|
|
Posted by Martin Heffels on 11/01/06 18:51
On 1 Nov 2006 07:19:32 -0800, "carlmart" <carlmart@centroin.com.br> wrote:
>I was involved in the several forums on the discussions over HDV, and
>that was not completely clear. For me it always was. I saw DV as what
>16mm was to film, and HDV as super-16.
S16 has the same "resolution" as regular 16mm, it only delivers a wider
picture, as the gate is wider. So the comparison you read in the other
forums, is nonsense. It is correct however to compare HDV with 16mm,
resolution-wise.
>> That's just baloney to think that 24p makes your footage allof a sudden
>> look film-like. It's a lot more thingks which count to that, and those
>> things are usually the ones neglected first at a low-budget movie.
>
>Baloney is to use 24p effect. What I am talking about is shooting with
>real 24 frames to be transferred to film. I don't care for the effect
>and Sony try to cheat (and I was present at a show release) saying the
>Z1 also was 24p.
I see.
[...]
>> I know many people who bought a XL1 for that reason. But the amount of
>> poepl who actually have an additional lens, is almost zilch.
>
>This is also pushing for better lens quality. You also need to know how
>to work with fixed lenses, and not everybody can do that.
Tally ho! For them they invented the zoom lens :-) A decent lens on a small
camera, will cost more than the camera itself. But you throw away all the
advantage with a compressed format.
>> Video is dirt-cheap nowadays. Do you really expect that a fully loaded
>> HD-camera will be your's for under a 1000? Don't think so.
>
>No, but I think we should avoid tale-telling how you shot your film. Or
>it may become a distraction.
? No capice
cheers
-martin-
--
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|