|
|
Posted by Ken Maltby on 05/21/07 01:11
"Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfXaXm@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:5bc8ftF2r3lvmU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ken Maltby wrote:
>> "Maxwell" <maxheadspace@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
>> news:1179672978.981459.187590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 14, 10:50 pm, Frank <f...@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote:
>>>> Well, alright, let me say this: I do think that the subject line of
>>>> this thread is a bit off-base. As things presently stand, the
>>>> highest-priced AVCHD camcorder doesn't provide audio or video quality
>>>> even matching, let alone exceeding, that of even the lowest-priced HDV
>>>> camcorder.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HDV is MPEG-2.
>>>
>>> AVCHD is a variation of MPEG-4 (H-264 actually).
>>>
>>> The benefit of MPEG-4 is that it reduces the dataflow considerably.
>>> It does that by increasing compression. In my opinion, the more you
>>> compress, the more you sacrifice. For me, MPEG-2 (HDV) is too
>>> compressed. I wouldn't even touch MPEG-4. All my cameras are HDV.
>>> AVCHD is for the family vacation.
>>>
>>
>> Don't you think there might be some here at "rec.video.desktop
>> or rec.video.production" (please note the "rec") that could have an
>> interest in a camera for a lowly purpose like "the family vacation"?
>>
>> Luck;
>> Ken
>
>
> Family vacation? In that case, check out the products from Pure Digital
> Technologies at http://www.puredigitalinc.com/products/index.html
>
> Mike
I think it would be OK if they could have a whole range of
cameras and formats that they may use as they see fit. Even
if that offends some of the purists and professional snobs
that post here.
Luck;
Ken
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|