[Tig] review of Lustre
Wed Mar 23 20:11:48 GMT 2005
Yes I agree Mike, I might have over reacted a bit sorry, I wrote a long
thing to reply but at the end just thought to say that if anyone was going
to talk about a " new " D.I. product and was going to compare to any other
product, it would only be fair to do so with one that was out and working.
In any case, I think I did over react a bit. I'm just such a big fan of
companies that listen to the clients and do what they say they will do.
The I.Q was light years ahead and still continues to evolve.
From: Michael Most [mailto:mmost at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: March 23, 2005 2:36 PM
To: Telecine Internet Group
Subject: Re: [Tig] review of Lustre
Thanks to Chris Genereaux for supporting the TIG.
On Mar 23, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Izhak Hinitz wrote:
> Are you sure about having no financial interest in the product.?
> I read it and cant help noticing the lack of mention of the
The article was a review, not a comparison. The only competing system
that is mentioned is Baselight, and only in passing at the end of the
article. Clearly the reviewer is a Discreet fan, but frankly I don't
see any need to mention every other product in the marketplace in every
article. Quantel gets plenty of press and publicity on its own.
Besides, I think most of us see Lustre and Baselight (and Silicon
Color, for that matter) more as "dedicated" color correction systems
than full finishing systems, which is the general perception of IQ. In
other words, they compete more against DaVinci and Pandora than they do
against Quantel and Avid. At least I've always seen them that way.
participate in the tig wiki pages at http://tig.colorist.org/wiki
Tig mailing list
Tig at tig.colorist.org
More information about the Tig