If it's not about the story, then the only way I'm watching it is if they blow stuff up. And that's quite acceptable on NTSC.
I'm not paying good money to see B movies in HD. And my only interest in movies which aren't story driven is B movie action. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Not all movies are about a good story, some are about > completely different things but can still be quite > entertaining or even better than a film with a just good > story. Many movies are very visual rather > than narative. A good HDTV will never hurt the story, > but a crappy ntsc will hurt the visuals. > jco > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 5:49 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: It's snowing in hell --OT > > > 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
