Posted by Specs on 12/27/28 11:33

"Nappy" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
news:WApjf.21200$D13.20347@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Specs" <No.Spam@Thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:438e2227$0$63087$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> >
> > "Nappy" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
> > news:X3mjf.28327$Zv5.27726@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> > >
> > > "Specs" <No.Spam@Thanks.com> wrote in message
> > > news:438d6875$0$63067$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> > > > Interested to read your definition of HD.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1920x1080 4:4:4 10 bit
> > >
> > > HDV does not even come close. Not even nearly close.
> > >
> > > And I didn't even mention the audio.
> > >
> > > But Specs.. I wouldn't think this discussion would be necessary. Are
> there
> > > really folks out there who think HDV is HD?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > Skillfully dodged the issues. So clearly Dv100 and HDCAM are not HD in
> your
> > book. OK.
>
> I thought I was presenting my concept of what HD is!
>
> >
> > No, is not necessary. I know what HD is but I was surprised at your
> > elitism. HDV fullfils a role just as DV did.
>
> There's no elitism there.. Don't mistake my disdain for HDV as elitism.
> Surely none meant towards my friend Specs. .
>
> >
> > I know of no one working in 1920x1080 4:4:4 10 bit.
>
> Lots of people. D-5 Decks and a Decklink Pro card will get you there I
> believe. Although I don't own one. .
> but that wasn't the issue.
>
> The preferred flavours
> > at the moment are HDCAM and DVCPROHD in the places I have worked. Full
> > raster HD is just too damned expensive for the extra quality (unless
> chroma
> > keying where it is absolutely necessary) one attains.
>
> Depends on where you are I suppose. In Los Angeles it is not a rarity. But
> you do agree that full res HD is not comparable to HDV. Which is the only
> point we were trying to make actually.
>
>
> >
> > Anyone who compares the output from a $115,000 camera to a $3000 camera
is
> a
> > cunt. Said a DOP to me recently....
>
> ouch. Of course I was not doing the comparison.
>
> Ty wrote "That would be incorrrect. The Z1 is HDV. HDV and HD are NOT the
> same."
>
> He wrote that in response to mmaker saying: ..."guess the plus-point is
> that the Z1 is HD, "
> And I supported that notion by attempting to point out some of the
> differences. Which are vast.
>
> Then you asked me what I consider HD.. And here we are with you calling me
a
> cunt. In a roundabout way. Which has even less to do with the point of the
> thread.
>
No offence was meant but I think you know that! :))

I was just making the point don't compare the incomparable. By definition
you were making a comparison. But hey HDV is what it is. I've seen some
great stuff shot with the mini 35 and would cetainly use it in the right
circumstances.

With the HD spec including resolutions down to 720x480p then personally I'd
have to say HDV was indeed HD.

[Back to original message]