|
|
Posted by J. Clarke on 05/28/06 10:24
Jeff Rife wrote:
> Stop randomly changing the "Followup-To". I have fixed it *again*.
>
> J. Clarke (jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>> > Actually, the first THX laserdisc showed up in 1993, and Japan already
>> > had HDTV at that time, *and* Hi-Vision laserdiscs had already been
>> > released. Then, by 1995 when the "Faces" THX-certified discs came
>> > along, HDTV *was* firmly established, and the THX laserdisc
>> > certification program required the use of high-definition masters.
>>
>> Check the dates. You'll find that the THX standard was established in
>> 1990, not 1993.
>
> Until the first THX laserdisc came out, the standard wasn't officially
> established. It was in flux all the time. The "test discs" ("Apocalypse
> Now" and the 3 "Raiders" movies) were part of that. They were not
> officially certified, but adhered to many of the same standards that
> eventually became the final THX laserdisc standards. Because of the
> experience with these discs, some of the standards changed. One of
> these things was the quality and resolution of the telecine used. At
> the time the first disc came out, a digital, high-def telecine was a
> requirement.
>
>> > Just because HDTV is just beginning to really take off with the
>> > consumer
>> > in the US doesn't mean it hasn't been around for a *long* time. Heck,
>> > it's nine years old in the US.
>>
>> TV was round in the 1860s. That doesn't mean that the standard used then
>> has any relevance to current production.
>
> You claimed that there was no HDTV standard when the first THX-certified
> laserdisc was produced. In truth, there was not only an HDTV standard,
> but HDTV laserdiscs had been around for at least THREE YEARS (some were
> released in 1990). Thus, your other sidetrack of when the THX laserdisc
> standard was established is also a red herring.
>
>> > It doesn't really matter. If they are at least 853x480 (in the 16x9
>> > area), they can be used for full-resolution creation of anamorphic
>> > DVDs. It may not be as good as a full HD source, but it will be 25%
>> > more vertical resolution, and somewhat more horizontal.
>>
>> Which is not the same as high definition.
>
> Since there is no official legal definition of "high definition", there
> is no way to know this. And, since the THX laserdisc standard did not
> use the term "high definition" (the spec was for a "hi-def master"), it's
> another moot point.
>
> Anything that is at least 853x480 (16:9) would be good enough for the
> upcoming DVDs. 1000x562 wouldn't be "high definition" by some of today's
> standards, but it might have been good enough to be considered a
> "high-def" master back then, and would be more than good enough for the
> upcoming DVDs.
>
> Basically, even if THX defined *anything* better than 720x480 as
> "high-def" back then, that "high-def" master will almost certainly be
> good enough.
>
>> > Now that I read current requirements, there may not be any more, with
>> > the continued slacking off of the THX standard. There was at the
>> > inception of the program, to keep it in line with the laserdisc
>> > standard.
>>
>> And when did the laserdisc standard call for high definition masters?
>
> Never. The standard required "high-def masters". Read the notes on
> the first THX-certified laserdisc ("The Abyss") to see the details.
>
>> > "THX's parameters define that film transfers used must come from the
>> > highest possible resolution digital medium available to the client,
>> > and stresses that high definition transfers should be used
>> > throughout"
>> > -- http://www.dvdreview.com/html/how_dvd_gets_thx_certified.html
>>
>> That's _film_ transfers. If they come _from_ digital then they must be
>> going to _to_ film.
>
> Sorry you don't understand idiomatic English. Let me emphasize it for
> you:
>
> "THX's parameters define that transfers used FOR THE FILM ON DVD
> must come from the highest possible resolution digital medium
> available to the client and stresses that high definition transfers
> should be used throughout THE PRODUCTION OF THE DVD".
>
> Maybe the fact that the page was all about how DVDs get THX-certified
> confused you into thinking they were talking about film.
>
> Or, maybe it was the next two sentences from the same page that caused
> you problems:
>
> "In a word, you need a very good source print, telecined into a high
> definition video transfer in order to qualify for this program. Even
> more so as the program requires that transfers used are exact copies
> of the film print, without prior color correction or level changes,
> and only allowing noise reduction to a certain extent."
> -- http://www.dvdreview.com/html/how_dvd_gets_thx_certified.html
>
> I know you probably had trouble with the words "this program", so I'll
> give you a hint: it is referring to the THX-certification program for
> DVDs, because you don't need to make a telecine of a movie for theatrical
> presentation.
Rather than addressing all your blather point by point, I'm going to
summarize your viewpoint. Your viewpoint is that high definition DVDs can
by some magic process be made from 480-line originals. If that were the
case you could take any DVD and turn it into HD. Hell, you could take any
SD broadcast and turn it into HD.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|