|
Posted by nappy on 12/20/07 19:22
"nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
news:wgyaj.32150$JD.23726@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Paul Rogan" <petsgalore@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o3skm31ma5qqjtrev9vq2di7gd69pkvjbu@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:45:16 GMT, "nappy" <n@n.n> wrote:
>>
>>>> I have an older Betacam 300A to aquire video with.
>>>
>>>I have a garbage can for it.
>>
>>
>> Are you insane? The 300A is a fine camera and far better looking than 90%
>> of the
>> digital crap out there. I shoot primarily with a 400A but the 300A
>> contributed
>> about $75K to my gross last year as a 2nd unit and rental. Clients love
>> the look
>> and networks expect Beta SP.
>
> nope.. they're history. Don't take it personally..
>
to clairify..
They're heavy
They don't shoot the formats or frame speeds new cameras shoot.
Digicams are far more versatile for just about everything.
Not compatible with new storage methods or workflows
Won't be HD cameras ever.
They're heavy
News crews are abandoning them for lighter quicker cameras. No one notices.
Except the same crowd that still thinks analog recording is the way to go.
While that may be true.. doesn't matter.
CDs were propagated because of the workflow and ease of use and
distribution. Not because they necessarily sounded better.
Doesn't matter if they do SD NTSC well.. or better than anything else
because that format is gonna die soon.
They're expensive.
The decks aren't cheap either.
It's old tech by a decade.
They require more maintenance. Much more.
Most people can not tell the difference between a beta shot and a shot from
a decent digital camera shooting down res at 720x486 interlaced.
So in reality.. they're pretty much history.
I don't have a personal attachment to either technology I just call em as I
see em..
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|