|
|
Posted by Joshua Zyber on 01/10/07 13:03
"M.I.5" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45a34a3f$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>> You claimed that "video" DVDs have more resolution than "film" DVDs,
>> which is utter nonsense.
>
> Starange how they certainly do.
Is this what we've degenerated to? Yes it is/No it's not/Yes it is/No
it's not... ?
>> DVD is capable of diplaying 720x576 pixels (to use PAL since that's
>> your country's chosen format). Whether that DVD is mastered from a
>> higher-quality source or from a source originally shot at 720x576
>> pixels, the end result will always be a DVD image of 720x576 pixels.
>> What is so difficult to understand about that?
>
> Nothing, but where those pixels are derived from a larger part of the
> source material than those pixels are entitled to represent the real
> resolution is reduced somewhat.
Nonsense! Complete and utter fantasy on your part.
>> You're arguing that mastering the disc from a higher-quality source
>> will result in worse picture quality than if you had mastered from a
>> lower-quality source. That's patently absurd!
>>
>>> Obviously a digital video source will retain its full resolution,
>>
>> In your argument, it would only retain its full resolution if that
>> original resolution were 720x576 pixels. What about content shot on
>> HD video and downgraded to DVD?
I notice that you failed to address this point. That speaks volumes.
>> I would recommend that you sit down and actually read the entire
>> article that I linked above, specifically the sections titled NTSC
>> Telecine, Progressive Scan, and Re-Interleaving 24fps Film.
>
> I did. It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
Well, then clearly you need to read it again.
> And it
> didn't answer the point, which suggest that you are bolstering up you
> ignorance of the subject by citing external sources in the hope of
> impressing others.
I have sources that back up my claims. You have nothing but your own
twisted misunderstanding of how technology works.
Do I even have to mention that you're the person who thinks a 1920x1080
display is not capable of displaying 1920x1080 resolution? Ludicrous.
> It might work with those others, but not me
> sunshine. I've been in the business far too long.
What business would that be, exactly?
>> "On DVDs, telecined material may be either hard telecined, or soft
>> telecined. In the hard-telecined case, video is stored on the DVD at
>> the playback framerate (29.97 frames/sec for NTSC, 25 frames/sec for
>> PAL), using the telecined frames as shown above. In the
>> soft-telecined case, the material is stored on the DVD at the film
>> rate (24 or 23.976 frames/s) in the original progressive format, with
>> special flags inserted into the MPEG-2 video stream that instruct the
>> DVD player to repeat certain fields so as to accomplish the required
>> pulldown during playback. Progressive scan DVD players additionally
>> offer output at 480p by using these flags to duplicate frames rather
>> than fields.
>>
>> NTSC DVDs are often soft telecined, although lower-quality
>> hard-telecined DVDs exist. In the case of PAL DVDs using 2:2
>> pulldown, the difference between soft and hard telecine vanishes, and
>> the two may be regarded as equal. In the case of PAL DVDs using 2:3
>> pulldown, either soft or hard telecining may be applied."
>>
>
> And you've done it again. This totally fails to address the issue at
> hand. How the frames are handled is not the issue. It is the actual
> process of digitalisation that is the issue at hand.
What does that even mean? The "process of digitalisation"? Could you be
more vague?
> I don't have the time to continue this, as you have obviously made
> your mind up that you are right and will allow no amount of discussion
> to enable you to see the light.
The light is on my side. I don't know where you're standing, but it's a
dark and damp place.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|