On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:18:48 -0700, Keith Clark wrote:

>Golden California Girls wrote:
>> If it is a
>> studio talk show for network prime time, then state of the art is the
>> requirement and mini DV doesn't pass muster.

>Exactly WHY not? What is it, specifically, that doesn't pass muster?
>Just curious.

If you look carefully at good broadcast TV, you can see
two things: 1) the images generally look quite sharp
(especially noticeable with distant landscapes, and toward
image edges and corners with textures) even though
broadcast TV is a 330 horizontal line system and DV is
a 500+ line system in the US ($15k+ lenses and big,
high-res chips do count...), and 2) there is a lack of artifacting in
the image (it is "smooth" and "quiet" looking [at least
until digital broadcasting takes over...] - but Mini-DV
shows considerable "stairstepping" with motion on near
horizontal lines [and some camcorders also show this on
near-verticals, in addition to noticeable Moire patterns],
and fine details and textures "buz"). Good as Mini-DV is
for more casual productions, it is not as good as the gear
used for big-money prime-time broadcasts, alas... If your
production had a big budget (with lots of advertising
money at stake), would you go Mini-DV? With a short budget,
location accessability considerations, and specialty
content, Mini-DV can make sense, and more of it is
broadcast as time goes on (cliche time...;-).