Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why no high def network coverage of shuttle launch?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 7:06:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?

Isn't high-def the perfect medium to cover an event which
failed the last time it was attempted and whose failure mode
could have been more easily seen with a high def camera?

Isn't live coverage of major events where the networks are
supposed to excel?

If cost is an issue, they could have saved money by leaving
the inept commentators at home and letting us hear the actual
NASA audio.



joemooreaterolsdotcom
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 7:06:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Joe Moore wrote:
> Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
> live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
>
> Isn't high-def the perfect medium to cover an event which
> failed the last time it was attempted and whose failure mode
> could have been more easily seen with a high def camera?

There were over 100 cameras filming the launch. And I do mean film. Film
has far greater resolution than HD and can be exposed at outrageously
high frame rates to capture things that happen in far less than 1/60th
of a second. You can bet there were plenty of high speed cameras in use.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 7:07:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

However there are numerous HD cameras that capture at a much higher frame
rate than 60 FPS.

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11ecme6ovbmhodf@corp.supernews.com...
> Joe Moore wrote:
>> Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
>> live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch? Isn't high-def the perfect
>> medium to cover an event which
>> failed the last time it was attempted and whose failure mode
>> could have been more easily seen with a high def camera?
>
> There were over 100 cameras filming the launch. And I do mean film. Film
> has far greater resolution than HD and can be exposed at outrageously high
> frame rates to capture things that happen in far less than 1/60th of a
> second. You can bet there were plenty of high speed cameras in use.
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
> Which one do you want?
Related resources
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 7:14:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

munged@bad.example.com (Joe Moore) wrote in
news:2mice1df60nffgbppcocd1slo1hjfbho2o@4ax.com:

> Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
> live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
>
> ...
>
> Isn't live coverage of major events where the networks are
> supposed to excel?

You just answered your own question; in today's America, a shuttle
launch is not a major event.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 7:14:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 07/26/2005 10:14 AM, Bert Hyman pondered briefly and then wrote:

> munged@bad.example.com (Joe Moore) wrote in
> news:2mice1df60nffgbppcocd1slo1hjfbho2o@4ax.com:
>
>> Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
>> live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Isn't live coverage of major events where the networks are
>> supposed to excel?
>
> You just answered your own question; in today's America, a shuttle
> launch is not a major event.

I guess it's not a 'Major' network (yet), but HDNet had HD coverage today.
--
Steve
http://www.soundclick.com/rockermann
July 26, 2005 7:20:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

As someone else said, HDNet covered it. They also made a deal with NASA
to upgrade certain NASA cameras to HiDef in return for access to the
feed. It seems NDNet paid for the upgrades so I doubt they were willing
to share with the vulgures at the "big 3" networks.

Joe Moore wrote:

> Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
> live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
>
> Isn't high-def the perfect medium to cover an event which
> failed the last time it was attempted and whose failure mode
> could have been more easily seen with a high def camera?
>
> Isn't live coverage of major events where the networks are
> supposed to excel?
>
> If cost is an issue, they could have saved money by leaving
> the inept commentators at home and letting us hear the actual
> NASA audio.
>
> joemooreaterolsdotcom
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 8:19:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

rockermann@LOOSEITsteve-mann.com (Steve M. Mann) wrote in
news:42e656c7$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net:

> On 07/26/2005 10:14 AM, Bert Hyman pondered briefly and then wrote:
>
>> munged@bad.example.com (Joe Moore) wrote in
>> news:2mice1df60nffgbppcocd1slo1hjfbho2o@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
>>> live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Isn't live coverage of major events where the networks are
>>> supposed to excel?
>>
>> You just answered your own question; in today's America, a shuttle
>> launch is not a major event.
>
> I guess it's not a 'Major' network (yet), but HDNet had HD coverage
> today.

But that's not because they considered it a major news event, but a
major visual event.

Nice to watch, but otherwise meaningless to most people.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 8:48:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

D J wrote:

Top posting corrected.

> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11ecme6ovbmhodf@corp.supernews.com...
>

>>
>> There were over 100 cameras filming the launch. And I do mean film.
>> Film has far greater resolution than HD and can be exposed at
>> outrageously high frame rates to capture things that happen in far
>> less than 1/60th of a second. You can bet there were plenty of high
>> speed cameras in use.

> However there are numerous HD cameras that capture at a much higher
> frame rate than 60 FPS.

Which, in all probability, makes them unsuitable for live broadcasts. I
also somewhat doubt that they are capable of same frame rate as film
cameras.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 8:49:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> Nice to watch, but otherwise meaningless to most people.
>

Which pretty much sums up the sad state of the human race. Breaking
free from our planet in a mechanical device designed and built by some
of the smartest people in the world, and nobody cares.

Hey, Reality TV Show Of The Month is on!

Society peaked sometime ago. We're now getting dumber.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 10:14:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Steve M. Mann" <rockermann@LOOSEITsteve-mann.com> wrote:

>On 07/26/2005 10:14 AM, Bert Hyman pondered briefly and then wrote:
>
>> munged@bad.example.com (Joe Moore) wrote in
>> news:2mice1df60nffgbppcocd1slo1hjfbho2o@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
>>> live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Isn't live coverage of major events where the networks are
>>> supposed to excel?
>>
>> You just answered your own question; in today's America, a shuttle
>> launch is not a major event.

I guess you're right. A NASCAR race is.

But it did seem like an ideal event for HD coverage. Plenty of time
for advanced planning. An event where the audience _wants_ to see what
is happening as closely and clearly as possible as it happens.

>I guess it's not a 'Major' network (yet), but HDNet had HD coverage today.

I guess that's why the 'Major" networks are losing audience.

Who can blame people who saw this and said "I guess it's not
time to get an HDTV yet. Even the networks aren't ready to
take advantage of it."


joemooreaterolsdotcom
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 10:20:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message
news:u6kir2-25n.ln1@laser.austinpowers.dsbox.com...
>
>> Nice to watch, but otherwise meaningless to most people.
>>
>
> Which pretty much sums up the sad state of the human race. Breaking free
> from our planet in a mechanical device designed and built by some of the
> smartest people in the world, and nobody cares.
>
> Hey, Reality TV Show Of The Month is on!
>
> Society peaked sometime ago. We're now getting dumber.

Paris Hilton in space.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 10:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>Joe Moore wrote:
>> Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
>> live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
>>
>> Isn't high-def the perfect medium to cover an event which
>> failed the last time it was attempted and whose failure mode
>> could have been more easily seen with a high def camera?
>
>There were over 100 cameras filming the launch. And I do mean film. Film
>has far greater resolution than HD and can be exposed at outrageously
>high frame rates to capture things that happen in far less than 1/60th
>of a second. You can bet there were plenty of high speed cameras in use.

I'm sure you're right. But my issue was with the live video the
general public was given by the networks who each had the means to do
better.

joemooreaterolsdotcom
July 26, 2005 10:51:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:48:32 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never>
wrote:

>Which, in all probability, makes them unsuitable for live broadcasts. I
>also somewhat doubt that they are capable of same frame rate as film
>cameras.

24fps? That's what film runs at.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 11:11:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Baked wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:48:32 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Which, in all probability, makes them unsuitable for live broadcasts. I
>>also somewhat doubt that they are capable of same frame rate as film
>>cameras.
>
>
> 24fps? That's what film runs at.

First hit with google gets a film camera that takes 40,000 images per
second. I'm sure you could find faster ones.

<http://www.visiblesolutions.com/pac.html&gt;

Matthew
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 11:11:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Forgot to mention that frame rate has absolutely nothing to do with
resolution.


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11edgpn6oakiic0@corp.supernews.com...
> Baked wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:48:32 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>> <nothere@notnow.never>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Which, in all probability, makes them unsuitable for live broadcasts. I
>>>also somewhat doubt that they are capable of same frame rate as film
>>>cameras.
>>
>>
>> 24fps? That's what film runs at.
>
> First hit with google gets a film camera that takes 40,000 images per
> second. I'm sure you could find faster ones.
>
> <http://www.visiblesolutions.com/pac.html&gt;
>
> Matthew
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:21:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

That's a good link. Now for the HD-camera advocate... try to imagine the
bandwidth you'll need to digitally record at that frame rate. Film will be
around for many years to come, especially for highly specialized purposes.



"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11edgpn6oakiic0@corp.supernews.com...
> Baked wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:48:32 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>> <nothere@notnow.never>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Which, in all probability, makes them unsuitable for live broadcasts. I
>>>also somewhat doubt that they are capable of same frame rate as film
>>>cameras.
>>
>>
>> 24fps? That's what film runs at.
>
> First hit with google gets a film camera that takes 40,000 images per
> second. I'm sure you could find faster ones.
>
> <http://www.visiblesolutions.com/pac.html&gt;
>
> Matthew
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:03:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Tim@Backhome.org wrote:

>As someone else said, HDNet covered it. They also made a deal with NASA
>to upgrade certain NASA cameras to HiDef in return for access to the
>feed. It seems NDNet paid for the upgrades so I doubt they were willing
>to share with the vulgures at the "big 3" networks.

Sounds like a reasonable explanation. Thanks.

I'm not sure I like the idea of NASA auctioning off the
quality of the news coverage to the highest bidder, but
in these days of budget cuts, I can understand it.



joemooreaterolsdotcom
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:59:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 26 Jul 2005 15:14:17 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> spewed forth these
words of wisdom:

>munged@bad.example.com (Joe Moore) wrote in
>news:2mice1df60nffgbppcocd1slo1hjfbho2o@4ax.com:
>
>> Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
>> live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Isn't live coverage of major events where the networks are
>> supposed to excel?
>
>You just answered your own question; in today's America, a shuttle
>launch is not a major event.

Seriously, without the unfortunate setbacks, the space shuttles should've been
launching a couple of times a month by now. More than likely, NASA would've
received funding for replacements for our aging shuttle fleet.

--
"I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet"
Galley
July 27, 2005 6:39:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Joe Moore wrote:

> Tim@Backhome.org wrote:
>
> >As someone else said, HDNet covered it. They also made a deal with NASA
> >to upgrade certain NASA cameras to HiDef in return for access to the
> >feed. It seems NDNet paid for the upgrades so I doubt they were willing
> >to share with the vulgures at the "big 3" networks.
>
> Sounds like a reasonable explanation. Thanks.
>
> I'm not sure I like the idea of NASA auctioning off the
> quality of the news coverage to the highest bidder, but
> in these days of budget cuts, I can understand it.
>
> joemooreaterolsdotcom

I don't think it is quite like that. The HiDef cameras HDNet paid for are
for both NASA and HDNet's use. Other broadcasters are free to drive to the
open media areas with their mobile HiDef studios and cover a launch in
HiDef. They (the networks) don't want to pay the big bucks to set up a
mobile HiDef unit for perhaps 20 minutes of air time.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 11:21:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:
> "Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message
> news:u6kir2-25n.ln1@laser.austinpowers.dsbox.com...
>
>>>Nice to watch, but otherwise meaningless to most people.
>>>
>>
>>Which pretty much sums up the sad state of the human race. Breaking free
>>from our planet in a mechanical device designed and built by some of the
>>smartest people in the world, and nobody cares.
>>
>>Hey, Reality TV Show Of The Month is on!
>>
>>Society peaked sometime ago. We're now getting dumber.
>
>
> Paris Hilton in space.

Would we have to bring her back?

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:29:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

D J wrote:

Top posting correccted.

>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11edgpn6oakiic0@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Baked wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:48:32 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>>><nothere@notnow.never>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Which, in all probability, makes them unsuitable for live broadcasts. I
>>>>also somewhat doubt that they are capable of same frame rate as film
>>>>cameras.
>>>
>>>
>>>24fps? That's what film runs at.
>>
>>First hit with google gets a film camera that takes 40,000 images per
>>second. I'm sure you could find faster ones.
>>
>><http://www.visiblesolutions.com/pac.html&gt;
>
> Forgot to mention that frame rate has absolutely nothing to do with
> resolution.

For film cameras, there is no correlation between frame rate and
resolution as the limiting factor is the speed (exposure rating) of the
film. For digital cameras, there is a very strong correlation between
frame rate and resolution because the maximum bandwidth is fixed. Take a
look:

<http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/me324/Labs/Lab%204/C...;

CAMERA INFORMATION:

* model: Kodak Motion Corder Analyzer PS-110 (with RGB CCD)
* max frame rate: 10,000
* maximum pixel rate: > 60,000,000 pixels/sec
* typical configuration: 1,000 frames/sec at 256x240 pixels

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
July 27, 2005 6:59:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Yes, film can record an image almost as well as a high definition camera can
see it ............. (but no better!)


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11ecme6ovbmhodf@corp.supernews.com...
> Joe Moore wrote:
> > Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
> > live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
> >
> > Isn't high-def the perfect medium to cover an event which
> > failed the last time it was attempted and whose failure mode
> > could have been more easily seen with a high def camera?
>
> There were over 100 cameras filming the launch. And I do mean film. Film
> has far greater resolution than HD and can be exposed at outrageously
> high frame rates to capture things that happen in far less than 1/60th
> of a second. You can bet there were plenty of high speed cameras in use.
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
> Which one do you want?
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 7:04:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan wrote:

Top posting corrected.

>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11ecme6ovbmhodf@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Joe Moore wrote:
>>
>>>Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
>>>live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
>>>
>>>Isn't high-def the perfect medium to cover an event which
>>>failed the last time it was attempted and whose failure mode
>>>could have been more easily seen with a high def camera?
>>
>>There were over 100 cameras filming the launch. And I do mean film. Film
>>has far greater resolution than HD and can be exposed at outrageously
>>high frame rates to capture things that happen in far less than 1/60th
>>of a second. You can bet there were plenty of high speed cameras in use.
>>

Yes, film can record an image almost as well as a high definition camera
can see it ............. (but no better!)

I'm at a loss as to what this is supposed to mean. I guess you are
trying to say that a film camera can record at resolution no better than
an HD camera. If that is what you meant, you are quite wrong.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
July 28, 2005 1:50:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"I guess you are
trying to say that a film camera can record at resolution no better than
an HD camera."

The HD cameras of INHD were not "recording" anything. The film cameras
were. The electronic signal from the HD cameras was recorded at another
location on videotape. The quality of the image produced from the videotape
was probably inferior to the quality of the image produced from the film.
The live image seen by the HD cameras was superior to both. Disagree?
(Something tells me film fans believe film produces images superior to even
being there.)


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11efmn0rhlnk2f@corp.supernews.com...
> Stan wrote:
>
> Top posting corrected.
>
> >
> > "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> > news:11ecme6ovbmhodf@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>Joe Moore wrote:
> >>
> >>>Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
> >>>live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
> >>>
> >>>Isn't high-def the perfect medium to cover an event which
> >>>failed the last time it was attempted and whose failure mode
> >>>could have been more easily seen with a high def camera?
> >>
> >>There were over 100 cameras filming the launch. And I do mean film. Film
> >>has far greater resolution than HD and can be exposed at outrageously
> >>high frame rates to capture things that happen in far less than 1/60th
> >>of a second. You can bet there were plenty of high speed cameras in use.
> >>
>
> Yes, film can record an image almost as well as a high definition camera
> can see it ............. (but no better!)
>
> I'm at a loss as to what this is supposed to mean. I guess you are
> trying to say that a film camera can record at resolution no better than
> an HD camera. If that is what you meant, you are quite wrong.
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
> Which one do you want?
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:39:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan wrote:

Top posting corrected, again!

>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11efmn0rhlnk2f@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Stan wrote:
>>
>>Top posting corrected.
>>
>>
>>>"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
>>>news:11ecme6ovbmhodf@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joe Moore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
>>>>>live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
>>>>>
>>>>>Isn't high-def the perfect medium to cover an event which
>>>>>failed the last time it was attempted and whose failure mode
>>>>>could have been more easily seen with a high def camera?
>>>>
>>>>There were over 100 cameras filming the launch. And I do mean film. Film
>>>>has far greater resolution than HD and can be exposed at outrageously
>>>>high frame rates to capture things that happen in far less than 1/60th
>>>>of a second. You can bet there were plenty of high speed cameras in use.
>>>>
>>
>>Yes, film can record an image almost as well as a high definition camera
>>can see it ............. (but no better!)
>>
>>I'm at a loss as to what this is supposed to mean. I guess you are
>>trying to say that a film camera can record at resolution no better than
>>an HD camera. If that is what you meant, you are quite wrong.

>> "I guess you are
>> trying to say that a film camera can record at resolution no better than
>> an HD camera."
>>
> The HD cameras of INHD were not "recording" anything. The film cameras
> were.

What in the world makes you think that?

> The electronic signal from the HD cameras was recorded at another
> location on videotape.

A difference without a distinction.

> The quality of the image produced from the videotape
> was probably inferior to the quality of the image produced from the film.

Unless the film was being exposed beyond its exposure rating.

> The live image seen by the HD cameras was superior to both. Disagree?

How can I? I have no idea in the world what you might mean.

> (Something tells me film fans believe film produces images superior to even
> being there.)

I don't think so. Those of us who know what film is capable of, in the
proper camera, have no doubt that the image recorded on film is likely
at least four times the resolution of HD. Care to show how that can be
wrong?

Matthew
July 28, 2005 6:25:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I will try again to make clear what I mean . (I AM NOT AN EXPERT, only a
simple man trying to apply common sense to the information to which he has
been exposed. I MAY be wrong, ............but that almost never happens.)

An HD camera "sees" as well as a film camera and I believe it "sees" even
better than a film camera. The film in a camera cannot make the image the
camera has seen any better than it already is. Further, even high quality
fine grain film loses something in the recording, development and print
process, even if the loss is less than 1%.

My opinion is that the image provided by a live HD camera is a better image
than that provided by viewing a film of the same event.


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11eghafl5abhc4c@corp.supernews.com...
> Stan wrote:
>
> Top posting corrected, again!
>
> >
> > "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> > news:11efmn0rhlnk2f@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>Stan wrote:
> >>
> >>Top posting corrected.
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> >>>news:11ecme6ovbmhodf@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Joe Moore wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Why did none of the major U.S. television networks have
> >>>>>live high-def coverage of the shuttle launch?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Isn't high-def the perfect medium to cover an event which
> >>>>>failed the last time it was attempted and whose failure mode
> >>>>>could have been more easily seen with a high def camera?
> >>>>
> >>>>There were over 100 cameras filming the launch. And I do mean film.
Film
> >>>>has far greater resolution than HD and can be exposed at outrageously
> >>>>high frame rates to capture things that happen in far less than 1/60th
> >>>>of a second. You can bet there were plenty of high speed cameras in
use.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>Yes, film can record an image almost as well as a high definition camera
> >>can see it ............. (but no better!)
> >>
> >>I'm at a loss as to what this is supposed to mean. I guess you are
> >>trying to say that a film camera can record at resolution no better than
> >>an HD camera. If that is what you meant, you are quite wrong.
>
> >> "I guess you are
> >> trying to say that a film camera can record at resolution no better
than
> >> an HD camera."
> >>
> > The HD cameras of INHD were not "recording" anything. The film cameras
> > were.
>
> What in the world makes you think that?
>
> > The electronic signal from the HD cameras was recorded at another
> > location on videotape.
>
> A difference without a distinction.
>
> > The quality of the image produced from the videotape
> > was probably inferior to the quality of the image produced from the
film.
>
> Unless the film was being exposed beyond its exposure rating.
>
> > The live image seen by the HD cameras was superior to both. Disagree?
>
> How can I? I have no idea in the world what you might mean.
>
> > (Something tells me film fans believe film produces images superior to
even
> > being there.)
>
> I don't think so. Those of us who know what film is capable of, in the
> proper camera, have no doubt that the image recorded on film is likely
> at least four times the resolution of HD. Care to show how that can be
> wrong?
>
> Matthew
>
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 7:13:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan wrote:

Top posting corrected, for the last time.

>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11eghafl5abhc4c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>
>> I don't think so. Those of us who know what film is capable of, in
>> the proper camera, have no doubt that the image recorded on film is
>> likely at least four times the resolution of HD. Care to show how
>> that can be wrong?

> I will try again to make clear what I mean . (I AM NOT AN EXPERT,
> only a simple man trying to apply common sense to the information to
> which he has been exposed. I MAY be wrong, ............but that
> almost never happens.)

You are quite wrong in this case.

> An HD camera "sees" as well as a film camera and I believe it "sees"
> even better than a film camera.

The ultimate factor limiting the resolution of the image projected on
the camera's detector is the size of the circle of confusion of the
lens. If the circle of confusion is greater that the size of the
individual sensor on the detector, then the resulting image will have
less resolution than the media is capable of producing. If the circle of
confusion is smaller than the sensors, then the maximum resolution of
the media limits the resolution of the recorded image.

Film has the obvious advantage of having much smaller sensors than a
1080p CCD. For this reason film can take better advantage of high
quality optics than an HD camera can.

> The film in a camera cannot make the
> image the camera has seen any better than it already is.

As far I know, no one has made that claim. However, the individual
sensors in film are tiny crystals. These crystals are far smaller than
the detectors of a CCD. This allows film to have up several thousand
line pairs per inch.

TV lines are unit of measure for TV resolution. They are the count of
the number of transitions from black to white or white to black in a
single scan line normalized to the screen height. For 1080p the maximum
is 1080 TV lines.

Line pairs are the unit of measure for film resolution. They are the
count of the number of transitions from black to white to black. One TV
line is half the resolution of one line pair.

If we posit that both cameras are projecting an image 1 inch tall and
that exactly matches the media then we can calculate the maximum
resolution of the resulting image assuming an infinitely small circle of
confusion:

Fine grain film (3500 line pairs/inch): 6200 pels x 3500 pels

1080p -- 1920 pixels x 1080 pixels (this is equivalent to 940 line
pairs/inch.

A two inch tall image on film would have four times as many pels while a
two inch tall HD CCD would still only have 1920x1080 pixels.

> Further,
> even high quality fine grain film loses something in the recording,
> development and print process, even if the loss is less than 1%.

It could be 50% and film would still have nearly 100% advantage over 1080p

> My opinion is that the image provided by a live HD camera is a better
> image than that provided by viewing a film of the same event.

You are welcome to your opinion, but the facts indicate that a different
conclusion should be drawn.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
July 28, 2005 8:47:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

OH! ....................... Never mind.


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11eibj11e0e7k39@corp.supernews.com...
> Stan wrote:
>
> Top posting corrected, for the last time.
>
> >
> > "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> > news:11eghafl5abhc4c@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>
> >> I don't think so. Those of us who know what film is capable of, in
> >> the proper camera, have no doubt that the image recorded on film is
> >> likely at least four times the resolution of HD. Care to show how
> >> that can be wrong?
>
> > I will try again to make clear what I mean . (I AM NOT AN EXPERT,
> > only a simple man trying to apply common sense to the information to
> > which he has been exposed. I MAY be wrong, ............but that
> > almost never happens.)
>
> You are quite wrong in this case.
>
> > An HD camera "sees" as well as a film camera and I believe it "sees"
> > even better than a film camera.
>
> The ultimate factor limiting the resolution of the image projected on
> the camera's detector is the size of the circle of confusion of the
> lens. If the circle of confusion is greater that the size of the
> individual sensor on the detector, then the resulting image will have
> less resolution than the media is capable of producing. If the circle of
> confusion is smaller than the sensors, then the maximum resolution of
> the media limits the resolution of the recorded image.
>
> Film has the obvious advantage of having much smaller sensors than a
> 1080p CCD. For this reason film can take better advantage of high
> quality optics than an HD camera can.
>
> > The film in a camera cannot make the
> > image the camera has seen any better than it already is.
>
> As far I know, no one has made that claim. However, the individual
> sensors in film are tiny crystals. These crystals are far smaller than
> the detectors of a CCD. This allows film to have up several thousand
> line pairs per inch.
>
> TV lines are unit of measure for TV resolution. They are the count of
> the number of transitions from black to white or white to black in a
> single scan line normalized to the screen height. For 1080p the maximum
> is 1080 TV lines.
>
> Line pairs are the unit of measure for film resolution. They are the
> count of the number of transitions from black to white to black. One TV
> line is half the resolution of one line pair.
>
> If we posit that both cameras are projecting an image 1 inch tall and
> that exactly matches the media then we can calculate the maximum
> resolution of the resulting image assuming an infinitely small circle of
> confusion:
>
> Fine grain film (3500 line pairs/inch): 6200 pels x 3500 pels
>
> 1080p -- 1920 pixels x 1080 pixels (this is equivalent to 940 line
> pairs/inch.
>
> A two inch tall image on film would have four times as many pels while a
> two inch tall HD CCD would still only have 1920x1080 pixels.
>
> > Further,
> > even high quality fine grain film loses something in the recording,
> > development and print process, even if the loss is less than 1%.
>
> It could be 50% and film would still have nearly 100% advantage over 1080p
>
> > My opinion is that the image provided by a live HD camera is a better
> > image than that provided by viewing a film of the same event.
>
> You are welcome to your opinion, but the facts indicate that a different
> conclusion should be drawn.
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
> Which one do you want?

OH! .........................Never mind.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 9:09:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:25:08 -0400 Stan <ssum9160@adelphia.net> wrote:

| An HD camera "sees" as well as a film camera and I believe it "sees" even
| better than a film camera. The film in a camera cannot make the image the
| camera has seen any better than it already is. Further, even high quality
| fine grain film loses something in the recording, development and print
| process, even if the loss is less than 1%.

A film camera can be made exceptionally high resolution. The tradeoff is
that you lose light because it is spread over more film area. Or you can
gain that light back with a larger lens aperture while losing depth of
field. But at the distance you'd be from the shuttle, that's not going to
be a significant loss (don't try this with macro photography). Film can
generally be made larger easier and cheaper than a CCD pickup can be made
larger. Professional still photographers often use large format (4x5 inch
or 8x10 inch) whee quality really counts. But for movies, size does tend
to have limitations.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 29, 2005 5:11:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"..........you lose light (as you narrow the aperture) because it is spread
over more film area. Or you can
gain that light back with a larger lens aperture while losing depth of
field."

At one time I thought I would take photography up as a hobby and I did some
reading to understand the basic principles. The above quote from Phil is
excellent in helping one to understand what is going on. The idea that
WHATEVER light that is allowed in must be spread over the entire film area
is most helpful in understanding basics. Thanks.

Now tell me as simply as possible what causes the loss of depth of field and
I'll be a happy man.


<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:D ccdme51i6t@news4.newsguy.com...
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:25:08 -0400 Stan <ssum9160@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> | An HD camera "sees" as well as a film camera and I believe it "sees"
even
> | better than a film camera. The film in a camera cannot make the image
the
> | camera has seen any better than it already is. Further, even high
quality
> | fine grain film loses something in the recording, development and print
> | process, even if the loss is less than 1%.
>
> A film camera can be made exceptionally high resolution. The tradeoff is
> that you lose light because it is spread over more film area. Or you can
> gain that light back with a larger lens aperture while losing depth of
> field. But at the distance you'd be from the shuttle, that's not going to
> be a significant loss (don't try this with macro photography). Film can
> generally be made larger easier and cheaper than a CCD pickup can be made
> larger. Professional still photographers often use large format (4x5 inch
> or 8x10 inch) whee quality really counts. But for movies, size does tend
> to have limitations.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
http://ham.org/ |
> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 5:21:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan wrote:
> "..........you lose light (as you narrow the aperture) because it is spread
> over more film area.

What a crock. You lose light _BECAUSE_ you narrowed the arpeture. Less
light gets through a smaller opening. The area over which the light is
projected is roughly the same.

> Or you can
> gain that light back with a larger lens aperture while losing depth of
> field."
>
> At one time I thought I would take photography up as a hobby and I did some
> reading to understand the basic principles. The above quote from Phil is
> excellent in helping one to understand what is going on.

The amount of light available has nothing to do with the resulting image
resolution. It only affect the amount of time it takes to get a good
exposure. Astronomical telescopes spread very little light on their
dectors and can take hours to properly expose a very high resolution image.

> The idea that
> WHATEVER light that is allowed in must be spread over the entire film area
> is most helpful in understanding basics.

I can't imagine how you made this curious leap. The light must fall in
exactly the right place to make a high resolution image. If the light is
evenly distributed, the resulting image will be uniformly grey.

> Thanks.
>
> Now tell me as simply as possible what causes the loss of depth of field and
> I'll be a happy man.

Google is your friend:

<http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/950/dep...;

That is the very first hit when you enter "depth of field".

Matthew

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 10:03:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:11:04 -0400 Stan <ssum9160@adelphia.net> wrote:
| "..........you lose light (as you narrow the aperture) because it is spread
| over more film area. Or you can
| gain that light back with a larger lens aperture while losing depth of
| field."
|
| At one time I thought I would take photography up as a hobby and I did some
| reading to understand the basic principles. The above quote from Phil is
| excellent in helping one to understand what is going on. The idea that
| WHATEVER light that is allowed in must be spread over the entire film area
| is most helpful in understanding basics. Thanks.
|
| Now tell me as simply as possible what causes the loss of depth of field and
| I'll be a happy man.

The wider aperture means the len is "looking at" each point of the
subject from a wider range of "points of view". Depth of field is
an issue when there are 2 subjects at different distances. Focus
the lens exactly on one subject and all the lines "looking at" the
subject converge exactly on the focused subject. The other subject
is then out of focus. Depth of field refers to the degree that the
subjects not exactly on the plane of focus will be out of focus.
With a small aperature, it is less out of focus. With a larger
aperature, it is more out of focus. if the out of focus subject is
a small point (or nearly so) the shape it takes up when out of focus
is the shape of the aperture opening. If you look closely you can
see slightly non-round shape due to the aperture blades. Stick your
finger out across the front of the lens half way, and you can see
that finger in the shape. Given that the out of focus shape is that
of the opening, you can then deduce that a larger opening gives a
larger out of focus shape. This effect is more pronounced when the
subjects are closer and less so when further away.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 29, 2005 11:08:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:11:47 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never>
wrote:

>
>First hit with google gets a film camera that takes 40,000 images per
>second. I'm sure you could find faster ones.

First hit searching for what?

Fact remains that the type of film you watch in a theater is 24fps. What does a
specialized camera like this have to do with anything? What does fps have to do
with resolution? NOTHING.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 2:51:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Baked wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:11:47 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never>
> wrote:
>
>
>>First hit with google gets a film camera that takes 40,000 images per
>>second. I'm sure you could find faster ones.
>
>
> First hit searching for what?

Try "high speed camera".

> Fact remains that the type of film you watch in a theater is 24fps.

What does that have to do with the discussion? Do you think that NASA
was going to limit the cameras watching the lauch to 24 fps? Do you also
think that they were going to rely on HD cameras to do thousands of
frames of high resolution images per second when that technology doesn't
exist?

> What does a
> specialized camera like this have to do with anything?

Nothing, except that is what NASA wants so they can see things that
happen in sub millisecond times.

> What does fps have to do
> with resolution? NOTHING.

You are quite wrong. If you bothered to do some research you would find
out that digital motion cameras are extremely resolution limited at high
frame rates. Do some research and learn something.

Matthew
!