«

Grand Inquisitor, says...
> it was designed to give rougly the same picture quality of a
> 35mm film.

I think your reply was a great summary of the benefits of HD, and agree
with all points, except the above.

35mm film is often scanned at 2048 x 1556 pixels (commonly called 2k),
but that is nowhere near the actual resolution of film. It is becomming
much more common to scan at 4K (4096 x 3112), and some commercial film
scanners can do 6K scans of a 35mm movie film frame. Companies doing
digital intermediates have begun to standardize on 4K scans. So you see,
HD is really nowhere near the same picture quality as film.

But other than that, very good points all around.

Mark Spatny wrote:
>
> Grand Inquisitor, says...
> > it was designed to give rougly the same picture quality of a
> > 35mm film.
>
> I think your reply was a great summary of the benefits of HD, and agree
> with all points, except the above.
>
> 35mm film is often scanned at 2048 x 1556 pixels (commonly called 2k),
> but that is nowhere near the actual resolution of film. It is becomming
> much more common to scan at 4K (4096 x 3112), and some commercial film
> scanners can do 6K scans of a 35mm movie film frame. Companies doing
> digital intermediates have begun to standardize on 4K scans. So you see,
> HD is really nowhere near the same picture quality as film.
>
> But other than that, very good points all around.
>
Where HD is better than FILM is when it is displayed in a movie theatre
after a few weeks. FILM starts looking REALLY bad. For first generation
FILM, it is definitely better than HD.

John

"John Dyson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Mark Spatny wrote:
> >
> > Grand Inquisitor, says...
> > > it was designed to give rougly the same picture quality of a
> > > 35mm film.
> >
> > I think your reply was a great summary of the benefits of HD, and agree
> > with all points, except the above.
> >
> > 35mm film is often scanned at 2048 x 1556 pixels (commonly called 2k),
> > but that is nowhere near the actual resolution of film. It is becomming
> > much more common to scan at 4K (4096 x 3112), and some commercial film
> > scanners can do 6K scans of a 35mm movie film frame. Companies doing
> > digital intermediates have begun to standardize on 4K scans. So you see,
> > HD is really nowhere near the same picture quality as film.
> >
> > But other than that, very good points all around.
> >
> Where HD is better than FILM is when it is displayed in a movie theatre
> after a few weeks. FILM starts looking REALLY bad. For first generation
> FILM, it is definitely better than HD.

But by the time you see a film in a theater you are seeing a 3rd or 4th
generation copy.
How does that compare to projected HD?

Mark Spatny wrote:

> Grand Inquisitor, says...
>
>>it was designed to give rougly the same picture quality of a
>>35mm film.
>
>
> I think your reply was a great summary of the benefits of HD, and agree
> with all points, except the above.
>
> 35mm film is often scanned at 2048 x 1556 pixels (commonly called 2k),
> but that is nowhere near the actual resolution of film. It is becomming
> much more common to scan at 4K (4096 x 3112), and some commercial film
> scanners can do 6K scans of a 35mm movie film frame. Companies doing
> digital intermediates have begun to standardize on 4K scans. So you see,
> HD is really nowhere near the same picture quality as film.
>
> But other than that, very good points all around.

ROUGHLY! I said ROUGHLY equal! Aaaargh! Anyway, a lot of that
resolution is invisible unless you sit really close, which you
shouldn't. One-half to two-thirds back is the spot to sit, and that's
where they imagined you'd be sitting when they derived the HD specs in
the 60s (i.e., about 1,000 scanlines high).

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

Werz Mungle wrote:
> But by the time you see a film in a theater you are seeing a 3rd or 4th
> generation copy.
> How does that compare to projected HD?
>
>

The problem is that theatrical HD technology doesn't nearly take full
advantage of the resolution that HD offers. Don't use that to judge HD
technology.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

>ROUGHLY! I said ROUGHLY equal! Aaaargh!

Remember the first rule of Usenet: Qualifiers are always ignored.

I remember a post Damon Knight made on the old Genie service about qualifiers
always being ignored in the electronic world. And he gave an example, which
was something like: "Religious choral music rarely sounds right with less than
twelve singers."

His point was immediately proven. Not only did readers ignore the qualifier in
his example statement, they ignored point of his post entirely.

And we were all treated to a heated argument about the proper number of singers
for Religious music. Not to mention long diatribes about the purpose of
religious music, why the number of singers were less important than their
religious zeal, and so on.

Sad, but true.

DRutsala, says...
> >ROUGHLY! I said ROUGHLY equal! Aaaargh!
>
> Remember the first rule of Usenet: Qualifiers are always ignored.

Well, except that even the qualifier "roughly" doesn't apply. The
difference between HD and film is at least as significant as the
different between NTSC and HD. There is at least 6 times more resolution
in film than there is in HD. I wouldn't call that "roughly" the same.

Grand Inquisitor wrote:
>
> Werz Mungle wrote:
> > But by the time you see a film in a theater you are seeing a 3rd or 4th
> > generation copy.
> > How does that compare to projected HD?
> >
> >
>
> The problem is that theatrical HD technology doesn't nearly take full
> advantage of the resolution that HD offers. Don't use that to judge HD
> technology.
>
Not only are we seeing 4th generation film, it gets seriously damaged
after many viewings. The digital copying mechanisms of HD can maintain
more of the original quality, and there is still more quality that
can be obtained from HD.

I remember about 10yrs ago, I saw a 'movie' at a theatre that partially
contained upconverted NTSC. It only looked slightly worse than the
print. The print was 'rough' looking, but typical of a print that had
been shown too much.

John

Mark Spatny wrote:
>
> DRutsala, says...
> > >ROUGHLY! I said ROUGHLY equal! Aaaargh!
> >
> > Remember the first rule of Usenet: Qualifiers are always ignored.
>
> Well, except that even the qualifier "roughly" doesn't apply. The
> difference between HD and film is at least as significant as the
> different between NTSC and HD. There is at least 6 times more resolution
> in film than there is in HD. I wouldn't call that "roughly" the same.
>
When you see a print that has been shown many times, film looks much
worse than the theoretical quality of a print from a negative.

John

DarkMatter wrote:

> On 12 Aug 2003 08:53:05 GMT, (DRutsala) Gave us:
>
>
>>Remember the first rule of Usenet: Qualifiers are always ignored.
>
>
>
> Leave it to an AOL twit to make up ****ing "rules" in usenet.
>
> I think those qualifiers DO.

You treat the unwritten rule on top-posting with a zealous ferocity.
Besides, qualifiers going ignored is far more important than people
top-posting.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost