Received: from relay5.UU.NET (relay5.UU.NET [192.48.96.15]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA21507 for <dwarner@albany.net>; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 23:21:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from garcia.com by relay5.UU.NET with SMTP
id QQzvdx02320; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 23:15:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost) by garcia.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA07781; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 23:15:24 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 23:15:24 -0500
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Message-Id: <199512220149.AA28786@sos.sos.net>
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: astevens@sos.sos.net (Andy Stevens)
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:
Television is a close up meduim viewed on a small screen. 90% of all
content is and should be shot as such and are more dependent on the
resolution. The remaining outside of this paremeter would be more adversly
affected by the glass.
Technically however, you are correct. In a real world of audio however the
eyes and the ears have it.
Just a thought
Andy Stevens
>
>On Thu, 21 Dec 1995, Elliot Bain <ebain@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Having said all that, these digital camcorders totally blow away anything
else
>in
>>their price ranges. After all, price/performance is what it's all about. If
>you've
>>got enough money, you can get all the performance you want. If you don't,
these
>>machines will do quite nicely.
>>
>>Elliot Bain
>
> I started as a shooter, and still shoot when I can. Without