J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I dont see how a high quality moving pictures could > be "boring" to some how enjoys high quality **still** pictures. > Motion picturs can be an art form, and as such some of > them can be greatly more appreciated and enjoyed with > signifigantly better picture quality. Enough so to the point that > boredom > can be transformed into artistic communication between > the filmmaker and the viewer. >
If it wasn't boring, the story would have grabbed you already. Story matters, the visuals are in support of the story and can only rarely support the movie or show on their own. > I cant see how many of you can be so concerned about MP, > color space, color gamut, raw vs. jpeg, color balance, > etc. and then say it doesnt matter that the old > crappy ntsc picture is far worse than what HD provides. > These are the very same things. Because I care about the story, not the pretty. With my pictures, I rely on the image itself to do all the telling, with TV it's only part of the story, and even then not the most improtant part. > > HDTV is way better, > and if you check the current prices, very affordable > to the average person, not only the rich and famous. > I posted this three times already: > they cost less than a regular tv's did 10 years ago > of the same size screen but the HDTV picture quality > blows away those 10 yr old sets. There has never > been a better time to upgrade a tv than today if > you still are watching ntsc. > > > jco > $2000 TV's aren't 'very affordable', they're 'barely within the range of reason'. If I had that sort of cash lying around to spend on a TV, I'd have a Canon 5D and some Leica R lenses instead. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
