Received: from mail.webcom.com (mail.webcom.com [206.2.192.68]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id WAA18307 for <DWARNER@ALBANY.NET>; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 22:40:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.webcom.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA018611339; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 19:42:19 -0800
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 19:42:19 -0800
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Message-Id: <9602190058.AA00epc@meta.burner.com>
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: jkrutz@meta.burner.com (Jamie Krutz) ()
To: lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Subject: Re: Them UVWs...
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
In article <199602181722.KAA23888@earth.usa.net> James Jones/Nibbles and Bits <jgjones@usa.net> writes:
> Andyh@erinet.com said:
>
> >... I used to own a UVW-1800 and animation is the one thing I
> >would NOT recommend them for.
>
> Why not? (I have a friend who is in the process of purchasing one
> -- perhaps there is something he should know...)
>
> What's uh, the deal? :)
The UVW decks are not as rugged as the BVW decks, but the
picture quality is much better than the comparably priced 3/4
decks and close to that of the much more expensive BVW decks.
They work fine for laying off animations from compressed computer
video sources like the PAR. For single frame recording I'd suggest
a more rugged deck if you're going to do a lot of it.