|
There are, of course, clear benefits to this trend: a lack
of moving parts (unlike tape, hard disk drive, or disc-based systems); random
access to recorded HD or SD content; a faster, IT-compatible file-based
workflow; and the ability to operate in harsh environments with resistance to
temperature extremes, shock and vibration.
Yet there is a costly drawback to these systems, especially for professional
users and consumers on a tight budget. Where do you store the video? Well, of
course, you store it on hard drives. But how many of these drives do you
need? How much do they cost? And what about backup?
David Pogue, technology reviewer for The
New York Times, wrote recently that he has accumulated 200 MiniDV
tapes over time in his library. He said he would need a total of nine 300 GB
hard drives to store that much material in files. And that’s without
backup.
Nine 300GB drives, even at discount, would cost more than a $1200. A single
professional-quality HDV tape—one that holds an hour of HD
content—costs as little as six dollars. No hard drive has ever
approached the low cost of videotape.
The alternative to an all file-based system is to use videotape for recording
and then play the video real-time to a computer for making the file. Then,
one has a back-up of the video on the tape and the ability to do a full
IT-based workflow. The tradeoff is the time it takes to digitize the tape.
Of course, better-funded videographers can use tape and record uncompressed
video to a hard drive simultaneously. That’s an ideal, but still
costly, solution.
Before we allow manufacturers to fully eliminate tape cassettes from the
video recording process, users should do a cost-versus-time comparison. For
heavy, well-funded users, a tapeless environment may be just fine. However,
for those on a lower budget, a tape-based hybrid with an IT-based workflow
might be the most cost-effective method.
>Sid<
|
|
Web Services