Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cameron goes digital?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Cameron goes digital? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Cameron goes digital?

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-10-2001 05:30 PM

720 x 480 is not a 1.33 aspect ratio. 640 x 480 is. My DV camera uses a 720 x480 resolution, but it also uses non-square pixels to achieve the proper 1.33 ratio.

It is intersting to note that my PC (AMD 500Mhz(Intel makes inferior processors), Windows 2000 Professional w/ MultiProcessor Support, 192 Megs of RAM) cannot play back DVDs smoothly. It stutters every few frames and is worse in anamorphic presentations. My Mac (G4 450Mhz, Mac OS 9.1, 256 Megs of RAM Virtual Memory off) does not stutter at all in any mode, resolution, or color setting with the exact same DVD drive. But who wants to watch a DVD on the computer anyway? Maybe if you never have any friends (or girlfriends) over.

| IP: Logged

Rory Burke
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 181
From: Burbank, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 05-11-2001 03:38 AM

sorry Joe!!

My P Celeron 266 128Ram Handles DVD's just fine....no skips...buffering...no symtoms at all...nothing like what you are reporting. smooth sailing hear in as liquid as DVD presentation you can muster.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-11-2001 03:58 AM

What kind of graphic card do you have? Also, what software are you using? Maybe I am using a bad player. I think it is called Power DVD 3 Pro or something like that.

| IP: Logged

Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 05-11-2001 09:52 AM

Joe, for watching DVDs on a computer, you just need to find you a geek girlfriend.

About the 720x480 thing, I know my post had a lot of numbers in it, but I said that 720x480 was 1.5:1 and had to be changed to either 4:3 or 16:9 either by resizing the image or by making pixels non-square, or both. I didn't mean to imply in any way that 720x480 was 4:3 in my previous post. I simply said that the 720x480 must be stretched to fit a 4:3 or 16:9 area.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-11-2001 04:05 PM

Hi Evans. How you doin'?

Yeah, I made my post before completely reading yours. I re-read it afterwards and saw what you said. I was gonna edit my post but decided "Ah what the hell, people already think I'm ignorant, I'll just leave it!"

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.