|
|
Posted by David McCall on 09/30/06 23:03
I-Max and Omni-Max are both pretty over the top formats, and
Bill likely isn't very intrested in either of those either. However
they do get used, and people do pay premium bux to see shows
shot in those formats just as they have for Cinerama and the
various 3D (incluting I-Max 3D).
No one is suggesting that Bill switch over to I-Max, or 4K
to service his corperate and comercial clients. There he is
better off sticking with the more bread and butter formats
like DV Betacam, or Digi-Beta. Before long he, and the
rest of us, will be forced to move into some form of
HD, but even here it wouldn't pay for Bill to move into 4K.
HDV would likely fill his niche.
Just because a format doesn't serve your needs
doesn't make it rediculous.
David
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:OLCdnfwkQo-C5oPYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>I agree Bill, but storage methods could be designed to handle the bandwidth
>as well as the immense storage, which I would estimate at maybe 8 terabytes
>per hour, assuming very modest compression. And proxy-based editing, not
>unlike today's technique to handle current high definition content, could
>be applied to the workflow. On the bright side, ultra high capacity tape
>drive companies like Qualstar can transfer over a terabyte an hour and
>store nearly a hundred terabytes, so the eventual ability to handle this
>type of flow is likely if not inevitable.
>
> All of this is certainly very, very far away from being a production
> solution. It does project an intriguing view of a future "very high
> definition" future however, albeit from afar.
>
> Smarty
>
>
>
>
> "FCP User" <newvideo@fastq.com> wrote in message
> news:newvideo-77ECB8.19230329092006@news.west.cox.net...
>> In article <tpidnb_2JMY7pITYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks David. I searched rec.video.production back through 1994 and saw
>>> no
>>> references. Perhaps Martin or Richard can recall.......
>>>
>>> Smarty
>>>
>>>
>>> "David McCall" <david_____@techshop.net> wrote in message
>>> news:FGaSg.3952$SD5.3292@trndny01...
>>> >
>>> > "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:y-adndCrXuKrqITYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>> >> Richard,
>>> >>
>>> >> This camcorder stores its' recordings on either a hard disk or Flash
>>> >> drive. Why have you decided this is not a camcorder?
>>> >>
>>> >> Smarty
>>> >>
>>> >> BTW, have they really been at this "for years"? Can you please send a
>>> >> link to prior versions?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks
>>> >>
>>> > I think I've seen this, or a similar device, mentioned here before,
>>> > and it was months if not years ago. Perhaps Martin brought it up?
>>> >
>>> > David
>>> >
>>
>> Most of us who regularly attend NAB saw the prototype back in April.
>>
>> I'll say again what I said then.
>>
>> The camera is perfectly rational and I can't think of any manufacturing
>> or production reason why it won't fly.
>>
>> But I do think that the 4k camera is all well and good, but shooting at
>> that rez brings HUGE stresses to the post process that nobody's come
>> even close to addressing.
>>
>> In essense post-shoot storage is a massive and currently unsolvable
>> problem that will choke this concept unless something changes hugely in
>> storage technology between now and when the product ships.
>>
>> Sorry, but flash memory isn't going to work for my clients work. - nor
>> any other volitile media that upon encountering a glitch, makes all my
>> work disappear.
>>
>> I will NEVER put myself into a position to tell a client "You know all
>> the equipment, cast, crew, actors and even craft services money I just
>> spent for you over the past week? There was a static discharge when I
>> picked up the memory module and the footage - all of it - Poof, it's all
>> gone. Sorry.
>>
>> Nor do I find dedicating a closet to a bunch of aging legacy "client
>> hard drives" anything but deeply stupid. Drives fail. And when they do,
>> they're no better than flash memory.
>>
>> And investing in and stockpiling mechanical hard disc drives - instead
>> of tapes or discs is just stupid on it's face.
>>
>> Sorry, but I want dependable media for storage. Betacam worked, DVCAM
>> works, even Mini-DV works. Until there's a reliable and robust storage
>> medium that works for a few hours of 4k media - I don't think this dog's
>> gonna hunt.
>>
>> And right now, nothing I can see on the horizon - certainly not Blue ray
>> or Sony's XDCAM - has anywhere NEAR enough capacity to be realistic as a
>> storage and backup solution to something putting out uncompressed files
>> that size.
>>
>> It's like someone invented a popcorn popper that can churn out a
>> thousand gallons of popcorn a second. Sounds great until you turn it on
>> and realize that after it's run a couple of minutes, you have a mountain
>> of popcorn and have to turn the bloody thing off until someone figures
>> out where to get - how to use - and who actually can afford the bloody
>> GIANT popcorn bags.
>>
>> Until that changes, IMO, it's a lovely technological innovation that got
>> everything totally right - except the part of the production chain that
>> could potentially make it actually an effective production choice -
>> affordable, dependable, field footage file storage.
>>
>> Until they show me that - I'm spending my money elsewhere.
>>
>> FWIW
>>
>> --
>> Bill Davis
>> StartEditingNow.com
>> DVD editing instruction with Multi-Track Movies
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|