Posted by Steve Guidry on 12/25/59 11:30

Like many, I'll probably buy HDV before mid-year '06.

But it won't be because it's that much better, or more reliable, or for any
reason having to do with quality.

It will be because I'll need to say to my clients, "I can shoot in HD. Use
me instead of that other guy."

Unlike some, I'll be honest about it, and say that it's just a tool like the
rest of them. I won't sell it as the high-end Sony/Lucasfilm flavor, but I
will offer it as an option.

Who knows - - Maybe it will revive the concert market for us . . .


--
Steve Guidry
Video Works, Inc.
Live events for TV and Video
www.videoworksinc.com
800.844.4404






"John F. Miller" <johnATenosoft.net> wrote in message
news:11lsuip55papfef@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "David Cleland" <davidjcleland@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:djlnu0$ptr$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >
> > >> I think I need to start saving :)
> > >
> > > You're welcome. But before spending BIG bucks on DV, think about HDV.
> >
> But the OP didn't want to spend BIG bucks on DV!
>
> > are you saying don't invest in dv when a new technology is coming out or
> > would an HDV camera be an alternative ?
> >
> > David
>
> IMHO, HDV is a clever marketing ploy to hide the fact that it is really
just
> MPEG2, albeit of the MP @ HL flavour. HDV is attractive (to some) because
> it uses the same miniDV cassettes but crams a high-definition format into
> the same space as DV does for standard-definition. Guess what? A *lot*
of
> information is thrown out and, like any MPEG format, editing is less than
> ideal due to the fact that not every frame is an independent, complete
> picture. DV on the other hand doesn't perform any of the "interframe"
> compression.
>
> If you don't want to edit - just watch it - then fine. But as soon as you
> decide you want to edit, you have to also buy all the supporting software
> etc.
>
> Now, back to your original question. "Broadcast quality" - that's a
*very*
> loose term. Certainly, in the UK (I assume that's where you are!), the
> requirements for broadcasting (e.g., by transmitter, cable, satellite) are
> much more stringent than in the US, for example. For private consumption,
> though, you probably mean the picture quality in terms of resolution,
> clarity, stability etc. If that's the case, DV will be just fine and -
> since it is one of your criteria - affordable.
>
> A downside (in the EU), is that most DV camcorders cannot record a signal
> from an external source (e.g., the edited material from the computer) but
if
> you want to put it on DVD anyway, that's a moot point.
>
> Frankly, you'll be very happy with a modest DV solution - there's a lot of
> freeware/cheapware out there, too. For HDV, it's spend, spend, spend.....
>
> (The marketing ploy I suspect is similar to that for MRI - magnetic
> resonance imaging. It's real name is nuclear magnetic resonance, but the
> word nuclear freaks too many people out, so the name changed. I recently
> decided to upgrade to a more "professional" camcorder and was, at first,
> tempted by the new HDV camcorders but as soon as I read the details and
> realised it was just MPEG2 in a different guise, I chose a 3CCD DV/DVCAM
> with a lot of great features instead. Let others buy the HDV stuff and
you
> can reap the benefit of the falling DV prices on equipment with more
useful
> features.)
>
> John.
>
>

[Back to original message]