Yep...and such things have long been a waste of time to discuss, those
that was not the case early on...
I have to admit, though....blu-ray is a huge visual improvement over
dvd...and hdtv is a huge visual improvement over sdtv. Especially on a
large screen. High-def/multichannel sound is a great improvement.
I'm not convinced I can hear an improvement in high-def movie sound over
regular 5.1 (done well), but the 5.1 sound systems can deliver
meaningful improvements over stereo CD, in terms of soundstage.
Damn! Looks like I just went there.....
On 3/19/2010 9:58 AM, Brian Weeden wrote:
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?
>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2756 - Release Date: 03/19/10
03:33:00
