Posted by Bill Vermillion on 01/22/07 18:15

In article <NYidnfVDBO2H3QHYnZ2dnUVZ_qKknZ2d@comcast.com>,
Joshua Zyber <jzyber@mindNOSPAMspring.IHATESPAM.com> wrote:
>"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.

And only the lasest film to digital transfer formats can come
close. The latest 4Kx4K transfer units from one of the Thomson
group of companies [my mind just went blank on name/model] will
transfer film to [digital storage medium - take your pick] at
the maximu of 7 frames/second.

And that resolution is far higher than any consumer HD device - as
it is designed for film production.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

[Back to original message]