Posted by Ken Maltby on 05/13/07 08:38

"ushere" <removethis.leslie.wand@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12y1i.37281$M.33189@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Spex wrote:
>> nappy wrote:
>>> "ushere" <removethis.leslie.wand@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:GC71i.36814$M.2951@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>> why? there's a plethora of relatively cheap software out there
>>>> that will handle avchd, if someone is going to invest in any of
>>>> those programs (i use vegas which DOES support avchd), then why
>>>> would they spend $500+ on a program and then use a crappy camera.
>>>> and yes, i did say crappy camera because at the moment, it looks
>>>> like all the avchd cameras are built like fisher-price toys, with
>>>> awful lens', and and little thought as to sound, etc.,
>>>>
>>>> leslie.
>>> Agreed. Seems off-topic here to discuss these toys.
>>>
>>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> Harsh..
>>
>> But Fair...
>
> i didn't mean it to sound harsh - i'm all for the spread of home-grown
> program making - as with filmakers - everyone has to start off somewhere
> and learn their skills. and there's no point investing money in what
> might only be a passing fad. however, if it's more than a fad, then
> you'll invest relatively to the possibility of earning an income. of
> course, there are some who must have a bigger one than their neighbours.
> well, i'm sure that sony, panasonic will just love your attitude, and
> your credit card, but boasting here isn't going to impress anyone...
>
Again your assumption that the only valid approach is towards
a professional position. Not everyone working with video is
getting paid to, or working towards that as a goal.

> .... however, there's an ever increasing number of people (i also teach,
> high-school, uni,and adults, along with being a full time video
> producer) who believe that.
>
> a. the more expensive the tool, the better the product. in general,
> we're in the digital age, so you can produce pretty good looking
> material with a achvd camera and, say, magix movie edit. it won't
> necessarily be broadcast standard, but if it's good enough, it will be
> broadcasterble.
>
Not all video need be produced for broadcast. Are you saying
it would be inaccurate to believe "you get what you pay for" now?
"the more expensive the tool, the better the product"

> b. that 'cracked / pirated' software should do what the amateur wants.

Now amateurs are thieves as well?

> professionals who buy 'serious' nle software buy it because it does what
> they need. if i want to edit mpeg2, i don't use avid, vegas, ppro, i use
> a great, affordable program called womble, which unlike most of the
> former software, offers smart rendering. if you don't know what 'smart
> rendering' is, then magix and womble are your best tools.
>
I would suggest Ulead's offerings as well. But you should take
a closer look at the current offerings such as Avid Liquid, Vegas,
and even the die-hard Adobe products. That is, if your budget is
as high as your opinion for the value of being a professional.


> c. any professional will know that the quality of any mpeg acquisition
> format is severely compromised by it's initial compression
>

There are now a number of professionals that make regular
use of HDV (MPEG2), and seem to find it acceptable.

> the world, or rather these ng's are divided between those who make a
> living out of producing video (and whose input in these forums is of
> genuine help to both other pros and aspiring video makers), those
> seeking to learn the art of video production (for whatever purpose), and
> ask sensible, unanswered questions (as opposed to those that have
> already been done to death and would be easily answerable by a simple
> search of the forums), the technophiles, who will give pretty serious
> technical answers that, in general, mean little to most readers, but
> sure as hell impress me - not that as a working producer they mean
> anything tangible either, and finally, those that either complain about
> soft / hardware not doing what THEY want, or need to reinforce their
> belief in their investment in equipment / software is the best. just
> look at the mac / pc debate.
>
> i think it's fair to ask about achvd, but not to demand professionals to
> pay attention to it's lack of 'acceptance', or it's shortcomings. the
> old adage hold true - you get what you pay for.
>
> as you might gather, i'm having a lazy afternoon ;-}
>
> leslie
>

I find your arrogance, and insistence that the only posters
that provide useful information are "those who make a living
out of producing video", to be most annoying. No one has
asked "professionals" to do anything. The OP was pointing
out that, with the spread of the format, it is time the more
traditional developers of editing software should include it
in their offerings. Just as they came to include HDV.

I may even agree that it would be appropriate for this
format to be supported in the amateur/consumer versions
of their products. Also, that there are technical limitations
with the current implementation of AVCHD, that put it at
a disadvantage compared to HDV. There was a
disadvantage to 8mm film for home movies compared to
16mm film, in my father's day. 8mm cameras were most
often somewhat inferior, in many ways, to the 16mm
cameras (Although, they were usually smaller and lighter.)
But 8mm was a viable format for a large number of families.

Luck;
Ken

P.S. Don't High Schools require an understanding of
capitalization, anymore?

[Back to original message]