Posted by M.I.5� on 01/04/07 09:03

"Joshua Zyber" <joshzyber@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NYidnfVDBO2H3QHYnZ2dnUVZ_qKknZ2d@comcast.com...
> "M.I.5?" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:459bab6c$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>> I have noticed that the last two DVDs that I have bought have been
>> presented in letterbox format rather than anamorphic widescreen.
>
> What DVDs would those be?
>
>> 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).
The flying spot scanners being developed for HD will extract more resolution
because the Nyquist point is shifted upwards.

[Back to original message]