Agree about Sin City. I also find the pure digital stuff like Cars and Up to be some of the most amazing BluRay material out there. Can't wait for Avatar in that regard.
--------------------------- 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 10:30 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Sometome, watch on blueray non-film (digitally shot) material. I > recommend Sin City if you can deal with the violence/etc, as one of those > non-animated films that on dvd is clearly superior in every way to every > othr format. Add in things like seemless branching, 7.1 audio for some > titles etc. Bluray is great stuff. :). > Sent via BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Anthony Q. Martin" <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:24:11 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [H] blu-ray DVD > > 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 > > > > >
