Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.

I'm sorry, but this is why some formats are professional and others are prosumer. When the information is spread out over more than one frame it's a compromise in both motion reproduction and in editing. One has to really look at the whole system of photography, from mastering, editing, duplication and exhibition, yet changes in all these spheres are taking place so fast one cannot really master it all.

In the old days of film, things were simple and well understood. Now we have to think about compound compressions, sequential detail manipulation, matrixs added to matrixs, aspect ratios and framerates, not to mention putting our precious pictures on cell phones!

There are compromises at each turn, some predictable and others not even conceived of yet. That's why the least compression and futzing with the motion the better, save all that for the last step.

The newer schemes take some of the more modern problems and uses into mind, that's why I'd go with MPEG4/AVC-I over the old MPEG2 any day, but I'm not foolish enough to disregard the fact that ultimately it's the economics that drive the innovations not quality and those of us who aspire to maintain what we've had in the past are rarely listened to except in the rarefied air of mega features, where the innovators are tasked to create images that do not even exist in the real world.

JS