Re: MD: OT: DVD Resolution
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]
Re: MD: OT: DVD Resolution
... las writes: 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. The reason why film usually looks better than analog video (i.e.: sitcoms) is because film is actual photography, and therefore has many times the resolution of video. A lot of the quality of any visual presentation (film or video) depends on the lighting. Because of the resolution of film, the director of photography (on a movie set, for example) can have the lights adjusted so that the smallest details are illuminated. On a video-based set, however, lighting probably won't be as precise, because the smallest little details won't be seen by the video cameras, and so there's no point in spending time and money on creating perfect lighting conditions. You can probably also tell which ones are film productions and which ones are video productions based on the placement and movement of the cameras. Film productions are usually shot with a single camera, whereas video productions are usually shot with 3 or more cameras. To the accustomed eye, the differences are quite visible. Regards, - Anthony Lalande - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: OT: DVD Resolution
On 23 Jan 01, 7:35AM, Steve Corey wrote: 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. actually, the two biggest reasons film looks better both have to do with "analog" producing LESS distortion than digital. (i put "analog" in quotes, because the term is usually used to refer to an electrical process, such as cassette tape or vhs, rather than a chemical/physical process.) film being a chemical process, color resolution is quite predictable depends on the kind of film the processing. years years have gone into finding film compositions that produce lifelike colors, whereas each video recording head (or in the case of digital, dsp section) has to be calibrated to give good colors. also, each frame of film is a completely separate physical entity, each exposure is independent of the other exposures. video (digital or analog) is entirely electric, so each frame is subject to the residual voltages magnetism of the ccd recording head. finally, film is simply much higher resolution than even hd video. even 35mm film can give the equivalent of thousands of dpi. peter - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: OT: DVD Resolution
I think that I wasn't clear in what I was asking. I was not asking why analog looks better (film that is). What I was wondering is how they are able to copy film to video and it still looks better then video? In order to copy film to video, wouldn't there have to be some kind of device that was similar to a video camera to capture the images?? Once you go from film to a CCD should you end up with quality that is no better then shooting with a video camera in the first place?? But that isn't the case. Film transferred to video still looks better on TV than video. This is one that puzzles me?? Larry Anthony Lalande wrote: The reason why film usually looks better than analog video (i.e.: sitcoms) is because film is actual photography, and therefore has many times the resolution of video. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: OT: DVD Resolution
Steve, I remember Dynaco. Didn't they come in kits that you built yourself (like Heath Kit). Part of what you are saying about tubes and analog is unquestionably true. But I still have a Bogen tube amp. While they produced rich warm sound, tube amps introduce unacceptable (by today's standards) hum among other types of distortion. The reason that extremely high quality analog will always look better is because people are analog!!! We do not see ones and zeros and our brains make sounds and pictures out of them. Our eyes and ears are analog. They depend upon light and chroma and vibrations. Digital is a great means of storage because it can be duplicated with no generation loss. But all digital eventually has to be converted to analog in order for humans to see and hear it. The tube amp vs solid state is really not a direct analogy to digital and analog. The "richness" and "warmth" that is often refereed to with tube amps is actually distortion. Not all distortion has to sound bad. Except when distortion (that is any straying from the original sound or addition of sounds or colors that are not present in the original) we call it enhancement. Larry Steve Corey wrote: 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. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: OT: DVD Resolution
Although DVD is output at 480i, and progressive scan DVD is 480p, a number of people are viewing them at upconverted 720p. While not true HDTV, it is a significant improvement over 480p from what I've read. Those people are using the same equipment I will be using: an HDTV with 720p display capability and a DVD-ROM from a computer output to the Key Digital VGA to component video adapter. This is what is available currently in the U.S. on HDTV: Network CBS-Almost all primetime programming, sports special events (The Super Bowl will be in HD) NBC-Tonight Show only ABC-NYPD Blue and ocassional theatrical movies FOX-No true HDTV programming, but about 50% of their primetime programming is 16:9 480p PBS-Numerous special programs Local stations are doing some programs in HDTV in various cities: for example, KTLA broadcast The Rose Parade in HDTV Satellite HBO HDTV-24 hours a day Showtime HDTV-24 hours a day HDTV Pay Per View-24 hours a day So there's actually a lot of HDTV being broadcast and more and more all the time. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: OT: DVD Resolution
OK, here's a dumb question. A DVD has digital information on it like a CD, no?? If it does, why can't they tap directly into the digital video output? HDTV is a digital TV. Are there special digital inputs so that if you had a digital source you would not have to use the analog component video?? 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. It's not going to happen because film is so expensive and complex compared to video. But if they really wanted to, they could improve the quality of film even more than it is to the point where the optics and not the storage media would be the limiting factor. 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? Getting back to improving film, they can always double the size although I imagine it would be pretty hard to work with 140 mm film. Larry Rodney Peterson wrote: Although DVD is output at 480i, and progressive scan DVD is 480p, a number of people are viewing them at upconverted 720p. While not true HDTV, it is a significant improvement over 480p from what I've read. Those people are using the same equipment I will be using: an HDTV with 720p display capability and a DVD-ROM from a computer output to the Key Digital VGA to component video adapter. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
