Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres (Page 5)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 01-28-2006 08:49 PM

quote: Larry Myers
Well, why don't you post your math to back up your statements.

I'm not the guy that made a statement that is clearly wrong by demonstratable fact...you were...hence you don't have your math right and are not taking into account all the variables that go into perceived image quality.

I've pointed out that your analysis does not take into account the whole anamorphic process and the perceivable resolution loss with its use.

I've also pointed out that your analysis did not take into account the negative/internegative process and that the quality difference is a muliplication loss..not linear.

If you shoot something in 35mm and then blow the camera negative up to 65mm for an interpositive...is the 65mm interpositive a better representation of the 35mm negative than a 35mm contact IP? This same line of reasoning could happen where the change is often done...at the Internegative. The 65mm IN will be a step printed pin registered to the 35mm IP. We have a much bigger area to represent the 35mm source from this point on so there are at least two generations, minimum, of improved image area and they multiply the improvement over their 35mm counterparts. The only "hit" to the process and is a wild-card is the optical enlargement process where we are dependant on that for potential image losses....compared to the anamorphic lenses that must be used on 35mm scope...it is much easier to make a good spherical lens than an anamorphic one.

Then there is the projector...I've pointed out why the same projector running 35mm film vs 70mm film will do a better job with the 70mm film.

quote: Larry Myers
...as film handlers know about analyzing what's inside film

It appears you aren't a very good scientist at all...you have not looked at the results of your hypothosis to verify your claims...and in fact, they are wrong. They are wrong not because they didn't start with a reasonable presumption, they are wrong because they were very limited in their presumptions and have lead you to wrong conclusions.

You brought up the "laws of physics" before...have you actually studied physics or were you using it as a catch phrase? That study is still on-going too...using pre-conceived notions to rationalize conclusions have quite literally wasted entire life times of scientists trying to get the world to behave as they think it should be, not the other way around ...to see the world as it is and figure out why it is that way.

You don't have the science and study to back up your statements...you don't even have personal knowledge of seeing the two mediums side by side to draw a conclusion...how can you make the statements? Because of some limited presumption? That isn't science or physics...it is just sloppy.