Received: from relay6.UU.NET (relay6.UU.NET [192.48.96.16]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id OAA09627 for <dwarner@albany.net>; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 14:04:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from garcia.com by relay6.UU.NET with SMTP
id QQzvcl13485; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 13:57:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost) by garcia.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA23236; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 13:57:10 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 13:57:10 -0500
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Message-Id: <1572.6563T543T655@mt-inc.com>
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: johnc@mt-inc.com (John Crookshank)
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:
On 20-Dec-95 18:57:08, jeric (jeric@accessone.com) Emailed:
> 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 that possible?
Another concern is the sampling and compression used during recording.
My data on this format shows a 4:1:1 sampling scheme, and a 5:1 compression
on the images before recording. This leads to serious concerns regarding
uncompression and re-compression that one would experience during editing,
not to mention artifacts when moving from their compression scheme to a