On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:05:09 GMT, B&SY wrote:
>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:35:42 GMT, up_your_ass@usa.net (Harry
>> Dick) wrote:

>> >>Hi-8, directly viewed (without the generation losses
>> >>resulting from editing), can look quite good, but if
>> >>you want to edit, the choice is easy (and Hi-8 is a
>> >>waste of time and money...).

>> >Hey buy those are fighting words. I shoot hi-8 (pro gear) and it will
>> >blow the doors off ANY consumer DV shit. (I have that stuff too)

>> Ah, someone with no opinion to express...! ;-)
>> I was referring to the general run of Hi-8 camcorders,
>> which often do have a good picture, but with generation
>> losses, do generally look worse than good mini-DV once
>> edited (unless horribly-expensive editing gear is used...).

>Now, now David we've gone over this once already at
>rec.video.production. With a DC30 you can capture
>at a 3 to 1 rate which will make a digital copy that looks
>just fine! Folks check out the discussion that He and I
>have had at that NG. The thread it titled "camcorders".

So, "cheap" board, and a RAID should make it work - a good
point. Now, tell me about the price (new!) for the Hi-8
camera and lens that will produce the resolution of
mini-DV...;-) Spend about $5k for each, and maybe...?
Then tell me how you avoid dropouts with Hi-8...
I consider these the "with-which-nothing" of the format.
If I cannot reliably shoot a long scene without fear of
finding it useless later, the medium isn't worth much to me.
With "prosumer" level Hi-8 gear, the picture improvement
with even a good one-chip mini-DV camcorder is painfully
obvious. Trying to edit that (low) level of image quality
is a waste of time.

>> Use top-end Hi-8 gear, with top-end editing gear, and the
>> results can be good, but for far less money the results
>> can be about as good using mini-DV - and one doesn't have
>> to put up with drop-outs... I will accept the DV artifacts
>> along with the excellent sharpness and practical editing
>> as a good trade for drop-outs, generation losses, and a
>> sometimes smoother-looking image.

>Not excellent sharpness, fuzziness, unless you have a pro
>lens and the format is 4:1:1. David, don't make me have
>to go over all this again!

Uh, mini-DV compression rate is constant, and yes,
sharpness can be excellent in good 3-chip "pro-sumer"
camcorders (and lower...) - methinks you are confusing
"sharpness" with something else... As I have said,
mini-DV images can be somewhat "noisy" due to compression
effects (some camcorders are worse than others, but you
have one of the better ones, the VX-1000), but this does
not reduce sharpness, just "smoothness"... If you put
similar-level/price Hi-8 gear (even including the
editing system...) against mini-DV, I think your
conclusion, as stated, is wrong (though it may well be
right for you...). So, now let's compare uncompressed digital against Hi-8, even the very most expensive...;-)