Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray? (Page 92)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1 2 3 ... 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 ... 103 104 105

Author

Topic: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray?

Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 05-23-2008 12:12 PM

I was at Frys electronics yesterday and was surprised to still see them selling HD DVDs, of course it's probably just remaining stock but it was all around $15 to $20 each.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 05-23-2008 12:54 PM

I really like my Toshiba A3 connected to my Panasonic PT-AX100U projector. I am playing it at 720p and the image looks perfect to me. I just ran "Phantom of the Opera" yesterday and it was every bit as good as any 35mm film I have played.

In the end, it's all personal taste. I would like to go Blue-Ray but for now, picking up $10 HD-DVD's in ebay has to do it for me.

Phantom of the Opera was on of the 5 free movies I received about 2 weeks ago. None of the 5 free movies I received were on my list.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 05-23-2008 04:07 PM

Looks like BluRay has finally divilled into the AudioCD world.

(Prob to really promote Sony's PS3 that can play these audio BR discs..)

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-23-2008 05:33 PM

Some versions of the Playstation 3 can play Super Audio CDs. However, the popular 40GB version of the PS3 lacks SACD compatibility.

A rumor is spreading around suggesting Denon will soon bring a player to market that can play Blu-ray discs, DVD-A and SACD. That might be pretty interesting.

I think companies that want to sell Blu-ray players at more expensive price points (like maintaining prices of $500, $1000 or more) should be incorporating a lot of other useful features. Lots of people go on and on about LAN connections. That's fine, but I think a high end player should incorporate Gigabit ethernet and built in Wi-Fi "g" and "n" capability. Some players should have BD-RW capability, built in hard discs and Firewire connections for integration with video cameras. A high end product should be able to do a lot of things you cannot get out of a medium range or entry level product. Right now there's a number of Blu-ray players on the market that command twice the price of a Playstation 3 yet have nowhere near the capability of a PS3.

quote: Larry Myers
I am playing it at 720p and the image looks perfect to me. I just ran "Phantom of the Opera" yesterday and it was every bit as good as any 35mm film I have played.

If a film projector can't throw a more detailed picture than what 1280 X 720 imagery offers then there has to be something wrong with that film projector.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 05-23-2008 06:44 PM

As I said, it's a matter of taste and maybe older eyes. I have been in the photo business for years. Although, it might be for years at one year at a time so my knowledge might be limited on exactly how an image should look.

The nice thing about the viewer is it's all personal perception. If I perceive it's good enough then it's good enough. If the guy walking off the street perceives it's good enough then it really is good enough. The Motion Picture Industry has been counting on this for years.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 05-23-2008 07:55 PM

There's a difference, though, between saying "this looks good enough; I like it" and saying "this is the same quality as 35mm."

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 05-23-2008 08:12 PM

My perception is that it IS as good as 35mm. That is my perception. I would say it much better then any theater presentation I have been to for some time. Although, these day's, that's not saying much.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 05-23-2008 08:53 PM

First you say that it looks as good as any 35mm film you've ever played. Then when Bobby said that points to your film projector being bad you said more or less that all you cared about was that the image looked "good enough." And now you're saying that the "good enough" image is as good as poorly done 35mm film.

So this either means that you're saying you never played 35mm film correctly or you are inconsistent in how you assess image from one minute to the next. Which is it?

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 05-23-2008 10:01 PM

Even 2K digital theater projectors do not have as high a capability as 35MM 4K is getting close but not quite there. I have to admit I was impressed with the 2K projection at the new Warren Theater in Moore but it still isn't a good as a comparable sized picture from a well maintained 35MM projector! Not even close so how can 720P compare, well it is smaller so you aren't seeing the flaws as easy, blow that sucker up to 20 feet wide and see if you like it as much! 20 feet isn't even a decent sized theater screen!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-24-2008 12:39 AM

To put matters in perspective regarding the power of "DIGITAL":

Warner Bros. is currently doing a 6K resolution digital re-master of A Star is Born. That's the CinemaScope version starring Judy Garland. It was photographed on 35mm film. Yet WB is doing a 6K level digital restoration and intermediate of that movie. I very strongly doubt to the highest extreme WB would bother going to that expense if some puny-ass 1280 X 720 pixel bullshit was deemed demonstrative on showing all the detail of a 35mm movie.

I have had enough of this digital bullshit and all the LIES that these techno-fanboys keep on trying to sell. HDTV is NOT equal to 35mm film. 720p doesn't cut. Even 1080p/24 doesn't cut it either.

Yet those same assholes don't want to bother admitting that when DVD-A and SACD first got started they had to go to ANALOG recordings to get anything worth digitizing to that level of digital resolution. Oh, hell no. Yeah, we cannot admit to that at all. We should have been able to take those 16-bit "DDD" 1980's recordings and blow them up to 24/96 with no trouble at all since they were all "DIGITAL."
[Roll Eyes]

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, Hollywood needs to keep shooting their movies on film. But they need to be shooting their movies on larger formats than 4/35. There is absolutely NO video camera in existence anywhere that can get even in the ballpark of VistaVision 8/35 or 5/65 image quality. Video cameras still suck turds compared to film on originating movies. And video cameras are absolutely pathetic in comparison to film when shooting for large format. In that area digital SUCKS.

Regarding the new Warren theater in Moore, OK, that complex has Dolby Digital Cinema systems with 2K Christie d-cinema movie projectors. They're a damned sight better than any 720p stuff. The 2K level is more than double the pixel count of 720p.

[ 05-24-2008, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-24-2008 08:43 AM

I recently put a Blu-Ray player with Blade Runner on the "big screen" about 40' wide...I was pretty shocked at how bad it looked. Yeah, it was rock steady but the colors were off and the contrast ratio was lacking and overall.

The theatre also had a 35mm print of the same title on hand and the difference was pretty dramatic. The 35mm print looked rather good, though to my eyes, not as good as it could have...I can't quite put my finger on it but there was something just not quite there in contrast or detail. But compared to the Blu-Ray...it was night and day better.

The Blu-Ray version looked really more like a scaled version of a standard def DVD. Now looking at the Blu-Ray on a HD monitor, it looked pretty darn impressive...but looking out into the theatre...no so...it just fell apart being blown up that big. I then slammed in a Hi-Def tape (HDCAM) and ran it through the same system...the HDCAM tape of a live concert looked really good so it wasn't the projection system (which just had its light tweeked). I wonder just how big Blu-Ray can be shown befor its short commings become apparent.

Blade Runner, I thought, was supposed to have had a rather high-quality remastering job at high rez rates. But when it was blown up to 17x40 size, didn't do what a 2K DCinema movie will do, by a long shot. Then again, Blu-Ray is a HOME format and would normally never be asked to go this big...I'm sure on a screen 10' wider or less it would look good.

As to 720 x 1280 looking as good as film...well that all depends on the film, the video system, your viewing distance, the screen...etc. I'm sure from say a mile away, they would look pretty similar. I've been running 1366 x 768 in my home with a 10' or so wide of an image and I would never compare it to film in any respect. Now my projector, being a bit older than yours, probably does not have the contrast ratio and its colors have probably faded a bit (LCD) but in sheer resolution, it just isn't there.

NTAV has been producing their own target film that meets/exceeds SMPTE's RP40 specification. They even have a 100 lines/mm target and on my recent THX recertification check of the AFI/Silver...the 100 lines/mm target was EASILY readable so film's resolution is higher than that, projected. A 1K video image is going to compare to that in image detail? It is just not possible unless the film system is being severely handicapped.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 05-24-2008 09:16 AM

At one time I did image evaluation for the Government. The idea was to guess the resolution value of images under a microscope by looking at different detail within the image.

Most of the single motion picture images I have seen so far look to be around 25 to 35 l/mm. I know for sure most films today in the ASA 50 range will do at least 125 l/mm. Lenses will EZ go past 300+

With that said, my 35mm setup is a completely factory rebuilt Devry DX done by the US Information Agency. That means the unit was completely sripped to the case, the case was painted and all new parts were installed. I purchased the projector packed in a case untouched with a surplus sign stamped on the box.

I am using a $1500 modern Super Cinelux anamorphic focused by resolution target. The image looks great on the screen. The only variable is the film itself.

My perception and I am not alone, a HD DVD of Phantom of the Opera looked as good and better then any film I have seen since 70MM Far and Away played at the Plaza 3 in Rochester NY about 15 years ago.

Then even that, I thought the first scenes of Far and Away were really grainy for 70mm.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-24-2008 09:46 AM

So Larry...get yourself a length of the NTAV Target film (or 35PA) and tell us what your resolution is out of all of the projected targets so we know what the resoultion is of your projection system...it does tell us what has gone down in the various stages of the printing process but it will indicate just how decent your projection system is. You could use Schneider's film too though being mostly black, it absorbs a fair amount of heat in loop-form and may artificially lower your resolution results.

Your DeVry is by no means either a reference standard projector nor is it typical of a production projector being used today.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 05-24-2008 10:16 AM

I agree the Devry XD is no prize. Although, it does have a Super Simplex intermittent, the standard in the industry for 50 years. I am also using a Super Cinelux Compact anamorphic that sells for at least $1500. So unless the case is causing problems, I don't see an issue.

My experience with image quality was to head up an evaluation team that judged camera system performance after a aerial recon mission. The contractor received a bonus if the camera exceeded spec.

The team was made up of 10 people. Five were government and five were contractor. Everyone was trained to judge image quality in lines per millimeter without resolution targets.

We would test this by having 50 images with various known resolutions as a standard. Anyone getting within 10% of true average resolution value by guessing was a certified reader.

If the camera system did over 150 l/mm by average of 10 people, the contractor received his bonus. Since the bonus was may millions of dollars, the certified readers were of intense interest to both government and contractor people.

With that experience, I have seen single 35mm motion picture images be as low as 10 l/mm to a high of about 40. Most are in the 20-25 l/mm range. A very typical 35mm slide that might be taken at a family picnic would be about 50 l/mm.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-24-2008 01:35 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
The Blu-Ray version looked really more like a scaled version of a standard def DVD. Now looking at the Blu-Ray on a HD monitor, it looked pretty darn impressive...but looking out into the theatre...no so...it just fell apart being blown up that big. I then slammed in a Hi-Def tape (HDCAM) and ran it through the same system...the HDCAM tape of a live concert looked really good so it wasn't the projection system (which just had its light tweeked). I wonder just how big Blu-Ray can be shown befor its short commings become apparent.

I agree as screens get bigger they're better at revealing flaws and quality limits of digital video imagery. Even 35mm film is effective to only so large a screen; at some point you have to go to 8/35 or 70mm.

The video streams on Blu-ray can look excellent, but they're relatively flawed compared to JPEG2000 content in digital cinema. JPEG2000 holds up better since it runs at a much higher bit rate and each frame of video is stored as a discrete, separate image file -just like a film strip really just has many thousands of separate still images.

Consumer digital video doesn't do that. Inter-frame compression is common. Your eyes are just going to automatically notice those tiled, blocky areas that hang in certain parts of the image over a series of frames.

MPEG-4 AVC and Windows Media VC-1 streams on Blu-ray run at variable rates, often between 50:1 and 100:1. Those are pretty severe compression ratios. Other forms of HD (broadcast, internet streamed, etc.) take the compression levels to more harsh extremes. It gets even easier to see the flaws as those compression ratios tighten further.

I upgraded my satellite receiver recently to get a lot of HD cable channels. It's definitely a step up from standard definition. However, it's given me a better appreciation for the quality of video on Blu-ray.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1 2 3 ... 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 ... 103 104 105

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.