las wrote:
>
> Taking all of this into account, film still kills video. And film is
> analog. I can pick out any TV show that is shot in video vs film. There
> is a new TV show that is shot in HD video. At times it looks almost as
> good as film. But then the video looks sometimes creeps in.
>
> I know I'm off the MD topic, but what really amazes and confuses me is that
> if something is shot on video tape you can tell. But when film is
> transferred to video tape it looks better than what you you have gotten in
> you had originally shot it on tape. Why is that?
Perhaps for the same reasons that a good quality tube amp sounds better
than a good quality solid state amp. There's something about that
analog process, that when done well, produces amazing results.
I've got an old Dynaco tube amp that puts out 35 watts per channel max,
and it sounds better than the majority of modern amps out there. Film
seems to behave the same way. Perhaps there is some sort of analog
visual distortion that just looks good, in the same way that analog
audible distortion sounds good.
-steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
