|
|
Posted by Joshua Zyber on 01/05/07 01:14
"M.I.5" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:459cbfe2$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>> Movies are still unable to utilise the reproduction capabilities of
>>> DVD (though a few made directly from 65mm negatives have come
>>> somewhere close). Only video originated material is fully able to
>>> expolit DVD - and then only from professional cameras.
>>
>> What in the world are you talking about? This is a ridiculous claim.
>> 35mm film has vastly more resolution than video, even High-Def. DVD
>> barely captures a fraction of it.
>
> That is very true. However the process of converting it to video
> looses a surprising amount of the resolution due to technical
> limitations. This is ably demonstrated by the credits at the end of
> most movies. While easily read on a cinema screen, they are hard to
> make out on a DVD, yet the DVD itself is more than capable of
> resolving them. The fact remains that video sources give better
> resolution than film sources. Even 65mm negative cannot be converted
> with the resolution of a good video source (but it's not bad).
This is completely, utterly, absurdly false. Film and video have
inherently different 'looks' to them due to contrast range, depth of
field, frame rate, and other factors. On a small screen, video may look
"sharper" (in a completely artificial sense), but it certainly does not
have any more resolution than film-based content.
If you're having problems reading movie credits on DVDs, it's probably
your TV and/or DVD player causing the problem. Can I assume you still
use an interlaced set?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|