Posted by Specs on 09/19/05 17:14

> As for SUX, that's not what I'm saying either. Audibly compromised after a
> full run through post and output to DVD? Let me hear the exact same audio
> recorded at 48 kHz, 16-bit and maintained at that until the compression to
> MPEG for DVD. Who knows, maybe that final dump to DVD (with its mpeg audio
> will compromise the un-messed with audio enough so the two sound pretty
> similar.
>

The vast majority of professionals that will use these cameras like the PD
150 before it. That is for ad-hoc interviews, interviews in cars and
anywhere that's impractical to take a full size camera. The majority of the
sound recorded is likely to be that of the human voice which is more than
capably captured in MP2.

There are two issues, firstly the ability to get HD video in those difficult
situations out weights the compromise in audio quality. Secondly who the
hell is going to do their whole programme's audio post-production in MP2?
By the time an audio bed has been put under the MP2 derived audio it
unlikely you'll notice any recompression artefacts down-stream. Its
analogous to DV footage being placed into a Digibeta mastered programme.

Taking your point to the extreme and MP2 after post productions was heard to
sound like a long distance call to timbuktu I would prefer, as a producer,
to get the interview above all else and if that means using MP2 audio so be
it. Personally I'd rather not have to tell the broadcaster that I couldn't
get my varicam in the passenger seat of the car so there's no interviews on
the move or that when I went into Toxteth (a beautiful area of Liverpool) to
get some interviews with drug dealers that they nicked my expensive camera
so haven't been able to produce the programme!!!!!

[Back to original message]