|
|
Posted by Dave Plowman (News) on 10/11/05 18:23
In article <434bf995$0$15069$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
Ben <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > It would require an *incredibly* tatty 35mm film projector to give
> > results in a cinema as soft as PAL at its best. And I doubt such a
> > beast was ever used in UK mainstream cinemas. Of course if the lenses
> > etc were filthy and it wasn't focused correctly...
> I suspect what they discovered was that in a significant minority of
> cases projectors were being manned by incompetent/indifferent minimum
> wage teenagers who didn't know/care any better. Incorrect focus was
> probably the main cause, although once you get down to the n-th
> generation transfer that makes it to your local multiplex, the effective
> resolution of the film is lower than people think (obviously I mean the
> actual content, not what the film stock is capable of).
I'm no expert on film, but I'd say there were no 'n-th' generation
transfer. The cost of film stock makes this ludicrous. A 35mm print of a
feature film costs many thousands. So it makes sense to make it from an
original 'master'. This is why there's been a dash to video projection.
Nothing about picture quality but purely to save money. And to extend
life. A real film is easily damaged. And frequently were.
--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|