I just told you theaters no longer are always better than home theaters like they USED TO BE, both on picture qualtity and on sound quality for the reasons given in my earlier posts. Secondly, films are more way more visual than sound only recordings or a book, so the picture quality does often matter. The story doesnt get better, but the acting can be appreciated better when the person looks realistic instead of fake like it often does on ntsc. You just continue to keep implying that the greatly improved picture quality of HDTV doesnt matter, but it not only often does, on films in particular it matters a LOT. I honestly believe you must have not seen how good a well transferred film can look in the HDTV format. Some are just out of this world looking with beautiful accurate color, razor sharpness better than anything ever seen on ntsc, and superb contrast range and tonality. They are not all pefect yet, and some of the early HD transfers look more like DVD, but the very best and nearly all recent HD film transfers are really phenonenal looking, and it does make a difference on ANY film compared to NTSC. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 6:58 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: It's snowing in hell --OT I've seen them in theaters, where I actually get full fidelity (not a compressed data stream, you don't get full fidelity on HD, just closer fidelity. HD still uses lossy compression). Film is presented in a visual form, but it's not a visual medium, it's a multimedia format (Sound and Visual). Of course the kicker is that it's the writing, acting and directing that are the most important and those come across on anything that has decent sound and picture. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Until you see a few hundred films > you have never seen before in HD > quality (or at a theater) , you > dont really know do you? I think > you will amazed to find out how > much more interesting films can > be and how visual many of them > are when seen in full fidelity. > It if was all story it would be > a book. film is a visual medium > and if the visuals get messed > up by ntsc and they do, the > boredom factor goes up, but dont just > blame it on the film or the content. > blame it on the crappy video when > thats the culprit. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Adam Maas > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 5:40 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: It's snowing in hell --OT > > > Same content, still boring. Pretty isn't everything if the content > sucks. And by-and-large, it does. > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> You are clueless. NTSC is boring, >> HDTV is not and you dont have to >> watch "TV SHOWS", there are HD >> movie channels and sports, etc. I guess >> I value movies much more than you >> do, and part of it is propably the fact that >> I can actually see the beauty of what they really >> look like and you still cant. >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Adam Maas >> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:40 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: It's snowing in hell --OT >> >> >> I spend far more time shooting than I do watching TV. I watch maybe >> 1-2 >> hours a week (mostly Anime Fansubs of stuff currently airing in Japan) > >> and play 1-2 hours a week on the Xbox. I don't have cable as the only >> show on there I'd watch (Top Gear) isn't worth the cost of a full >> subscription. >> >> Why the hell would I pay several grand for a TV I'm never going to >> use? >> TV is boring. Go out and shoot. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >>> Isnt owning a world class HD home theater worth way more than owning >>> a >>> K10D? (excepting if you are a full time pro photographer and need one >>> to earn a living), I think it certainly is. How much use do you get >>> of each during the life of the product? I spend way more time > watching >>> home theater >>> than I do using cameras. If I had to take only one or the other, >>> they K10D ( or ALL my cameras! ) would go without a second thought. >>> I just couldn't live without HD home theater now. >>> jco >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of Boris Liberman >>> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:00 PM >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: It's snowing in hell --OT >>> >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>>> I applaud Graywolf's economical choice, but I disagree with Adam's >>>> evaluation of HDTV. I have a 61 inch Pioneer plasma on the wall. >>>> There's a lot of HD broadcast these days. Most of the time I'm >>>> getting at least 15 HD channels over Direct TV. Today, with football >>>> and the Superfan package, I'm getting all the NFL games in HD. I'm >>>> watching the Bears of course. But the difference between HD and SD > is >>>> substantial. No, it's more than substantial. It's like the > difference >>>> between a 2 megapixel point and shoot and a 10 megapixel DSLR. No >>>> comparison. I haven't gone for HD DVD in either format yet. I'll > wait >>>> until it's affordable. But like JCO said, standard DVDs upsampled >>>> to 1080i are far better than the same played in low resolution. >>> Let me see, 61 inches... It is more than meter and a half across... >>> Mister Stenquist, you thereby attain the title of the most diagonal >>> of >>> all people whom I have in acquaintance. >>> >>> ;-) >>> >>> I am starting to think about 32 inches of LCD screen, but even this >>> small it will cost me more than brand new K10D ;-). >>> >>> Boris >>> >>> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
