Re: High Definition TV question

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Mark Spatny, Aug 11, 2003.

  1. Mark Spatny

    Mark Spatny Guest

    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, Aug 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark Spatny

    John Dyson Guest

    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, Aug 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark Spatny

    Werz Mungle Guest

    "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?
    Werz Mungle, Aug 11, 2003
    #3
  4. 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
    Grand Inquisitor, Aug 11, 2003
    #4
  5. 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
    Grand Inquisitor, Aug 11, 2003
    #5
  6. Mark Spatny

    DRutsala Guest

    >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, Aug 12, 2003
    #6
  7. Mark Spatny

    Mark Spatny Guest

    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.
    Mark Spatny, Aug 12, 2003
    #7
  8. Mark Spatny

    John Dyson Guest

    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
    John Dyson, Aug 12, 2003
    #8
  9. Mark Spatny

    John Dyson Guest

    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
    John Dyson, Aug 12, 2003
    #9
  10. 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 fucking "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
    Grand Inquisitor, Aug 13, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve Jackson

    Re: High Definition TV question

    Steve Jackson, Aug 12, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    387
    Steve Jackson
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. The Plumply Perverse Pool Guy

    Ultra High Definition Video

    The Plumply Perverse Pool Guy, Sep 29, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    940
    Sydney Assbasket
    Oct 1, 2003
  3. Z Man
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,386
  4. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    677
    Allan
    Jun 15, 2004
  5. Ablang
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    513
    Ablang
    Jul 13, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page