Comments on: PC World’s Mini-DV vs “tapeless” HD cameras http://www.bdwakefield.com/idevelop/2008/11/17/pc-worlds-mini-dv/ my corner of the universe Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:34:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: bwakefield http://www.bdwakefield.com/idevelop/2008/11/17/pc-worlds-mini-dv/comment-page-1/#comment-6 bwakefield Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:50:01 +0000 http://idevelopthis.wordpress.com/?p=32#comment-6 First, thanks for the comment. It is nice to know that somebody saw my rant and was driven to post a comment. I however must disagree with you. I have far more respect for innovation than you assume. I do however, feel that when comparing mini-dv (if anybody produces a feature movie using mini-dv, they are insane, if not stupid) and hard drive or flash memory based pro-sumer cameras, there really is no contest. The non-tape cameras win every time. It is cheaper in the long run and faster / easier (in my humble opinion) for the average person to use. I consider myself to be highly tech oriented and I don't even want to mess with tape. Tape is archaic and there are much better things out there. There comes a point when you just need to let go and move on for innovation to keep happening. More over, I was just more depressed at the article than the actual mini-dv vs hard drive topic. It was well written from the English language but it seemed to be technically flawed. They only tested one mini-dv camera? I realize that you have a limit amount of space in a magazine but they could have done a better job with the meat of the article. First, thanks for the comment. It is nice to know that somebody saw my rant and was driven to post a comment. I however must disagree with you. I have far more respect for innovation than you assume.

I do however, feel that when comparing mini-dv (if anybody produces a feature movie using mini-dv, they are insane, if not stupid) and hard drive or flash memory based pro-sumer cameras, there really is no contest. The non-tape cameras win every time. It is cheaper in the long run and faster / easier (in my humble opinion) for the average person to use. I consider myself to be highly tech oriented and I don’t even want to mess with tape.

Tape is archaic and there are much better things out there. There comes a point when you just need to let go and move on for innovation to keep happening.

More over, I was just more depressed at the article than the actual mini-dv vs hard drive topic. It was well written from the English language but it seemed to be technically flawed. They only tested one mini-dv camera? I realize that you have a limit amount of space in a magazine but they could have done a better job with the meat of the article.

]]> By: Maurizio http://www.bdwakefield.com/idevelop/2008/11/17/pc-worlds-mini-dv/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Maurizio Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:55:44 +0000 http://idevelopthis.wordpress.com/?p=32#comment-5 You lazy man!!! Just less than 10 years ago people were editing in flatbeds, physically cutting film, spending hours just to cut a single scene. Computers changed all that and people like you do not appreciate the innovation of the industry. Patience my friend... You lazy man!!! Just less than 10 years ago people were editing in flatbeds, physically cutting film, spending hours just to cut a single scene. Computers changed all that and people like you do not appreciate the innovation of the industry. Patience my friend…

]]> By: PC World’s Mini-DV vs “tapeless” HD cameras http://www.bdwakefield.com/idevelop/2008/11/17/pc-worlds-mini-dv/comment-page-1/#comment-4 PC World’s Mini-DV vs “tapeless” HD cameras Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:54:26 +0000 http://idevelopthis.wordpress.com/?p=32#comment-4 [...] METELCI wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt PCWORLD’s article comparing mini-dv high definition video cameras to their tapeless counterparts was “sound” as far as reviews are concerned. I don’t have it in front of me right now and I wish that I did. I really should read it again before I dish out too much criticism. However, I have a serious problem with some of their findings. I think they missed the mark and didn’t emphasize the clear advantages for the pro-sumer and tape-less media. I am just going to look at their top two cameras. The one that got their best rating, an 82, was a mini-dv based camera. I don’t recall the brand or model. Just that it was $1000 and recorded in HD. Their second place was, at 80 points, was the Sony HDR-SR11/12 (I am nearly 100% positive it was the SR-12). They said that the mini-dv camera “edged” out tapeless alternatives. You call […] [...] [...] METELCI wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt PCWORLD’s article comparing mini-dv high definition video cameras to their tapeless counterparts was “sound” as far as reviews are concerned. I don’t have it in front of me right now and I wish that I did. I really should read it again before I dish out too much criticism. However, I have a serious problem with some of their findings. I think they missed the mark and didn’t emphasize the clear advantages for the pro-sumer and tape-less media. I am just going to look at their top two cameras. The one that got their best rating, an 82, was a mini-dv based camera. I don’t recall the brand or model. Just that it was $1000 and recorded in HD. Their second place was, at 80 points, was the Sony HDR-SR11/12 (I am nearly 100% positive it was the SR-12). They said that the mini-dv camera “edged” out tapeless alternatives. You call […] [...]

]]>