u2_england
The Fly
I've been trading for years, and 'years' ago we used to refer to 'pro-shot' videos (remember them - before DVDs 
) as being from a professionally shot source ie broadcast/pre-broadcast, Satellite/pre-satellite, original concert source (professionally directed and leaked by one of the staff) and all these pro-shots would come with an audio of equal source (not always perfect (or stereo), but a thru the mixing desk source nonetheless).
I have a version of Foxboro 97 and it's just a guy with a tripod AND an audience souced audio (from his camera mic).This is not pro-shot.
A new DVD of a concert mixed with 2, maybe 3 cameras mounted on tripods by fans at different points in the arena mixed with a SB, IEM, ALD, MD source of that gig ISN'T a pro-shot.It might be great, but don't label it pro-shot.
An original pro-shot with a new 'improved' sound is okay with me, but that's because the new audio doesn't compromise the original pro-shot source.
Pro-shot = professionally shot source NOT by fans in the audience (no matter how good they are).
Anyone agree with me?
) as being from a professionally shot source ie broadcast/pre-broadcast, Satellite/pre-satellite, original concert source (professionally directed and leaked by one of the staff) and all these pro-shots would come with an audio of equal source (not always perfect (or stereo), but a thru the mixing desk source nonetheless).I have a version of Foxboro 97 and it's just a guy with a tripod AND an audience souced audio (from his camera mic).This is not pro-shot.
A new DVD of a concert mixed with 2, maybe 3 cameras mounted on tripods by fans at different points in the arena mixed with a SB, IEM, ALD, MD source of that gig ISN'T a pro-shot.It might be great, but don't label it pro-shot.
An original pro-shot with a new 'improved' sound is okay with me, but that's because the new audio doesn't compromise the original pro-shot source.
Pro-shot = professionally shot source NOT by fans in the audience (no matter how good they are).
Anyone agree with me?
