Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HD Source Material - Good, Better, Best?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:41:37 AM

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

I receive HD programing from OTA broadcasts (PBS, NBC, CBS, etc.) and
from Dish HD channels (Discovery, HDNet, TNT, etc., and the 10 ZOOM
channels.) My question relates to the fact that much of the programming
on many of the HD stations doesn't seem to be of the same quality as
others. For example, PBS seems to be exceptionally good on many
programs. Discovery, and some of the travel programs (Smart Travels,
etc., and programming on Equator?), seem very good. Live sporting events
often have a spectacular picture (from their lack of intervening
recording and processing). However, most of the movies and network
programming doesn't seem of the same quality (not the same resolution,
brilliance, or contrast).

From my experience and from others' comments, it seems that live
broadcasts and video recorded for HD (as distinguished from video
derived from film), are often superior as far as HD picture quality. -
Is this the general consensus, and what suggestions do others have for
high quality programming from these or other sources? For example,
would the premium channels provide better picture quality? (I have a
Zenith 65" set with 9-inch CRT guns, and on good 1080i broadcasts such
as live sporting events, the picture is very impressive.) I'm not so
interested in a detailed explanation of the physics as I am in knowing
where to look for better broadcasts. - Or should I wait for Blu-Ray
DVDs?

Thanks for any comments or suggestions.

Jim Cate

More about : source material good

Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:50:34 PM

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

One thing you have to remember is the program may be broadcast in High Def,
but it may not have been recorded in High Def.

You can only make a 20 year old film look so good.


"Jim Cate" <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:11gal7f25aeol73@corp.supernews.com...
>I receive HD programing from OTA broadcasts (PBS, NBC, CBS, etc.) and from
>Dish HD channels (Discovery, HDNet, TNT, etc., and the 10 ZOOM channels.)
>My question relates to the fact that much of the programming on many of the
>HD stations doesn't seem to be of the same quality as others. For example,
>PBS seems to be exceptionally good on many programs. Discovery, and some
>of the travel programs (Smart Travels, etc., and programming on Equator?),
>seem very good. Live sporting events often have a spectacular picture (from
>their lack of intervening recording and processing). However, most of the
>movies and network programming doesn't seem of the same quality (not the
>same resolution, brilliance, or contrast).
> From my experience and from others' comments, it seems that live
> broadcasts and video recorded for HD (as distinguished from video derived
> from film), are often superior as far as HD picture quality. - Is this
> the general consensus, and what suggestions do others have for high
> quality programming from these or other sources? For example, would the
> premium channels provide better picture quality? (I have a Zenith 65" set
> with 9-inch CRT guns, and on good 1080i broadcasts such as live sporting
> events, the picture is very impressive.) I'm not so interested in a
> detailed explanation of the physics as I am in knowing where to look for
> better broadcasts. - Or should I wait for Blu-Ray DVDs?
> Thanks for any comments or suggestions.
>
> Jim Cate
>
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:50:35 PM

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

Postal68 wrote:

> One thing you have to remember is the program may be broadcast in High Def,
> but it may not have been recorded in High Def.
>
> You can only make a 20 year old film look so good.
>

Actually, 20 year old film has far more resolution than HD.

Matthew
Related resources
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 8:01:48 PM

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

Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
> ... I'm not so
> interested in a detailed explanation of the physics as I am in knowing
> where to look for better broadcasts. ...

The documentaries from Imax on the cable INHD channels are good.

--
Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
August 19, 2005 10:03:46 PM

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

Oh please, Matthew, not that old saw again! Face it! Technology has
improved.

(Intentionally top posted.)


"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11gblkldggio673@corp.supernews.com...
> Postal68 wrote:
>
> > One thing you have to remember is the program may be broadcast in High
Def,
> > but it may not have been recorded in High Def.
> >
> > You can only make a 20 year old film look so good.
> >
>
> Actually, 20 year old film has far more resolution than HD.
>
> Matthew
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:50:44 PM

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:50:34 GMT Postal68 <postal68@verizon.net> wrote:

| One thing you have to remember is the program may be broadcast in High Def,
| but it may not have been recorded in High Def.
|
| You can only make a 20 year old film look so good.

That depends on the film. Any half way decent 35mm film easily exceeds
1920x1080. Many movies (all the high dollar ones) are shot on 70mm or
better film.

Don't assume that because a consumer film camera that uses 35mm film has
lousy pictures means the film can't do the job. It's almost always the
cheap lens. Professionals don't use cheap lenses. Motion picture camera
lenses run in the tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands
of dollars. The film is premium quality (including a black mask on the
back to reduce substrate reflections).

Some prints of these motion pictures may be cheap. But all that needs to
be done is go back to the original master or the primary prints to make a
top notch HD video copy.

Of course that doesn't mean every movie was made with the best film. But
virtually all the blockbusters will have been. Maybe film from 50 years
ago won't be so good. But even then, some digital processing can really
clean things up and make it look a lot better.

That's not to say everyone doing an HD broadcast does it right. They very
well could be "cheaping out" and just upscaling a 480i copy of a film.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 2:54:59 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> That depends on the film. Any half way decent 35mm film easily exceeds
> 1920x1080. Many movies (all the high dollar ones) are shot on 70mm or
> better film.

This is so wrong as to almost be funny.

Very few films today are shot on 70mm, and the "high dollar" ones are
almost *never* in that list (at least not recently). Movies like
"Spider-Man 2" ($200M budget), "Fantastic Four" ($100M budget), "War of the
Worlds" ($128M budget), and "Batman Begins" ($135M budget) *all* were shot
on 35mm film. Some of them ended up with 70mm *prints*, though (mostly for
Imax).

Some of the older "big budget" films with wider than 35mm frames used
35mm film as the negative...just horizontally through the camera.

The list of movies that used actual 65mm film stock (no 70mm negative
format is used in any mainstream films) for the entire movie was tiny...
less than 60 for sure, although data is hard to come by.

Admittedly, some that I know used 65mm film were "big budget" for their
day, but some were not:

Agony and the Ecstasy, The (1965)
Airport (1970)
Around the World in Eighty Days (1956)
Baraka (1992)
Battle of the Bulge (1965)
Big Fisherman, The (1959)
Can-Can (1960)
Cheyenne Autumn (1964)
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)
Cleopatra (1963)
Doctor Dolittle (1967)
Exodus (1960)
Fall of the Roman Empire, The (1964)
Grand Prix (1966)
Great Race, The (1965)
Hello, Dolly! (1969)
Horsemen, The (1971)
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)
Last Valley, The (1971)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Let's Spend the Night Together (1982)
Little Buddha (1993)
Lord Jim (1965)
Mackenna's Gold (1969)
Madmen of Mandoras (1964)
Man in the 5th Dimension (1964)
Mutiny on the Bounty (1962)
My Fair Lady (1964)
Oklahoma! (1955)
Porgy and Bess (1959)
Ryan's Daughter (1970)
Song of Norway (1970)
Soul to Soul (1971)
Sound of Music, The (1965)
South Pacific (1958)
Star! (1968)
Stunt Rock (1978)
Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965)
West Side Story (1961)

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/CloseToHome/NamespacePollu...
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 5:33:32 AM

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:03:46 -0400 Stan <ssum9160@adelphia.net> wrote:

| Oh please, Matthew, not that old saw again! Face it! Technology has
| improved.

Oh, so HD has now improved beyond the 1080 line resolution? Wow!


| (Intentionally top posted.)

What's the point in including the whole previous article when top posting?
Just leave it out when top posting.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 6:06:32 PM

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

In article <11gcvgn3f35sc6e@corp.supernews.com>,
Jim Cate <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote:
>
>Actually, most 35 mm films have substantially more detail and resolution
>than the best HD signal. My question is: why do few of the HD
>broadcasts of films have equivalent quality?

There are many reasons, including not taking enough care at the
mastering phase, but film grain is another important one.

A grainy film may have about the same resolution as HDTV in terms of
information it can contain, but will look better simply because grain is
random and irregular, so for instance the edge of the grain will still
look smooth when magnified. Where the grain is around the size of a
pixel in HDTV, you effectively get noise on a pixel level that becomes
distracting, but this is more of a mastering issue. Instead of scanning
the film at 1920x1080, it could be scanned at 3840x2160 and averaged
out, which would substantially reduce the grains appearing as random
high-contrast dots here and there.

The other more important factor is the bitrate the film is encodeded at,
as lower bitrates will cause artifacts to be introduced and blocking on
fast moving scenes or scenes with running water, fire, etc...

Ralf.
--
Ranulf Doswell | Please note this e-mail address
www.ranulf.net | expires one month after posting.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:33:02 PM

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

Stan wrote:
> Oh please, Matthew, not that old saw again! Face it! Technology has
> improved.

Do you have a problem with the truth? Care to prove me wrong?

Go visit Kodak's website. Take a look at the resolution specs they
publish and do the math. 35mm Film has far better resolution than 1080i.
70mm film blows 35mm film out of the water.

> (Intentionally top posted.)

Of course, top posting is really useful for being rude and dismissive.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:46:32 PM

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

nonone wrote:
> Some in this group once explained the resolution of films. I don't
> remember the details, but they said that films have much higher
> resolution than HD. My fear was that HD would be higher resolution
> than films. They said my fear was not a concern.
>
> BUT for us to see the high resolution of films, the films have to be
> cinescoped again for HD. For example, old films are cinescoped to be
> put on DVDs. To get HD quality for a film, they have to be cinescoped
> again for HD. Hopefully someone can explain this better.
>

The word you meant to use is "telecine" or "transfer". There are some
DVDs that were released by creating digital copies of laserdisc (or
worse, VHS) masters. This was probably done to save time and money, not
for best possible reproduction. There may be some DVDs that will never
get better masters because there aren't any better ones available.

Most DVDs, especially recent films from major studios, are derived from
HD or better transfers made from the best possible sources. The HD or
better masters are then digitally scaled and encoded to produce MPEG-2
data streams for pressing DVDs. Releasing HD copies of these films is
just a matter of scaling and encoding the existing digital transfer.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:47:13 PM

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

Jim Cate wrote:
> Actually, most 35 mm films have substantially more detail and resolution
> than the best HD signal. My question is: why do few of the HD
> broadcasts of films have equivalent quality?

There can be any number of reasons:

1) The broadcast could have been from an older transfer
B) The source could have been multiple generations from the negative
iii) The telecine operator was asleep at the switch
d) The film was shot soft intentionally
V) The DP manipulated the depth of field for effect which can make much
of a scene be out of focus

There are probably more and better reasons, perhaps one of the
professionals could chime in.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 7:09:34 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Go visit Kodak's website. Take a look at the resolution specs they
> publish and do the math. 35mm Film has far better resolution than
> 1080i. 70mm film blows 35mm film out of the water.

I've discussed this here with Jeff before, and I don't want to resume a
lengthy discussion, but I'll point out again that it's a substantial
exaggeration to claim vaguely that film has "far better" resolution than
HD. Ideally it does, but as a practical matter, meaning what most
people see on TVs and theater screens, it does not.

I said this originally based on my indirect experience with feature film
digital special effects and post-production, where 2K is the de facto
standard resolution. But I recently came across a study of theatrical
film resolution performed to assess the minimum required for digital
replacement of film in movie theaters that bears on the question.

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

Among their conclusions:

The highest resolution that the expert assessors could still discern
in the sharpest part of the screen...in the most performing theater
was about 875 lines/PH.

The average resolution in the sharpest part of the screen of the six
movie theaters was about 750 lines/PH.

The highest resolution averaged over the eight multiburst groups
measured on the screens of the six selected movie theaters was about
685 lines/PH.

The resolution on the negative was far higher (about 2100 LPH), and it
was still about 15% to 45% higher on the release print (about 1000 LPH).
But what people actually see on the screen in terms of LPH is comparable
to 720p and Kell-adjusted 1080i.

Since "lines per picture height" might be unfamiliar terminology for
some, it's useful to double-check what it means for HD. See for example

http://bg.broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_xi_h...

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 9:39:23 PM

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

Ernie Wright (erniew@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Among their conclusions:
>
> The highest resolution that the expert assessors could still discern
> in the sharpest part of the screen...in the most performing theater
> was about 875 lines/PH.
>
> The average resolution in the sharpest part of the screen of the six
> movie theaters was about 750 lines/PH.
>
> The highest resolution averaged over the eight multiburst groups
> measured on the screens of the six selected movie theaters was about
> 685 lines/PH.
>
> The resolution on the negative was far higher (about 2100 LPH), and it
> was still about 15% to 45% higher on the release print (about 1000 LPH).
> But what people actually see on the screen in terms of LPH is comparable
> to 720p and Kell-adjusted 1080i.

It makes a lot of sense that a theater wouldn't be "perfect" and you'd
lose a lot of the actual resolution. But, a truly good HDTV transfer
straight from interpostive/internegative/whatever and no throttling of
resolution in the transmission would result in every bit as much resolution
as an HD camera-sourced movie.

The #1 reason people think that HD camera-sourced HD looks "better" is
because 99% of it is shot with huge depth of field, giving the false
impression that it is "sharper" than film-sourced HDTV. The reality is
that film-sourced HD could look just as sharp if the creative people
wanted it to. The NFL films in HD stuff does look like this, and it was
sourced from a mix of 16mm, 35mm, digi-Beta, and just about everything
else.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Sins.jpg
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:22:38 PM

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

In <11gjlr1m33af51b@corp.supernews.com> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> writes:

>Jim Cate wrote:
>> Actually, most 35 mm films have substantially more detail and resolution
>> than the best HD signal. My question is: why do few of the HD
>> broadcasts of films have equivalent quality?

>There can be any number of reasons:

>1) The broadcast could have been from an older transfer
>B) The source could have been multiple generations from the negative
>iii) The telecine operator was asleep at the switch
>d) The film was shot soft intentionally
>V) The DP manipulated the depth of field for effect which can make much
>of a scene be out of focus

>There are probably more and better reasons, perhaps one of the
>professionals could chime in.

$) The film was transfered SD and what you're watching is an upconvert.

This doesn't happen with features (movies), which I believe was
the original question, but it certainly does with shows. We transfered
a very high profile show for several years that was shot on super 16 &
laid down to DigiBeta. I was astonished to see it advertised as showing
in HDTV!

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:22:39 PM

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

Tim Mullen (tim@panix.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> This doesn't happen with features (movies), which I believe was
> the original question, but it certainly does with shows. We transfered
> a very high profile show for several years that was shot on super 16 &
> laid down to DigiBeta. I was astonished to see it advertised as showing
> in HDTV!

Straight from Super 16 to an HD telecine does give HD resolution, though,
doesn't it?

--
Jeff Rife | "What are you looking at? You're laborers; you
| should be laboring. That's what you get for
| not having an education."
| -- Professor Hathaway, "Real Genius"
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:45:15 AM

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

In <MPG.1d740e97a157f532989f47@news.nabs.net> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:

>Tim Mullen (tim@panix.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> This doesn't happen with features (movies), which I believe was
>> the original question, but it certainly does with shows. We transfered
>> a very high profile show for several years that was shot on super 16 &
>> laid down to DigiBeta. I was astonished to see it advertised as showing
>> in HDTV!

>Straight from Super 16 to an HD telecine does give HD resolution, though,
>doesn't it?

Yes, and it's surprising how good some of the better 16mm stocks
can look. This show wasn't done in HD, though.

What I mean by that is the Spirit spits out what you tell it.
Set it for 525 and you get an SDTV 480i signal. Set it for 1080Psf/
23.98 and that's what falls out the back. In other words, the telecine
is in either HD or SD mode, but not both at the same time.

And, of course, this show was recorded on Sony's DigiBeta format,
an SD-only tape machine.

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:03:21 AM

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

In <MPG.1d7410186953e061989f48@news.nabs.net> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:

>Ernie Wright (erniew@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>> The resolution on the negative was far higher (about 2100 LPH), and it
>> was still about 15% to 45% higher on the release print (about 1000 LPH).
>> But what people actually see on the screen in terms of LPH is comparable
>> to 720p and Kell-adjusted 1080i.

There's another reason for needing as much resolution as you can
get up-front, even if it exceeds what the final viewing medium is
capable of. And that's post-production. Being able to pull a clean
key, isolate a color, track an object -- the more information you have
the better.

This is obviously far more the case where the final product is video
and all this mucking-up :)  of the picture is being done electronically,
but that's more and more the case even with features. The big buzz
nowadays is "DI" (Digital Intermediate) where all the magic we've done
with commercials over the years is applied to a movie, which is then
printed back out to film and shown in theaters.

>It makes a lot of sense that a theater wouldn't be "perfect" and you'd
>lose a lot of the actual resolution. But, a truly good HDTV transfer
>straight from interpostive/internegative/whatever and no throttling of
>resolution in the transmission would result in every bit as much resolution
>as an HD camera-sourced movie.

We usually transfer original camera negative. Which is handled very,
very, very gently. :) 

>The #1 reason people think that HD camera-sourced HD looks "better" is
>because 99% of it is shot with huge depth of field, giving the false
>impression that it is "sharper" than film-sourced HDTV.

It always sounds better with the treble turned up. :) 

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:03:22 AM

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

Tim Mullen (tim@panix.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> We usually transfer original camera negative. Which is handled very,
> very, very gently. :) 

Wow, I had thought even with such gentle treatment, this was considered
too risky. Still, it'll give the absolute best picture.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Sins.jpg
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:40:37 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> But, a truly good HDTV transfer [...] would result in every bit as
> much resolution as an HD camera-sourced movie.

Absolutely.

> The #1 reason people think that HD camera-sourced HD looks "better" is
> because 99% of it is shot with huge depth of field, giving the false
> impression that it is "sharper" than film-sourced HDTV.

I agree, and part of the reason for that has been a technical limitation
of digital cameras. The smaller image size (CCD versus 35mm film frame
size) has made shallow depth of field trickier to achieve, since DOF is
inversely proportional to image size, all else being equal.

Moreover, focus pull has never been a part of the vocabulary of video
the way it has for film. You'll see it occasionally on soap operas, but
it's never used in sports, news, or sketch comedies.

There are other factors. Film has always had a somewhat softer look (or
video has always had a somewhat harsher look), for reasons not having
much to do with the inherent resolution of the two formats.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:45:26 AM

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

In <MPG.1d7434993b5c5bdf989f4a@news.nabs.net> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:

>Tim Mullen (tim@panix.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> We usually transfer original camera negative. Which is handled very,
>> very, very gently. :) 

>Wow, I had thought even with such gentle treatment, this was considered
>too risky. Still, it'll give the absolute best picture.

Telecines have come a long way from the sprocket-claw monsters.
The Rank was the first capstan machine that finally convinced directors
to put their life on the line and take a chance with the OCN.

Probably the first thing the design team writes down during the
product specification phase is "Thou shalt not snap film". :) 
Spirits are very gentle. I've had to power off a Spirit (even the
best of machines get stupid from time-to-time) in play and it died
gracefully with absolutely no harm to the film.

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:07:39 AM

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

Tim Mullen wrote:

> There's another reason for needing as much resolution as you can
> get up-front, even if it exceeds what the final viewing medium is
> capable of. And that's post-production. Being able to pull a clean
> key, isolate a color, track an object -- the more information you have
> the better.

Conversely, I jumped into this discussion the first time precisely
because all that stuff is currently being done at 2K for feature films,
which is just 1080i resolution. 4K is relatively rare. Cost is a big
factor in that, obviously, but being able to get away with 2K is also an
indication of what resolution is actually reaching the theater screen,
as opposed to what film might be ideally capable of.

> but that's more and more the case even with features. The big buzz
> nowadays is "DI" (Digital Intermediate) where all the magic we've done
> with commercials over the years is applied to a movie, which is then
> printed back out to film and shown in theaters.

The big reason for that isn't SFX. It's just a whole lot easier to edit
and experiment with color timing and the like in the digital realm.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:09:51 PM

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

In <mt-dnapgxZT9NZfeRVn-gQ@comcast.com> Ernie Wright <erniew@comcast.net> writes:

>Moreover, focus pull has never been a part of the vocabulary of video
>the way it has for film. You'll see it occasionally on soap operas, but
>it's never used in sports, news, or sketch comedies.

>There are other factors. Film has always had a somewhat softer look (or
>video has always had a somewhat harsher look), for reasons not having
>much to do with the inherent resolution of the two formats.

Heh. Someone once said that if you ask a film person what proper
exposure is, they'll wax poetic about shutter angle and film emulsions
used to achieve the look they're after.

Ask video folks and they'll say "Blacks at 7.5, peak whites at 100!"

:) 

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:23:09 PM

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

In <UfidnZ2dnZ0iujyqnZ2dnSszl96dnZ2dRVn-0p2dnZ0@comcast.com> Ernie Wright <erniew@comcast.net> writes:

>Conversely, I jumped into this discussion the first time precisely
>because all that stuff is currently being done at 2K for feature films,
>which is just 1080i resolution. 4K is relatively rare.

Yeah, the technology isn't quite there yet. The 4K Spirit just
came out, and dealing with a 4X increase in bandwidth/storage ain't
easy.

>Cost is a big
>factor in that, obviously, but being able to get away with 2K is also an
>indication of what resolution is actually reaching the theater screen,
>as opposed to what film might be ideally capable of.

Kinda. Film out is not the same as watching HD -- it doesn't have
to be realtime, for one thing. That means you can do a lot of processing
tricks to "take the edge off". :) 

>The big reason for that isn't SFX. It's just a whole lot easier to edit
>and experiment with color timing and the like in the digital realm.

Absolutely. I point folks to the DVD of "O Brother, Where Art Thou"
as a great example of what we do. In the additional material there's
a clip explaining the whole DI process, and how important it was to the
look of that film.

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------
!