There will always be those who argue that some previous analog standard is "truer" than the new digital standard, often due to some magical inherent quality of the recording which cannot be captured digitally. Just look at tubes vs transistors, vinyl vs CD, and here film vs HD.
Obviously, from a mathematical perspective taking something that is continuous and infinite like a complex series of waveforms, sampling them and rendering them using a finite set of 1s and 0s is not going to yield perfect copy. But the debate over whether the human eyes/ears can TELL it's not a perfect copy will probably rage on forever because it is by definition subjective. --------------------------- Brian Weeden Technical Advisor Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada +1 (202) 683-8534 US On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Greg Sevart <[email protected]> wrote: > My problem with film is that it just has so much noise. The conversion > process itself, I'm sure, adds even more. Not only does this noise take the > place of real content, it also is extremely hard to compress. The real > issue > that that directors still have this love affair with film, and are > unwilling > to move to a pure digital HD camera setup as they somehow feel it reduces > their creative ability. > > For that reason, IMO, the most impressive HD you see is usually OTA network > television. > > There are a few movies that were shot digitally. It's funny > though--sometimes they actually add noise just because audiences seem > accustomed to seeing it. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_digitally > > Greg > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of James Boswell > > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 4:36 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [H] blu-ray DVD > > > > Shot "in HD" doesn't really mean anything beyond "wasn't shot with a > > crappy camcorder" > > > > film resolution is a lot higher (depending on grain level) than Blu-Ray > > or HD-DVD, and digital equipment used for filmmaking has been that sort > > of level and up from day one. > > > > imagine how horrible NTSC res footage would look on a cinema scale > > projector. ugh. > > > > On 19 Mar 2010, at 09:32, Winterlight wrote: > > > > > So it is real, as good as if it were shot HD? It is not just some > > kind of rendering? > > > > > > At 02:30 AM 3/19/2010, you wrote: > > >> Movies shot on film are simply rescanned frame by frame at a higher > > resolution, just about anything shot digitally is shot at a minimum of > > 1920x1080 (Phantom Menace was shot at that res as I recall) > > >> > > >> And of course, anything CG can be arbitrarily rerendered at whatever > > resolution is desired. > > >> > > >> That was the plan for Babylon 5, except someone lost the > > mesh/texture/scene files to rerender it in lightwave :/ > > >> > > >> On 19 Mar 2010, at 09:22, Winterlight wrote: > > >> > > >> > Here is something I don't get. How can they take a movie, like the > > Lord of the Rings, before HD and blue-ray were in use and then turn it > > into a blu-ray movie. Don't you need special HD cameras to make a HD > > movie? > > >> > > > > > > > >
