Too bad you didn't read the middle part where I quoted from my Thesis paper on Refluxification costs. ;-) I agree there are situations where one or the other format is advantageous. This appears not to be one of them for file based. I like your comment, "It isn't better. It's different." What I find is a common misconception that it's cheaper, that too depends on the specifics of the project.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Curtis Nichols <curtisnpcs@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> After reading the first paragraph, I knew where this was going. So I skipped to the last line. Like I tell everyone about non-linear v linear: "It isn't better. It's different." Same statement applies to file-based production. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages. One or the other is sometimes faster or cheaper. But neither is better. What drives me crazy is a one-hour interview shot as a single file ("Nope, the file is still copying"), from which I will use two minutes. Most people do not consider the costs of copying, archiving, transcoding, exporting, transmogrifying and refluxification.
>
>
> Curtis Nichols
> Señor Editor
> PCS Production Co.
> Irving, Tx.
> ------------------
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Moore
> Subject: [Avid-L2] Trying to look at real costs with some file based media.
>
> On a project I'm involved with the decision was made to record the surveillance/pelco camera footage to hard drive rather than go to DVCPro50 tape like they have in the past.
>
> I'm trying to be open minded but I'm hard pressed to see a good reason to go file based in this situation.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
No comments:
Post a Comment