.
>
> Indeed at the marketing level that is an accurate statement.
> At the engineering/technology level is is a gross oversimiplification.
> But then most marketing verbiage is a gross oversimplification, so
> why should Adobe (or Sony) be any different?
>
> If we want to just leave this discussion at the marketingspeak level
> then we are in violent agreement. But to say that it is 100% perfect
> and that the 100th (or 20th) generation will be bit-perfect with the
> original is something that would likely get no support from the
> engineers who designed the technology.
>
> If you really want to know the remarkably complex technology
> behind DV, here is as good an explanation as you can get for free...
> http://www.sony.ca/dvcam/pdfs/dvcam%20format%20overview.pdf
I don't deny the complexity of digital technology, or that the site I quoted
is a marketing piece (though federal law strictly prohibits false statements
in advertising). Right now, it's just you and Martin saying there is
generational loss in DV duping. Maybe you're both right, but I'd sure like
to see something that now only supports the contention, but that quantifies
it as well. I don't dispute that it is possible for uncorrectable erros to
occur. I still don't believe it happens so often that it's a signficant
consideration, whether at the 2nd copy or the 100th. I'm willing to be
persuaded I'm wrong, but it will take hard numbers to do that.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|