Posted by Ken Maltby on 05/13/07 18:25

<mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1178895337.489424.189860@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 11, 7:58 am, "Ken Maltby" <kmal...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Both of these Newsgroups begin with rec.video
>> not all video needs to be "professional" to be valid,
>> useful, enjoyable, worth while, to those of us with
>> ""only"" a recreational interest in video.
>
> But Avid pretty much only care about the pro market,

So they bought Pinnacle to acquire their share of the "pro
market"?

and Premiere ?Elements? Why did they come out with
Elements?

and Final Cut lean that way too. Except that they offer
"Express HD" now as well. (Not to mention that Apple
also sells Quicktime software.)

So why would they worry about making
> systems for editing Joe Sixpack's home video?
>

There are a lot more "Joe Sixpacks" with camcorders
than there are your typical effeminate NYC or Left Coast
Videographers.

> Personally the only AVCHD footage I've seen looked awful on a
> 1920x1080 display. I've no idea whether that was because it was a tiny
> camera with a cheap lens, or whether it's a limitation of the format.
>
> Mark
>

It is true that the current marketing for cameras using AVCHD
results in them offering cameras with cheaper components, there
are exceptions and time tends to provide for upgraded offerings.

I have no way of knowing the history of this AVCHD footage
you saw that "looked awful". There are any number of ways to
mess-up video, this includes operator error, as well as the more
technical issues. AVC can provide some additional opportunities
to either improve of degrade the video. There are also features
that are implemented, or not, on playback. Were you looking
at video shot at 1920x1080, or was it scaled up? What are
you comparing it too? DV-50? HDV?

While I personally wouldn't be using such a camera, I am
sure it can provide exactly the compromise some people
will find best meets their needs.

Luck;
Ken

[Back to original message]