 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
124.177.162.57
In Reply to: RE: "One viewer just says no to the high of high-definition TV" posted by clarkjohnsen on June 08, 2008 at 12:32:07
"HDTV doesn't give us the real so much as the hyper-real, an artificial heightening of reality, the turning of a clarity knob."
Gee, HD is more real than real. I thought it was better than SD but still a tad short of the real thing.
"SDTV does for us what our consciousness does naturally - it filters out the unnecessary."
It certainly 'filters out' some things but are those things the ones we personally want filtered out all of the time. It seems to me we're better off letting our consciousness filter out those things we find unnecessary which may not be the same things as others find unnecessary. Leaving it to the machine gives us no choice since the machine has no idea what I personally want to see/hear and what I would prefer to see filtered.
It's only worth going for options which limit personal choice if the option only ever works the way you want. Otherwise you end up losing somewhere sooner or later.
David Aiken
Follow Ups:
d
that now everything sounds bad. Never made a lot of sense to me.
After all, they can always use a table radio if they want the flaws to be buried.
Similarly, if video resolution bothers you, you will always have the option of getting a 12 inch screen, even black and white if you really look for it.
And never go to a movie in a theater, which is much higher in resolution than HDTV.
Doesn't make much sense to me either.
signals are superb and while theater video may be better but when films are first released eventually they develop enough jitter that their innate detail is lost for the most part. In speaking to a tech director for a local movie chain he was the first to point out that the sprocket drive slots on conventional film do cause the picture to flicker as the film wears ( the origin , no doubt, of movies being called 'flicker' shows, especially when coupled with a slower frame rate).
The latest HD sets reveal tremendous detail and one will be quite aware of f-stop issues and the depth of view in the choice of camera lenses selected by the original film maker. Much of the original opposition to HD TV was advanced by the major networks because they had to rebuild all their sets: newsroom first, and then their series' sets, because with HD the difference between real wood and veneer or laminates became obvious.
About two years ago there was an article in the Associated Press reporting on the Academy Awards ceremony where they pointed out that the stars have to redo their makeup, because HDTV could easily pick up the typically overdone applications.
If you do a lot of viewing of older material, many gaffes become very evident with an HD monitor. Some find it objectionable, but I find it fascinating to be able to clearly see compromises made in the production.
Stu
OH! no.
You mean those actresses aren't as gorgeous as they appear? :-)
They get pimples!
Wrinkles?
Crows feet?
Dam they only look like the girl next door. :-(
but when I sold HD sets, the first comment by most wives and SO's were that (insert your favorite female newscaster's name) had terrible make up or at least some other comment was made in regards to their complexion.
One girlfriend's comment made when her boyfriend purchased an HD set in the middle of the baseball playoff season was that a certain team didn't iron their uniforms. She also told me she knew the set was really good because she could tell if they were playing on AstroTurf simply by walking in front of the set without really looking at the screen (the boyfriend was an ISF certified tech, BTW).
Even with an older 768 line resolution screen (50 inch plasma) I could discern many camera issues. Watching the DVD of Field of Dreams you can clearly see the individual pieces of gravel around Costner's feet when he stands on the baseline but the gravel goes out of focus about 4 feet in front and behind him. In the the nude scene in Forrest Gump, it is clearly evident that the girl is wearing a body stocking as you can make out that her bikini marks are reversed: they are darker rather than lighter. In fact the scenes supposedly set in Viet Nam, you notice that while the soldier's faces are blackened and dirty, their uniforms and packs are immaculately clean: no sweat marks, no dirt....
For many familiar movies, watching them in HD meant that I spent the first times being enthralled by the background detail and the little glitches in continuity. Some may find it distracting, but I enjoy it as you get an idea of the detail and work it takes to set up the scenes. Some are funny as in the scene in Glory where the troops are entering the south and are welcomed by a gang of children you can see some one's hand with a wrist watch on it: a nice gold digital one too.... But most definitely you can tell the difference in a high budget film and one that was financially challenged.
Stu
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
