) away to tell a differenceOkie, I'll pull back my last comment of not many people having 1080p cameras, I'll admit they are readily accessible, but do the common consumers need that clarity or can discern the quality of a 1080p camera, most likely not. It's like those "TV tricks" they have at bestbuy. They hook one TV up to a composite cable, and one to an HDMI, tell the consumer both are HDMI to push the newer TV. By slapping a 1080p sticker on a camera, they push the products easier saying it's the 'newest and best', but I doubt grandma and grandpa can tell they difference.fastbilly1 wrote:I disagree with the first point. Any professional still photographer has a camera capable of shooting 1080p. Most DSLRs, if not all, can shoot at 1080p. Heck most indy films are shot on the Canon 5d Mark II. If thats not enough, a hacked Lumix GH1 can shoot full 1080p at 4:2:0 color and at 50mbps (unhacked does 1080i at 20mbps). The Gh1 goes for about $700 - which I admit is not an impulse buy for most people but the option is there. Heck on my coffee table right now there are four cameras that can shoot full 1080p, granted Im an exception to the rule since I owned film cameras for a long time. I miss my Arriflex D20s, but they went on to a better place.avrame wrote:For one, few people have cameras that can shoot video in 1080p, and few people exist that want to watch Youtube videos in HD.
What you should be looking for 1080p is things like the rumored upgrade to the FlipHD camera. The rumors Ive heard are 34 mbps true 1080p in a $300 camera. Granted Im probably going to be buying a Lumix AF100 next year, but thats because I can use movie lenses on it.
Sorry that got kinda offtopic.
Haha, last post jack from me, I promisefastbilly1 wrote:Just cause you dropped seven grand on your new Xf-300, doesnt mean you can get away without using properly lights...
I've been looking for a wedding photographer for a while and that seems to be the new fad: buy a stock kit at Bestbuy or Costco, and list your services online.Unless your entire movie is shot on a tripod I wouldn't attempt to film an indy film or anything else with a cmos sensor. DLSRs that shoot video seem to be the latest fad but don't have much going for them other than nice lenses and practicality.fastbilly1 wrote:I disagree with the first point. Any professional still photographer has a camera capable of shooting 1080p. Most DSLRs, if not all, can shoot at 1080p. Heck most indy films are shot on the Canon 5d Mark II. If thats not enough, a hacked Lumix GH1 can shoot full 1080p at 4:2:0 color and at 50mbps (unhacked does 1080i at 20mbps). The Gh1 goes for about $700 - which I admit is not an impulse buy for most people but the option is there. Heck on my coffee table right now there are four cameras that can shoot full 1080p, granted Im an exception to the rule since I owned film cameras for a long time. I miss my Arriflex D20s, but they went on to a better place.avrame wrote:For one, few people have cameras that can shoot video in 1080p, and few people exist that want to watch Youtube videos in HD.
What you should be looking for 1080p is things like the rumored upgrade to the FlipHD camera. The rumors Ive heard are 34 mbps true 1080p in a $300 camera. Granted Im probably going to be buying a Lumix AF100 next year, but thats because I can use movie lenses on it.
Sorry that got kinda offtopic.
THIS. DVD is the furthest I'll go. I ignored tape but invested a lot in Laser Disc.AppleQueso wrote:I have trouble imagining another optical media will sell well. Just try convincing people to rebuild their entire movie collection for a FOURTH time...
Marketing => people buying things they don't need. /cynicalAppleQueso wrote:I have trouble imagining another optical media will sell well. Just try convincing people to rebuild their entire movie collection for a FOURTH time...
I won't lie, I was like 11 when DVD first came to market so I don't know what people thought about building a collection with vhs/betamax . But today , sounds to me like it doesn't make sense to build a collection even back then because vhs tapes are very unreliable , investing in them = wasting your money.CRTGAMER wrote:THIS. DVD is the furthest I'll go. I ignored tape but invested a lot in Laser Disc.AppleQueso wrote:I have trouble imagining another optical media will sell well. Just try convincing people to rebuild their entire movie collection for a FOURTH time...
