Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray? (Page 98)

 
This topic comprises 105 pages: 1  2  3  ...  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  103  104  105   
Author Topic: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray?
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 06-04-2008 10:35 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Joe Redifer
Does Wal*Mart still sell only censored movies? I remember that they used to offer only movies with all of the violence, nudity, sex and evil cussing taken out.
Obviously Wal-Mart doesn't sell porn movies. And I'm pretty sure they don't sell NC-17 rated movies either. Years ago they wouldn't stock "unrated" movies, ones whose original cut skirted into NC-17 territory only to get edited down for R-rated status. I think American Pie was one of those movies and Wal-Mart wouldn't carry its "unrated" version until just a couple of years ago.

They have plenty of uncensored copies of Rambo on Blu-ray. That's because gun shots exploding bad guy brains all over the place is just a bunch of fun for the entire family!

quote: Larry Myers
Maybe it me but I see the DVD's themselves being variable.
DVD Video is quite a fixed format. There is an install base of over 133 million DVD players in the United States, the vast majority of which can only play MPEG-2 video in 480p format.

The [bs] Toshiba is floating would require an entirely different DVD player capable of decoding this altered MPEG-2 format they're talking about or even video encoded in MPEG-4 or VC1. Those new discs would probably not be compatible with standard DVD players unless standard DVD-V data was encoded on the flip side of the disc or on a 2nd disc.

I think Toshiba's idea will be doomed outside of their R&D labs because I'm sure Hollywood studios, electronics retailers and video stores wouldn't feel like supporting it -certainly not after all the drama of the HD-DVD versus Blu-ray battle.

Toshiba's new format idea isn't quite DVD. And it isn't quite HD either. It falls in some middle ground area probably not even up to the standard of Apple's severely compressed 720p iTunes movies. Toshiba is pitching it as a cheap product with narrow profit margins. Retailers already have that with cheap DVD players and they're looking to unload those cheap DVD players. Why replace those cheap DVD players with something that has the same low profit problem?

quote: Larry Myers
On my DVD-HD projection system, the very best for now is "Phantom of the Opera" in HD_DVD. To me it looks like I have a 70mm system in the house.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but a projected 1280 X 720 pixel image is absolutely nowhere near close to showing the levels of detail in native 70mm photography. I've seen plenty of true 70mm footage and 1280 X 720 falls very short of storing all that detail.

 |  IP: Logged
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

- posted 06-04-2008 11:39 AM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
I did not post this to talk about the advantages of 70mm and it's resolution but rather to give a sense of what I am happy with and what I am not happy with in ranges of visual image quality.

Let me say, I am never happy with the image quality of any first or second run theater presentation. It matters not if the theater is 3 months old with all new stuff and cost $15 a ticket or a $0.99 center that's 25 years old with sticky floors.

So why is that?

Why is it that I am completely happy with one DVD and feel it just can't be better? Then with another DVD, I can't stand to watch it for more then a minute or two?

I can tell if the DVD disk is going to be good or not by just watching the beginning studio LOGO. If it's sharp and clear, it's going to be good and if it's it dull and somewhat fuzzy, it's going to be bad. The only thing that's changed is the disc itself. I see this from one SD disc to another and one HD disc to another. I do get "some" overlap meaning "some" SD disc's are actually looking better then "some" HD disc.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 06-04-2008 01:06 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Larry Myers
I did not post this to talk about the advantages of 70mm and it's resolution but rather to give a sense of what I am happy with and what I am not happy with in ranges of visual image quality.
Then why didn't you just say you like how your video projection looks? You went farther by suggesting your 720p projection setup is as good as 70mm. That's a ridiculous claim. And I'm going to call that kind of claim ridiculous regardless of who says it.

quote: Larry Myers
Let me say, I am never happy with the image quality of any first or second run theater presentation.
You must be visiting some shitty movie theaters. I've been to quite a few movie theaters whose projection quality trounced anything home theater could deliver. There has to be at least a few theaters still showing Film Done Right in the Baltimore-Washington, DC area.

quote: Larry Myers
The only thing that's changed is the disc itself. I see this from one SD disc to another and one HD disc to another. I do get "some" overlap meaning "some" SD disc's are actually looking better then "some" HD disc.
Do you have any specific examples?

I've seen some bad reviews for certain high definition discs that had lackluster video transfers. But I've never seen anyone claim a specific movie's DVD counterpart actually looked better than its HD version. Usually the complaint is something along the lines of, "I expected better than this from a movie on Blu-ray but it is still superior to any previous DVD version."

 |  IP: Logged
Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

- posted 06-04-2008 01:07 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Larry Myers
Why is it that I am completely happy with one DVD and feel it just can't be better? Then with another DVD, I can't stand to watch it for more then a minute or two?
It's called "LABWORK" - how the labs are producing and processing the DVD's.

Like good ol' film: Some labs can take a film shot in Super35 and make an absolute gem out of it, whereas other labs can make a horrendous mess out of it.

Happy viewing.

 |  IP: Logged
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

- posted 06-04-2008 02:24 PM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
Well Bob

I make the claim about 70mm because that is what it LOOKS like to me. I know, all the TECH hocus pocus doesn't support what I am saying in any way so you could chalk it up to "I am just an Idiot". On the other hand, you could just be reading all this INFO stuff from magazines and have no idea what your talking about. So it might be you that is the idiot. I guess I am trying to find out which it is. It does seem to me that you don't have a thread of formal training in visual perception or at least a inquisitive mind as to what the hell I am seeing.

[ 06-04-2008, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]

 |  IP: Logged
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003

- posted 06-04-2008 03:32 PM      Profile for Scott Jentsch   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Jentsch   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
There's two problems.

1. They have to get studio support for the format. Good luck on that, Toshiba.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. What format? Nothing I read that actually came from Toshiba and not some journalist's interpretation says that there is going to be any new format. My impression is that Toshiba is taking upconversion to a new level of quality (at least according to them).

It would be very dumb of Toshiba to try and start a new format. So obviously dumb that anyone who took that away from Toshiba's comments should have gone back to Toshiba for clarification because they misunderstood what was being said.

quote: Bobby Henderson
2. They have to get retailers to carry the hardware. That may be an even longer shot.

High end electronics stores are already announcing plans to eliminate standard DVD players from their store shelves and replace them with Blu-ray players since those players can also play DVDs and unconvert them. They're doing that because there's actually a profit margin in Blu-ray hardware.

Cheap DVD players are unprofitable and present very little in the way of upsell opportunity for accessories and other gear. That's because everyone buying a DVD player these days is merely buying a replacement for one that stopped working.
I'll believe that stores will stop selling DVD players after two things happen:

  • Stores stop selling VCR's, which are really dead technology
  • Blu-ray players can be purchased for less than $100
I find it very hard to believe that Best Buy is going to make the choice to require its customers coming in to replace their $40 DVD player to purchase a $300 (or even $200) Blu-ray player. I would chalk up any reports of such plans as idea-floating to see what the reaction is.
As far as WalMart goes, I don't shop there any more than I have to, but the last time I was there (a few weeks ago), there weren't any Blu-ray discs to be found. I asked the clerk in the department, and he didn't know where they were. It's possible that things were being rearranged right at that time, but no titles whatsoever? Bah.

Target will have some good prices on Blu-ray discs on a few titles, but even those prices match that on Amazon. Most of the times, Amazon is at least $5 cheaper than Target or Best Buy or Circuit City.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 06-04-2008 04:30 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ultimately what Toshiba is doing is vomiting more "FUD" into the electronics industry press to try to do anything they possibly can to harm the Blu-ray format. Their claims of being able to match 1080p video quality with upconverting 480p material is just more crap.

It could be another year or two before it happens, but Toshiba will be Blu-ray players at some point -just like Sony had to eventually start making VHS decks.

quote: Scott Jentsch
I find it very hard to believe that Best Buy is going to make the choice to require its customers coming in to replace their $40 DVD player to purchase a $300 (or even $200) Blu-ray player.
Best Buy isn't the store that's making that statement. There's a number of high end electronics stores are planning on clearing DVD players off shelves.

But the problem still stands regarding DVD players. They are cheap and unprofitable for electronics stores to carry. Consumers may love the value, but the suck ass when it comes to a business' bottom line. I don't think Blu-ray players will have to hit a below $100 price level for them to muscle DVD player hardware out of a lot of stores. Under $200 may be enough in a lot of places.

quote: Scott Jentsch
As far as WalMart goes, I don't shop there any more than I have to, but the last time I was there (a few weeks ago), there weren't any Blu-ray discs to be found.
Wal-Mart introduced their Blu-ray promotional aisles in the middle of May. As the Reuters article I posted yesterday details, they'll be offering some serious price breaks on BD movies and giving $100 gift cards to people who purchase a Blu-ray player between June 8-14. Given this is a slow time of year for video sales, it seems like the deals regarding Blu-ray may be quite a bit better this fall.

 |  IP: Logged
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

- posted 06-05-2008 10:00 AM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
I have given this some thought on my 70mm comment which I stand by. If you look at the realities of film in general, the typical Eastman Color Negative of the mid 1960's had a maximum resolution of about 35 line pairs per millimeter or for short lp/mm. It you made a perfect transfer to print stock, the maximum it could be would be about 80% of the original or about 28 lp/mm.

The US standard typical eye resolution is about 8 lp/mm at 10 inches. So in order for something to look sharp at any given distance, the eye must see 8 lp/mm at that distance. Because of reduction factors, the resolution on the screen only needs to be as much as need to have the eye see 8 lp/mm ant any given distance.

So a page on a magazine only needs to be 4 lp/mm in order for it to look sharp at 20 inches. Then 2 lp/mm at 40 inches, 1 lp/mm at 80 inches and then 1/2 lp/mm at 160 inches or 13 ft.

If in fact I have a blowup of 28 lp/mm film that measures about 1 inch high to a 36 inch high screen, then I have about 3/4 (.75) lp/mm at the screen and about 10 lp/mm at the eye. Just enough it make it look nice and sharp.

My view distance for the HD-DVD system is 10 ft with a 3 ft high screen. What I am saying is, I see about 8 lp/mm with the DVD HD disc of "Phantom of the Opera" when viewing my 3 ft high screen at 10 ft. I see about 2 lp/mm when I viewing a SD-DVD of "THe Greatest Story Ever Told" at the same distance.

The standard view resolution of the eye is as follows:

1 lp/mm=Very Fuzzy 2 lp/mm=Fuzzy 4 lp/mm=Sightly Fuzzy 8 lp/mm Sharp 16 lp/mm Very Sharp

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 06-05-2008 10:40 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So, with all that techno-babble, you're essentially saying a 1280 X 720 pixel image shows all the detail of a 5-perf 70mm image. Correct? I guess a 640 X 480 pixel image should be enough to describe 35mm. Hell, HDTV shouldn't be necessary either. We're just not looking at NTSC TV the right way.
[Roll Eyes]

Now I'm all but totally convinced you have never seen a 65mm/70mm movie projected in 70mm.

The claims of maximum line pairs of a given film stock, limits of "US standard" typical eye sight and that other crap sound like a bunch of excuses to me.

The fact is I find it easy to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p material. All that technical stuff you list is little more than a means to claim none of us can see the difference and that 720p is all that anyone should ever need. That's a load of crap.

Further, I've seen 35mm outdo 2K digital projection. But according to all this shit about line pairs on film, viewing distance and blah blah blah, I shouldn't be able to notice any of that.

I've seen a few 70mm shows of movies originally shot on 65mm film and found it easy to see the big jump in resolution going from 4/35 to 5/70. Being a computer graphic artist and working with a lot of imagery at various low and high resolutions, I can say with clear authority a 1280 X 720 pixel frame would be very insufficient for showing off the native detail in a movie like Baraka. Even an old movie like Lawrence of Arabia has a lot of fine details no one is going to see on any video format -not even Blu-ray. You don't really see that movie unless you can see it in 70mm.

 |  IP: Logged
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

- posted 06-05-2008 12:37 PM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
What I am saying is, by using standard photographic measurements Image Professionals have been using for years, I am describing what I see.

It's very simple and most of the Tech stuff for silver images are in the Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering. ISBN 0-471-81880-1. My training is in silver images and not digital.

My experience with Negative Color Film was in the selection process of what types of film we could use in aerial recon cameras. If a film was made, we tested it to see if it could be used. As far as I know, no color negative film has ever been used in any national aerial recon programs because their resolution was so low. Usually 1/2 of slide film which averaged about 65 lp/mm.

The bottom line is, the eye wants to see 8 lp/mm. This is the standard measurement and spec for graphic plates used in the printing industry. It matters not how the eye gets it's 8 lp/mm. It might be from a magazine page at 10 inches away or by a billboard 300 ft away.

So what I am saying is, I seem to be getting about 8 lp/mm with a 3 ft high image viewed 10 ft away with a Digital 1280x720 pixel chip image blown up to a 3 ft high image at 10 ft view distance.

I want to know how that's possible. Does anyone know how big the chip is and how big the pixel is at the chip? Then how big would each pixel be on a screen when the chip is blown up to 3 ft high?

 |  IP: Logged
Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

- posted 06-05-2008 12:44 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
convinced you have never seen a 65mm/70mm movie projected in 70mm.
...can we throw IMAX and Showscan in this department?

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 06-05-2008 12:45 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Larry,

Geez, Bobby calls your post "Technobabble" If only he knew what many others thought of most of his posts! Your post made perfect sense to me...

Without kowing which DLP chip you have its hard to find out the I can tell you they are measured in microns. It is possible to use the same formulas in calculating lens focal length knowing the pixel size on a given DLP chip . You just figure the total width of the pixels in inches and use the same formula you'd use for calculating from a certain width aperature plate.

10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1......

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 06-05-2008 01:10 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Geez, Bobby calls your post "Technobabble" If only he knew what many others thought of most of his posts!
Troll, you can speak for yourself. But then I don't really care what you think. You just like stirring up trouble, that's all. If you're going to claim "many others" feel the same way as you do I'll just chalk that up to you having multiple personality disorder.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Your post made perfect sense to me...
So you're agreeing with Larry that 1280 X 720 pixels equals 70mm resolution? Anyone would have to be seriously vision impaired to think 1280 X 720 shows the same kind of image quality as 70mm.

 |  IP: Logged
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

- posted 06-05-2008 04:08 PM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
All I am asking is this. How high is a 1280x720 chip? From that I can figure out what magnification it takes to get that chip to 3 ft. Then all I have to do is measure each pixel at the screen and back it off to my view distance.

Example. With a Digital Camera in an aircraft at 10,000 ft using a 500mm lens will usually project on the ground one pixel every foot. Meaning a Pixel is about 12 inches square like a typical floor tile. With that, we have 1 foot ground sample distance.

Another way to look at it is to take a quarter and place it against a window. Now back off until you just can't see the quarter. At that distance you have a eye resolved distance of about 1 inch.

So I want to know what the screen sample distance would be at the screen with a typical modern 1280 by 720 chip.

I am not talking about IMAX but rather 5perf at this time. IMAX has it's own issues.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

- posted 06-05-2008 04:37 PM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So anyway, Bob Gale recently revealed that BACK TO THE FUTURE is being prepped for BD. While we may differ on what format looks the best, I think we can all agree that this news is awesome! [beer]

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 105 pages: 1  2  3  ...  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  103  104  105   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.