|
|
Posted by Joshua Zyber on 01/05/07 12:54
"M.I.5" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:459e111d$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> If you really want to be padantic, The resolution of film, analogue
> video and digital video are impossible to compare in any quanitifiable
> way because they manifest themselves in inherently different ways and
> have to be measured and quantified in very different ways.
>
> Video sourced material on a DVD is much sharper than film originated
> material. It cannot really be measured but it is a fact (and you have
> agreed that that is the case). Film material projected onto a screen
> is sharper than video originated material. Again, it can't be
> measured, but it is true.
The original resolution of film can't be measured because it's a
photochemical process, not an electronic one. However, once transferred
to DVD, both film and video have the exact same resolution: 720x480
pixels (or 720x576 for PAL). All DVDs have the same measurable
resolution. Don't confuse resolution with sharpness; they are not the
same thing. As far as not being able to compare the sharpness of two
different sources, you could say the same thing about any two
productions photographed differently than one another, regardless of
format. Movie X can be sharper than Movie Y simply because that's the
way they were shot. Has nothing to do with film or video.
>> 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?
>
> I only have problems reading the very small credits (as does everyone
> else).
>
> As the DVD is interlaced, what possible difference can it make?
Oh good lord. The DVD may be interlaced, but the fields can be
reconstructed into whole video frames on a progressive scan screen.
That's the whole point of progressive scan. Please read this:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|