Films/DVD Asylum

RE: I've said it before and I'll say it again, HD always wins if you use a projector to watch movies

24.252.36.109

RedGrant

A

In Reply to: RE: I've said it before and I'll say it again, HD always wins if you use a projector to watch movies posted by Doug Flynn on May 05, 2011 at 13:23:51

"In real life some people are pimply and sweaty..."

...and in real life, we don't have unicorns or dragons.

My point is actors are speaking something important, I don't really need to see the pimples, moles to appreciate it, it's actually distracting.

In music, it would be called 'noise', or 'pop', or 'crackle'.

Now, sweat can be a part of acting, but not always.

Follow Ups:

No - Jack G 04:52:39 05/06/11 (5)
> > > My point is actors are speaking something important, I don't really need to see the pimples, moles to appreciate it, it's actually distracting.

In music, it would be called 'noise', or 'pop', or 'crackle'. < < <

No Noise, pop, and crackle would be the equivalent of Edge enhancement or compression artifacts. Assuming a good master and transfer, HD beats SD every time. I want it to look like the original film.
Do you prefer the sound of cassettes over a good LP?
Jack
- Your point is perfect. I wonder if Red would prefer smudged glasses because they're authentically - tinear 15:57:03 05/07/11 (3)
  dirty?
  HD merely reproduces more perfectly what is there. Film is FAR more revealing than what we had in video and DVD until the advent of HD and BR.
  - You must be a perfect customer for them $2.99 "As Seen on TV" Contrast Enhancing glasses - Victor Khomenko 16:40:51 05/07/11 (2)
    HD is nothing but media. When someone processes the image just to show what HD can do, you get dreck. Once we finally get past that adolescent "Wow!" stage it will perhaps become just another good tool. Today most of what you see in HD is made to look more beautiful than life.
    - It isn't additive, it's subtractive. Do you dislike theater film presentation; do you even - tinear 17:31:03 05/07/11 (1)
      go to theaters, anymore? Trust me, HD & B-R D are very, very close wherein the "regular" isn't even close. First off, we'd have to agree that the goal is to imitate as closely as possible the film experience.
      - I don't have a problem with good transfer, I was concerned with the word contrasty. - Victor Khomenko 18:20:54 05/07/11 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: It isn't additive, it's subtractive. Do you dislike theater film presentation; do you even posted by tinear on May 07, 2011 at 17:31:03
        
        Given the tools we have today, any originally gray-scale B&W film can be "enhanced", pulling its dynamic range wider. I think I saw one film like that, with the degree of contrast that struck me as outside the typical film realm.
        
        One might say the films used in the forties and fifties were deficient in their ability to preset the real scale... hence we should try to "improve" them. Here we have the ghost of colorization raising its head.
- RE: No - RedGrant 10:47:43 05/06/11 (0)
  "No Noise, pop, and crackle would be the equivalent of Edge enhancement or compression artifacts."
  
  No, technically speaking, audio equivalent of Edge enhancement or compression artifacts would be dolby NR, and DBX 'breathing'
  
  Btw. I have no use for all of those above.
  
  Cinematic, (meaning artistic, not technical) equivalent of "pops, crackles" would be excessive use of special effects as 'eye candy', or some bizzare "art for art's sake" use of weird photographic angles, or too much and inappropriate 'rapid cut' editing, plus too much artificial lighting to make sure audience can see as much as accurately possible of the whole scene, in clinical detail.
  
  Please notice Mike Figgis, the director of "Leaving Las Vegas", emphasized diffused lighting so that the audience can't see everything in clinical detail, that's right! He deliberately obscured the detail so as to not to distract the audience.
  
  Now, contrast this with typical banal 60's studio movies, and notice how much 'fluff' one can see that doesn't do anything with story telling.
  
  "Do you prefer the sound of cassettes over a good LP?"
  
  Actually my ideal choice is 15ips 2track, live recording, after that 7 1/2 ips 2 track, 4 track, and 3 3/4 ips 4 track, and then comes totl vintage 70's cassette decks. That's right, I actually prefer totl 70's cassette deck over 80's cassette decks in general, they have very diffused sound that I really dig.
  
  Btw. I only use LP to make my own dub. Cannot stand 'pops', and 'crackles', but can stand the 'hiss' within reason.

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Sonic Craft