|
|
Posted by Bill Vermillion on 01/22/07 18:15
In article <i2kop217odj0tpvu9dp29irv5664cimc9d@4ax.com>,
JoeBloe <joebloe@nosuchplace.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:45:44 -0500, "Joshua Zyber"
><joshzyber@comcast.net> Gave us:
>> even High-Def. DVD
>>barely captures a fraction of it.
> Though the bulk of your remarks were correct, this one needs
>clarification.
> A VERY good master of King Kong looks REAL good from HD DVD, and I
>have the DVD and a non-up-converting player to compare with.
> Though film is better, I wouldn't describe it as "barely captures a
>fraction of it".
And lately more film is being shot digital. I was very impressed
with the digital to film transfer of the movie collateral. When it
was on a 40 foot wide theatre screen it was really great looking.
I think some of that may have been shot 4K, but most was on 2K.
The only complaints of that process were from Jamie Fox and Tom
Cruise. Since they could get 56 minutes of 'filming' per each
'load' they didn't get the breaks they were used to when shooting
film when they had to reload the cameras every few minutes :-)
I'd love to see this quality in a home video format - but I suspect
that will be a few more years - replacing Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, and
whatever else pops up in the current trend.
....
> Then, there is Blazing Saddles, which give one the impression that
>they are looking right at film. It is clean and crisp. I was
>impressed. I expected it to be bad, being from so for back.
> I was also impressed with The Forbidden Planet.
And there is a lot of processing done on these so they can often
look better on video than they did when they first came out.
Some of the video processing can get a bit out-of-hand, and the
noise reduction process has been known to remove 'rain' from some
re-issuses, thinking it was noise.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|