|
|
Posted by Rick Merrill on 07/11/06 13:55
PTravel wrote:
> "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. ...
There is potential generational loss in dup of DV25 tape, but not if the
data has been stored in files (on disk).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|