What you don't understand sir, is that most of the commercials you saw were shot on FILM. Film still kicks the living snot out of alot of HD video, regardless of manufacturer.

Second. For professional cameras, Sony makes the innards. They make the CCDs & they make the processing circuitry. They make the recorder, the recorder's parts, and the tape. In fact, Sony is one of the biggest imaging chip makers in the world (most nikon imaging devices are made by Sony).

I'm no big Sony fan - they have their issues, but so does Panasonic, Thomson, Canon, or anybody else. For pro stuff, other companies buy parts from them. The Genesis camera - possibly the best HD camera available right now - was made for Panavision by Sony. The Sony HDW-F900 - the workhorse of the HD industry, is made by Sony, with Sony parts.

Then again, maybe I should just forget everything I know, since someone who works at gamestop obviously has much more knowledge and experience than someone who has worked professionally in the tv and feature film business for 15 years.

Wow. You really know nothing about the broadcast industry.

Sony probably has at least a 65% market share (especially camera-wise) in TV today. most of the TV you watch is shot with Sony cameras, and processed through Sony equipment.

It's not their gear that makes it look like garbage if it looks bad - it's the people that are using it for that particular show, and / or the broadcaster who is doing something bad to the signal. I work in the industry, and I can tell you that the best gear in the hands of morons looks like garbage. And the opposite can also be true - mediocre gear in the hands of experts can look great.

The only footage of the superbowl this year that I though didn't look very good/match was the slow-mo stuff, and that's because they were using special cameras and didn't take the time to correct them to match their live action cameras very well (I belive they used the Phantom - a non-Sony product).

Would you like to show your ignorance further?

First of all.. .nuts to all you digital fan boys. Yes digital can look good, but it's no film yet.

Film has a wider colour gamut.
Film has more contrast.
Don't believe me? look it up.

Dust and scratches are the product of bad projectionists - go somewhere where they do it right. At this moment, good projection of a good film print beats digital projection hands down.

I also don't understand why there's this big worry that pirating is coming from people who handle the prints... unless you're talking about garbage videotaping of the screen from the projection booth (ugh). I've never heard of someone taking an entire film print down to the ol' spirit telecine and making a scan... it's not practical or cost effective.

start talking about real d-cinema when we actually are using cameras on set that shoot 2k or 4k, and the signal stays digital all the way through. Until then, 35mm is still where its at.

When will people realize that the levy in Canada is a good thing? the reason it's OK for you to loan someone a CD, and for them to make a copy for themselves, is that there is the levy on blank CDs. yep - it's 100% legal to do this in Canada.

By bringing the levy to MP3 players, it would extend the same protections to MP3 players. Making sharing MP3's 100% legal in canada. Artists still get paid. It's not encouraging pirating, because someone gets paid. I'm all for a levy. The only caveat to the whole system is that the CPCC has veen very slow to actually dole out the cash the levy collects to artists. It should be streamlined so that the cash actually gets where it is supposed to go.

Cheers,
-ben

Actually, You get used to it. A low brightless light behind a display serves to reduce eyestrain. If you check most of the enthusiast or Pro websites, you'll see they recommend the same thing.

me too

how about me?