|
|
Posted by M.I.5 on 01/04/07 13:34
"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:ddtpp212j8pi6ihsd0d2e3aqen17qfbq4j@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 09:03:55 -0000, "M.I.5"
> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> Gave us:
>
>> yet the DVD
>>itself is more than capable of resolving them. The fact remains that
>>video
>>sources give better resolution than film sourc
>
>
> No it is NOT. You missed his point TWICE now.
No I think you did. We are discussing the resolution recoverable from a DVD
recording made from the two sources, not the native resolution of each
source. I suggest you read my post again, particularly the bit around, "...
the process of converting it (film) to video looses a surprising amount of
the resolution due to technical limitations (of the process)."
The actual resolution of projected 35mm film is way ahead of the resolution
recoverable from a DVD even on the ideal display device (of which none exist
in the domestic market). This is largely because the resolution of a DVD is
fixed at 720x578 pixels (determined solely by the requirement to be
compatible with the legacy TV systems), whereas the resolution of 35mm film
is determined partly by the film stock and partly by the lenses used in the
camera and the projector, none of which are fixed. Being an analogue
source, it is impossible to translate it to the digital domain and retain
the full digital resolution. There are techniques to reduce to inevitable
loss (one of which is to actually deliberately introduce noise!), but none
that eliminate it completely. A further dicussion would require a less than
basic knowledge of digitisation techniques and digital signal processing.
The frame update rate, is of course, higher for a video source and so
suffers from less shudder on rapid movement. This is becoming more
important on digitally granular displays (Plasma, LCD etc), rather than on
totally analogue displays (CRT). On the former type, if the pan rate and
detail are exactly wrong, the detail disappears completely.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|