Posted by ushere on 05/13/07 09:59

ah, that's what happens when i have time on my hands - i get myself into
trouble...

> 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.

my assumption is simply that if you're doing anything you should do it
properly, or to the best of your ability. if i'm cooking a meal (that i
intend to share with other people, not a cold can of beans and a peanut
butter sandwich), my aim would be to have them leave the table satisfied
with the experience, if not wanting another invitation.


> 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"

i did not mean to imply video must be broadcastable, simply that the
quality would be broadcastable - and by that i also mean it would hold
up well on a large tv / lcd screen. the get what you pay for should
have been pointed towards the acquistion, ie., the camera - and that i
certainly stand by.

> Now amateurs are thieves as well?

i did not mean to imply that all amateurs are thieves, but listening to
a large number of 'enthusiastic amateurs', i was quite shocked by how
many were using pirated copies of software, photoshop ranking highest....

> 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.

sorry forgot ulead. my only observation is that if you want more than
the basics, there's a relatively orderly progression in most software -
elements, movie studio, express, etc.,

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

i should have been more specific obviously. i shoot hdv, and edit it -
but any pro will tell you that if you're looking to do more than simple
cut to cut, you'd be better off working with cineform...

> 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.

arrogance? it's simply my pov gained from over 30+ years in the
industry. and yes, it's generally professionals who give the clearest,
most concise answers here - since they, in general, have much more
experience. you don't actually have to make a living out of video to be
professional at producing it...

> 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.

and i am not disagreeing with you. in fact, i'm surprised that software
vendors are not rushing to fill the obvious market created by avchd,
rather like the cart before the horse.

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

the schools might, but since i'm generally sought out to lecture / teach
/ whathaveyou, i do as i like, and they've never complained - only that
i wont work with the students more often..

anyway, i think i'll go back to reading a manual - it's apparently much
safer than writing here ;-)

leslie

[Back to original message]