Posted by doc on 07/13/06 04:28

all the stations we know don't like HDV they much prefer DVCPRO

drd

"David McCall" <david--------@techshop.net> wrote in message
news:Z6mdg.2409$zg5.554@trndny04...
>
> "Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in message
> news:e54pgl$ss9$1@news01.intel.com...
>> "David McCall" wrote ...
>>> When people think MPEG-2 they immediately think we are
>>> talking the bandwidth available on DVDs. That has almost
>>> no bearing on HDV. HDV is recorded at the bandwidth of
>>> DV tape which is much higher than DVDs.
>>
>> There is significantly more information in an HD frame than in
>> an SD frame. By your own admission, that information all gets
>> compressed to fit into the SD-sized DVtape bandwidth. Ipso-
>> facto, it is more highly compressed. If you are satisfied with that,
>> I am happy for you.
> If there was no delta compression then there would definitely
> be heavier compression. It is probably be more anyway.
>
> But I'm not sure I care. DV is a consumer format, and the
> engineers hate it just like they hated SVHS, Umatic, and Hi8,
> and I'm sure they will hate HDV just as much. All of those
> crappy formats made it to broadcast, and I'll not be at all
> surprised if HDV manages to find it's way to broadcast as well.
>
> I have never claimed that it was just as good. Yes, HDV is
> heavily compressed, but then so is DV. Yes, you do have to
> be more careful about how you use it, but that applies to DV
> as well. Admittedly you have to be even more careful with HDV
> than with DV. But then you also have to be extremely careful
> with motion when you shoot progressive too.
>
> I do agree it is not as good as 35mm with a full kit and crew.
>
> David
>

[Back to original message]