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.
... 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
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"
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
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
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
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
