| Author |
Message |
gaffo
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
AZ Nomad wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:46:04 GMT, NunYa Bidness <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 03:49:21 GMT, AZ Nomad <aznomad@PmunOgeBOX.com
Gave us:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 03:35:01 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
both 35 and 72 "should" look better than any DVD (which is equivalent to
8-millimeter film), but in the real world with scratched/old film non
old projectors, the DVD may indeed look better.
DVD may have better color purity and less noise, but any film that hasn't
fallen to ribbons will blow dvd away and hdtv too.
Beating HDTV is a bit tougher. I have seen broadcasts in which I
could tell you how many grams of grass is shoved into some player's
jersey... and the type of grass even.
HDTV is like a 2MP digital camera compared to 35MM. Not even close.
|
HDTV is equivalent to 16-mm film.
--
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and
well-placed and so many professional athletes (who were
probably healthier than any of us) managed to wangle
slots in Reserve and National Guard units. Of the many
tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes
me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans
are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."
--Colin Powell -his autobiography
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada".
George W. Bush
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
trotsky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:56 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
moviePig wrote:
| Quote: | I, too, noticed the conspicuous absence of any mention of DLP, which,
e.g., seems particularly relevant to earlier-discussed issues of
old/scratched/rare film... and maybe relevant even to incompetent
projectionists. Re DLP's quality, the argument has heretofore been
"DLP's not as good as film"... but that's increasingly turning into the
more mystical "DLP's *not* film". I know that, today, a 35mm frame does
carry more bandwidth... but a finger in the wind suggests the
approaching demise of that advantage. E.g., I think that Texas
Instruments recently released a 1080-line DLP chip vs. their previous
780(?)-line champ. It seems plain to me that soon we'll be paying a
theater to see an exactly-like-DVD movie, but merely early, and
*possibly* at higher-res than we can afford to show at home. And,
though heretical, my belief is that (eventually anyway) nothing but
nostalgia will be lost...
|
For the masses, anyway. Anybody that's really discerning will know that
(the best) analog is better than (the best) digital in all cases,
regardless of the medium. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay G.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:59 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dc6b7b5a02ebc68989ab9@news.individual.net...
| Quote: | Mon, 24 Oct 2005 05:29:07 GMT from Manco <manco_dollars@net.com>:
Exactly. I went to the local theatre (Fall Creek Cinema, Ithaca) to
see /The Aristocrats/. I was not pleased to be in the screening room
where the screen is too high up, the seats are too close to it, and
half of them are broken, but I decided to put up with it.
What I could not put up with was distorted sound, on a dialog-driven
movie to boot. I complained to the projectionist, but he shrugged his
shoulders and said they knew about it but couldn't fix it. I demanded
my money back; in three or four months I'll see the show in comfort
for half the price.
|
By "half the price," I'm assuming you mean a rental?
-Jay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Jones
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
Black Locust wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1130158042.708106.292610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Nick Macpherson" <NMacphe421@AOL.com> wrote:
I go to matinees, take my own food in, the only people
there are normally retirees (a recent trend, I don't know what's
going on with that)
No, the only people there are losers in their mid 30s(usually male)
who have nothing to do but watch a movie at 12 noon on a Tuesday.
Those of us who have work, school or both have no time for such
silliness.
You mean that you don't get any vacation days? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay G.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:02 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
"NunYa Bidness" <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote ...
| Quote: |
Since the industry has been around for several decades, I'm sure
that all of their industry specific "urban legends" are known, and
have been dispelled.
|
If urban legends were easily dispelled, they wouldn't be urban legends.
-Jay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moviePig
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:05 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
trotsky wrote:
| Quote: | moviePig wrote:
I, too, noticed the conspicuous absence of any mention of DLP, which,
e.g., seems particularly relevant to earlier-discussed issues of
old/scratched/rare film... and maybe relevant even to incompetent
projectionists. Re DLP's quality, the argument has heretofore been
"DLP's not as good as film"... but that's increasingly turning into
the more mystical "DLP's *not* film". I know that, today, a 35mm
frame does carry more bandwidth... but a finger in the wind suggests
the approaching demise of that advantage. E.g., I think that Texas
Instruments recently released a 1080-line DLP chip vs. their previous
780(?)-line champ. It seems plain to me that soon we'll be paying a
theater to see an exactly-like-DVD movie, but merely early, and
*possibly* at higher-res than we can afford to show at home. And,
though heretical, my belief is that (eventually anyway) nothing but
nostalgia will be lost...
For the masses, anyway. Anybody that's really discerning will know that
(the best) analog is better than (the best) digital in all cases,
regardless of the medium.
|
I know (don't I?) that you're also talking about audio. And, your point
seems certain to be valid for both video and audio at the *start* of an
industry conversion to digital... because it begins as soon as digital's
difference from analog becomes "acceptably small". But when digital's
fidelity-shortfall inevitably reaches the threshold of biological
undetectability --just a matter of more digits-- then digital's
cleanness and perfect reproducibility has to win out, it would seem.
Meanwhile, until that threshold's reached, ye of exquisite perception
must needs suffer. (Come to think of it, there'll be diminishing
incentive for technology to actually go that final millimeter, because
there'll be a diminishing public who can tell the difference. So, just
hope you're not the last to be deceived.)
--
/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goro
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
Jordan wrote:
| Quote: | "Edge enhancement drives me crazy. Macroblocking (granted, a problem
of the Faroudja upconverting chip) is at least mildly irritaitng.
Chroma Errors (on my Sony) are
painful. Artifacts abound (with the setup properly calibrated, they
are somewhat minimized, but still noticeable). "
Hmmm... it sounds like you know what you're doing, but the #1 cause of
edge enhancement problems is actually having the sharpness set too
high.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6463_7-5085739-4.html
"Sharpness: This adds artificial edges to objects, which sometimes
helps with soft cable signals but almost always mars the already sharp
image from a DVD. Reduce it to zero unless you detect visible softening
along the edges of text; if you do, increase it until the edges appear
sharp again. "
- Jordan
|
I've adjusted my sets using Avia, which generally puts sharpness low,
but mentions that turning it all the way down also has negative
effects. I've tried turning it down further for some dvd viewing, but
even those beneficial effects have been minimal.
While turning sharpness down has helped on my 32" Sony Wega CRT (the
halos are still slightly noticeable but are less prominent), it hasn't
really helped much on my 50" Samsung DLP. There are still really
jarring times when the Edge Enhancement just jumps out, though, to be
fair, often when my friends are watching with me, they don't notice
until I point it out to them. THen they say things like, "Wow. It
must really suck to notice these things all the time."
Ditto with the macroblocking and the Chroma upsample error. Enough so
that I use my Sony DVD player on my CRT and am thinking about a new
Denon to replace my Oppo.
My main point is that DVDs are flawed. They look better than OTA NTSC
and VHS by a gigantic factor and so I think that people (in general)
are happy with DVD b/c it looks so good and overlook, or don't see, the
limitations.
Even now, I'm watching OTA HD and I'm struck with the digital
artifacting that's visible. I'm curious as to whether 1080p is going
to be enough of a leap and if (say) 2160p is just around the corner. I
recently read that the Samsung 1080p DLP sets are all wobulated and
that they handle 2pixels per mirro but that they are easily capable of
handling 4, so that it seems like doubling the res should be
straightforward (if not nec. "easy") for the next gen.
-goro- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goro
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:17 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
Goro wrote:
| Quote: | Jordan wrote:
"Edge enhancement drives me crazy. Macroblocking (granted, a problem
of the Faroudja upconverting chip) is at least mildly irritaitng.
Chroma Errors (on my Sony) are
painful. Artifacts abound (with the setup properly calibrated, they
are somewhat minimized, but still noticeable). "
Hmmm... it sounds like you know what you're doing, but the #1 cause of
edge enhancement problems is actually having the sharpness set too
high.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6463_7-5085739-4.html
"Sharpness: This adds artificial edges to objects, which sometimes
helps with soft cable signals but almost always mars the already sharp
image from a DVD. Reduce it to zero unless you detect visible softening
along the edges of text; if you do, increase it until the edges appear
sharp again. "
- Jordan
I've adjusted my sets using Avia, which generally puts sharpness low,
but mentions that turning it all the way down also has negative
effects. I've tried turning it down further for some dvd viewing, but
even those beneficial effects have been minimal.
While turning sharpness down has helped on my 32" Sony Wega CRT (the
halos are still slightly noticeable but are less prominent), it hasn't
really helped much on my 50" Samsung DLP. There are still really
jarring times when the Edge Enhancement just jumps out, though, to be
fair, often when my friends are watching with me, they don't notice
until I point it out to them. THen they say things like, "Wow. It
must really suck to notice these things all the time."
Ditto with the macroblocking and the Chroma upsample error. Enough so
that I use my Sony DVD player on my CRT and am thinking about a new
Denon to replace my Oppo.
My main point is that DVDs are flawed. They look better than OTA NTSC
and VHS by a gigantic factor and so I think that people (in general)
are happy with DVD b/c it looks so good and overlook, or don't see, the
limitations.
Even now, I'm watching OTA HD and I'm struck with the digital
artifacting that's visible. I'm curious as to whether 1080p is going
to be enough of a leap and if (say) 2160p is just around the corner. I
recently read that the Samsung 1080p DLP sets are all wobulated and
that they handle 2pixels per mirro but that they are easily capable of
handling 4, so that it seems like doubling the res should be
straightforward (if not nec. "easy") for the next gen.
-goro-
|
I'll also add that I've visited alot of people's homes who have DVD
setups and often nice TVs and almost every single one of them had been
calibrated noticeably off (most likely with factory OOB settings).
-goro- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rick++
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:18 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
| Quote: | And since most filmmakers are still making theatrical releases designed
to be seen at a theater, by going with DVDs you're losing the audience
interaction with what's happening onscreen and you're not getting a
fully dimensional view of what the filmmakers are trying to get across,
especially in comedies or horror films.
|
A lot of the indie/art films are made with inexpensive "small screen"
tools,
so the screen size isnt goingto matter as much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Harkness
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:57 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2005 07:18:01 -0700, "rick++" <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | And since most filmmakers are still making theatrical releases designed
to be seen at a theater, by going with DVDs you're losing the audience
interaction with what's happening onscreen and you're not getting a
fully dimensional view of what the filmmakers are trying to get across,
especially in comedies or horror films.
A lot of the indie/art films are made with inexpensive "small screen"
tools,
so the screen size isnt goingto matter as much.
|
It does, actually.
There's a huge difference between something on a 40x20 foot screen and
something on a four foot diagonal screen.
You can make the exact same argument for lots of classic Hollywood
films, well, it's black and white, and mono sound, and mostly it's
people talking, so why not just watch on television. Until you see a
properly maintained 35 mm print on a big screen.
If you can't see the difference, I suppose, there's nothing to be done
for ou.
John Harkness |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
NunYa Bidness wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:22:47 -0700, Richard <richard@nospam.edu> Gave
us:
NunYa Bidness wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:13:06 -0700, Richard <richard@nospam.edu> Gave
us:
Unfortunately, it is really happening. Roger Ebert has written about
this annoying trend on his website. It seems crazy, but they really
do it...
So, they are NOT turning down the wattage, which you seem to be
claiming is happening. They are using lower wattage bulbs entirely.
That is not what was claimed.
You can't be bothered to read more than half an article, apparently.
Not true. I did read it all, and there was only ONE reference to a
projector being "turned down".
|
The "ONE" reference was half the god damn article, the several
paragraphs I quoted earlier in this thread, which you simply ignored.
One more time...
Film critic Roger Ebert has long been a crusader for optimum film
presentation, which he has addressed repeatedly in his Answer Man column
in the Chicago Sun-Times, parts of which he e-mailed to me for this
story. He reserves particular venom for theaters that don't run bulbs at
their full wattage. This is called lowering the amperage, or juice.
"I first heard about this shameful practice from Martin Scorsese, who
actually visits theaters with a light meter to determine if the picture
is being projected at the correct light intensity," Ebert writes.
"Moviegoers in some cities may never have seen a properly lit image. The
result: sad, dim, washed-out movies. This is stupid for two reasons: (1)
discerning customers never return to such theaters, and (2) according to
the veteran Chicago movie publicist and distributor John Iltis, the
practice does not extend the life of the bulbs!"
In another column, Ebert writes: "Many theater chains routinely order
projectionists to turn down the bulb intensity in the mistaken belief
that will extend the life of the expensive bulbs. As a result, films
look darker than their makers intended. (I) quoted Carl Donath of Kodak
in February 1999: 'A dirty secret is that movies are under-lit in most
theaters. Films are produced with the intent that they be projected at
the brightness of 16 foot-lamberts. Field research by Kodak found that
they are often shown at between 8 and 10 foot-lamberts, well under the
SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) standard for
brightness.'
"Ironically," Ebert concludes, "testing shows that bulbs burn just about
as long at full power, so theater chains are not only cheap, but stupid.
Clip this item, laminate it, and have it ready to show theater managers
at a moment's notice."
Richard
Richard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NunYa Bidness
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:33 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005 17:57:49 -0700, lorincantrell@yahoo.com Gave us:
| Quote: | You sound exceptionally knowledgable. Are you a lighting engineer?
What you say is exactly correct, except that motion picture projectors
more than table-top size use Xenon arc lamps that have no filament.
|
The brightness of which is not adjusted. It is a plasma arc, and
when it is arcing, it puts out the same light. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NunYa Bidness
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:37 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:00:07 -0700, Richard <richard@nospam.edu> Gave
us:
| Quote: | The "ONE" reference was half the god damn article, the several
paragraphs I quoted earlier in this thread, which you simply ignored.
One more time...
|
No. It referenced using different wattage bulbs, just like I said
NOT changing the wattage being sent to the bulb.
There was only ONE reference to actually changing the feed to a bulb.
All the rest (most of the article) was about using lower wattage bulbs
in place of the correct bulb requisite. That isn't the same as
turning one down, as was suggested by the OP.
That is not what the guy in the post said! Just like I said in my
first response. Nothing has changed.
Get some skull-o-sucktion done to thin out the skull, and make some
room in there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stan Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:59:27 -0500 from Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org>:
| Quote: |
"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dc6b7b5a02ebc68989ab9@news.individual.net...
Mon, 24 Oct 2005 05:29:07 GMT from Manco <manco_dollars@net.com>:
Exactly. I went to the local theatre (Fall Creek Cinema, Ithaca) to
see /The Aristocrats/. I was not pleased to be in the screening room
where the screen is too high up, the seats are too close to it, and
half of them are broken, but I decided to put up with it.
What I could not put up with was distorted sound, on a dialog-driven
movie to boot. I complained to the projectionist, but he shrugged his
shoulders and said they knew about it but couldn't fix it. I demanded
my money back; in three or four months I'll see the show in comfort
for half the price.
By "half the price," I'm assuming you mean a rental?
|
Well, of course. What else?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
DVD FAQ: http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
other FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Spatny
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:44 am Post subject:
Re: DVD movies look better than theatrical? |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:35:45 GMT, AZ Nomad <aznomad@PmunOgeBOX.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Beating HDTV is a bit tougher. I have seen broadcasts in which I
could tell you how many grams of grass is shoved into some player's
jersey... and the type of grass even.
HDTV is like a 2MP digital camera compared to 35MM. Not even close.
|
That's not really true.
Little known fact: If the film has gone through a Digital Intermediate
process (as do most most major studio films), then the full ap
negative is scanned and reduced to 2048x1556 resolution. The actual
part of the resultant scan that is eventually projected on a 1.85:1
movie ("Academy Safe") is a small part of that frame, and actually has
a slightly lower resolution than HD's 1920x1080 pixels. Most of the
resolution of film is thrown away. If you are just comparing pixels,
HD has film beat for a 1.85 movie.
The reason film wins over HD is because of the greater color depth and
dynamic range, a fact not well illustrated by your comparrison to 2MP
cameras. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in