Received: from relay7.UU.NET (relay7.UU.NET [192.48.96.17]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA27936 for <dwarner@albany.net>; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:43:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from garcia.com by relay7.UU.NET with SMTP
id QQzvao27931; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:40:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost) by garcia.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA02526; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:41:01 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:41:01 -0500
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Message-Id: <30D900A2.61CC@ix.netcom.com>
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Elliot Bain <ebain@ix.netcom.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lightwave@garcia.com>
Subject: Re: Digital Video....
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
jeric@accessone.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, ebain@ix.netcom.com (Elliot Bain) wrote:
>
> >It doesn't seem to me to be premature in starting to aquire digital
> >footage. The quality is outstanding and far exceeds any consumer or
> >pro-sumer products on the market. The format is a standard one.
>
> I've heard these cameras lack good glass and professional features, like
> manual iris, manual zoom, etc. For LW animators they may be good IF we can
> access the digital info without it being re-encoded into analog signals. Is