Posted by Pat Horridge on 01/11/94 11:50

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gJ1kg.17292$Ui7.16104@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> doc wrote:
>> nice review. i do understand completely. thanks for the input.
>> sometimes it helps to hear someone else say it, "know what i mean?" i
>> tell myself don't even think about it, go for all the gutz ya can afford
>> and then some, that is . . stretch to the hilt, but then i forget why.
>> you said it in a nutshell, "6 mos" that's about the size of it too.
>> then, there'll be something new coming along that in 18 months will be
>> unusable by anything on the market, huh?
>
> Hold on a minute. This sounds a lot like the megapixel race.
>
> If the computer does the job for you now, it will do the job for you in 18
> months as well - regardless of what comes out next. This is similar to
> worrying about how many megapixels the next generation of cameras will
> have. If 6, 8, or 10 are doing the job for you now, then they will be just
> as good 10 years from now.
>
> The only factor in video worth worrying about is the ability to handle HD.
> So find out which systems can do that, and then get one of those and edit.
> HD won't be replaced for a long time.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

True but the speed with which you can do the edit is an important factor if
you charge for that time.
A low mega pixel camera takes the pictures at the same rate as a high one.
A slow old computer will just not process effects and render and export as
fast as a newer one.
This is compounded by the fact that some people will have the newest fasted
kit and when a Client has used their kit they will soon get frustrated when
moving onto slow kit. They then start to moan and ultimately they vote with
their feet.
It is a fine balance of course. It's not always best or most sense money
wise to get the very fastest. Often one down from fastest is cheaper and
almost as good. I prefer to stay one step behind the bleeding edge if I can.

[Back to original message]