Posted by Specs on 09/20/05 09:04

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9NKdnfQEKP3_q7LeRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:14:22 -0400, Specs wrote
> (in article <432ef03e$0$97134$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>):
>
> >
> >> 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.
>
> Maybe. If you were able to hear the two and compare, even you might be
able
> to hear the difference.
>
> > 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.
>
> Not it's not. That completely discounts the issue of audio data
compression.
> As smart as you appear here, how you could possibly make that assertion is
> magical, and not in a good way.
>
You say magic, I say pragmatic. Let's call the whole thing off......

> > 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!!!!!
>
> The DVX100a, PD170 or XL2 would prevent that likelihood.

Dear oh dear, why would I use DV material in a HD project? And you have a
go at me for daring to use compressed audio? Isn't that the Pot calling the
Kettle black?

Ty, I don't hink you are ever going to see the pragmatic point of view so
we'll stop here if that's alright with you. I wish you the best. I would
suggest you download some of the HDV stock footage that is available online
and have a listen and play with the audio. If you can shake off a bit of
dogma you might be surprised.....

[Back to original message]