Motu V3hd

Jamie Allan · January 4th, 2008, 07:35 AM

It certainly needed it Robert...

Steve, you really shouldnt be 'rubbishing' widely accepted and used formats on a forum where alot of people seek advice. Just because they're not high enough quality for a minority, they're fine for thousands of others who're wanting to work with HD but can't afford the storage or hardware to work in HDCam 24/7. Personal preferences and workflows are a huge aspect of this industry and its rare you find anyone doing everything the same, therefore whats right for some will always be wrong for others.

The V3 is a brilliant unit with more settings than you can shake a stick at, it beats the IOHD in many areas and I've only had about 30 mins with one this morning. Aslong as they release the windows drivers ASAP and let it work with more than one codec it'll be flying off the shelves very soon...

Steve Oakley · January 4th, 2008, 09:42 PM

widely accepted and used doesn't mean you should go with the mob mentality of its good enough and has no flaws. it was good enough 5 years ago but there are many better options now so why not use them ?

Why shouldn't there be a discussion in a public forum of where something falls down ? thats sticking your head in the sand in denial that better technology not just exists, but is widely available. Why not shoot in DV ? more people are using DV then any other video codec. why would one want DV or HDV or DVCpro100 if DV is a widely accepted and used format ? to say DV has problems would also be heresy in a public forum.

and FWIW, HDcam is just DV grown up a little. it artifacts too and is actually more compressed than DV @ 5:1 vs HDcam @ 6.7:1 and 3:1:1 colorspace. It can in fact exhibit some of the same problems DV does for key work. just the nature of compression. so should we pretend HDcam is the be all end all ? its not. its 8-9 years old. did my first HDcam shooting in 2000.

In fact, HDV has seen wider and faster acceptance then any other HD format, period. HDV has been the common man's HD format and serves its purpose too, especially in 720P where its full raster vs DVCpro100's 25% reduced resolution.

the _fact_ is DVCpro tosses a good deal of your res away. if that works for you, great, but it doesn't for a lot more then a small minority.

January 4th, 2008, 07:35 AM	#16
Jamie Allan Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Notts, UK Posts: 101	It certainly needed it Robert... Steve, you really shouldnt be 'rubbishing' widely accepted and used formats on a forum where alot of people seek advice. Just because they're not high enough quality for a minority, they're fine for thousands of others who're wanting to work with HD but can't afford the storage or hardware to work in HDCam 24/7. Personal preferences and workflows are a huge aspect of this industry and its rare you find anyone doing everything the same, therefore whats right for some will always be wrong for others. The V3 is a brilliant unit with more settings than you can shake a stick at, it beats the IOHD in many areas and I've only had about 30 mins with one this morning. Aslong as they release the windows drivers ASAP and let it work with more than one codec it'll be flying off the shelves very soon... Last edited by Jamie Allan; January 4th, 2008 at 07:35 AM. Reason: Grammar

January 4th, 2008, 09:42 PM	#17
Steve Oakley Trustee Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United States Posts: 1,158	widely accepted and used doesn't mean you should go with the mob mentality of its good enough and has no flaws. it was good enough 5 years ago but there are many better options now so why not use them ? Why shouldn't there be a discussion in a public forum of where something falls down ? thats sticking your head in the sand in denial that better technology not just exists, but is widely available. Why not shoot in DV ? more people are using DV then any other video codec. why would one want DV or HDV or DVCpro100 if DV is a widely accepted and used format ? to say DV has problems would also be heresy in a public forum. and FWIW, HDcam is just DV grown up a little. it artifacts too and is actually more compressed than DV @ 5:1 vs HDcam @ 6.7:1 and 3:1:1 colorspace. It can in fact exhibit some of the same problems DV does for key work. just the nature of compression. so should we pretend HDcam is the be all end all ? its not. its 8-9 years old. did my first HDcam shooting in 2000. In fact, HDV has seen wider and faster acceptance then any other HD format, period. HDV has been the common man's HD format and serves its purpose too, especially in 720P where its full raster vs DVCpro100's 25% reduced resolution. the _fact_ is DVCpro tosses a good deal of your res away. if that works for you, great, but it doesn't for a lot more then a small minority.