|
|
Posted by NunYa Bidness on 10/05/36 11:30
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:44:27 GMT, Mark Spatny
<vfxproducer@nospamh0tmail.com> Gave us:
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:35:45 GMT, AZ Nomad <aznomad@PmunOgeBOX.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> 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.
Yeah... A 2 Megapixel camera is not that big an array. The
resultant frames are also converted from what got captured as well.
Doncha hate jpegs as well when you try to zoom in on one?
Gimmie a huge file size TIFF any day.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|