EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/lwmlist/96.lightwave-0215/[e-mail] _Sun Feb 18 18:30:40 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1996-02-29 | 3KB

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 SAA10763 for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 18:30:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.webcom.com with SMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA228666313; Sun, 18 Feb 1996 15:31:53 -0800
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 15:31:53 -0800
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
From: Andrew Hofman <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: BetacamSP demanding
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:

>>I used to own a UVW-1800 and animation is the one thing I would NOT recommend
>>them for.
>
>Why not? I've used one for over a year, and I think its GREAT! I've done
>plenty of work for mid- to high-end producers using a UVW-1800/Amiga PAR
>combo, and I've NEVER had any complaints about quality. On a 3 year lease,
>the UVW runs about $300/month,which I consider to be an excellent value. It
>may not be rugged enough for heavy single-framing, but for dumping animations
>from a PAR, PVR, Flyer, etc. I think it provides the best "bang for the
>buck."
>
>Leigh Herman
>Flying Colors

While most clients never complained about animations I ran off to UVW, I did
get questioned on a couple of occasions about dirt. The look of those
animations themselves meant they were unavoidably running in the UVW's
"mud". Much more often though, clients had trouble luminance-keying
animations that were rendered over zero black. This was due to the UVW's
noise floor at 6 IRE or above. It was a recurrent and embarrassing problem,
and I felt it reflected badly on my professionalism. Often, I had to
re-render work at hotter levels to compensate, but this changed the look of
things and wasted time. The stuff I hand over to clients needs to be
flawless, and that wasn't always the case once it hit the 1800. Even when
clients didn't know and/or didn't complain, I sure did and it bothered me.
Since I got a BVW-35, none of this has been an issue. BTW, I've worked with
other UVW's, so I know mine wasn't unusually noisy by comparison. They're
all like that.

As far as value, I agree the UVW offers good bang for the buck IF you're
restricting yourself to new equipment. But you can get a used BVW-35 for
about as much or less than a spankin' new 1800. If you need to do a mix of
animation and linear editing, the BVW-35 is knocked out of the picture. But
all I do is animation now, and I need the best damn recording quality for my
work 100% of the time.

No, I'm not a "BVW snob". I've met plenty of guys with such an attitude
towards UVW's, saying they're trash and glorified 3/4" machines. A frequent
claim is that they're not frame-accurate, which is completely wrong -- I
never once had a dropped frame. They used to hit me with that snooty crap
all the time when I owned one, and it always annoyed me. These are usually
engineers who have never had to actually purchase a Beta deck or much other
gear themselves, unlike many of us. UVW's have their flaws, but they're a
good deal if part of your time is spent doing linear editing.


Andy Hofman
LumaQuest Productions
Animation and Dual Raptor 3 Rendering
[e-mail]
513-643-7333