|
|
Posted by Jan Panteltje on 11/22/06 15:56
On a sunny day (22 Nov 2006 07:05:19 -0800) it happened "Mike Kujbida"
<kujfam@xplornet.com> wrote in
<1164207919.918236.263470@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>
>> huge snip <
>>
>> It must be clear to you that then you have tricked yourself, it only
>> means the original format stuff was not 100% quality :-)
>
>
>Jan, according to this thinking, footage on a VHS tape should look the
>same, no matter what the source material was. After all, the format is
>limited to 240 lines of resolution so it shouldn't amke any difference,
>right?
>Wrong. A feature film transferred to VHS has always looked better than
>anything shot with a consumer camcorder. Higher quality source media,
>better lighting, camera work, etc. all contribute to this "apparent"
>quality increase.
>I think we're arguing semantics here so I'll just shut up now and go
>back to work :-)
>
>Mike
Mike I agree with you 100% on the VHS case.
It confirms that the 'original format stuff was not always 100%' as
I stated.
I am the sort of person who would start by recording a test card....
stripe pattern from signal generator, etc.
:-)
Indeed we agree.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|