Films/DVD Asylum

"I can only state what I see..." on your system. Therein lies the problem.

206.243.39.17

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

clarkjohnsen

(R)

In Reply to: Re: Begging your pardon, you can't reliably say that. nt posted by patrickU on May 02, 2004 at 13:09:14:

I have access to big-screen front-projectors of extremely high resolution, and there one may truly see the truth. Decisions made on measely 1m. screens like I own (and yourself?), are apt to be mistaken. Hence, unreliable.
PAL des not have "higher resolution" although it does have more scan lines. Tell us what its horizontal capability is.
I never said NTSC had better sound, only that it was way ahead in incorporating stereo.
"Labor of love" might be the most critical factor withall.
clark

Follow Ups:

Mine is bigger... here we go again... - Victor Khomenko 05:42:58 05/03/04 (3)
Question: Just what does the size of screen have to do with quality?
Answer: nothing.
- "Just what does the size of screen have to do with quality?" Lots. - clarkjohnsen 08:43:26 05/03/04 (2)
  Not *because* it's larger, rather because defects are more readily seen on it and improvements undertaken. Most material looks fine on my 1m tube, but play it on a good projector and large screen and it's sometimes unwatchable.
  Thus, properly equipped, one may answer questions that cannot be addressed otherwise. For instance, how good is the ultimate NTSC experience?
  clark
  - Not a good answer at all - Victor Khomenko 09:28:37 05/03/04 (1)
    What matters is the viewing angle, not size. A 10 foot screen viewed from 20 feet will give you worse "quality resolution" than a 1m screen viewed from 1.5m.
    Also don't forget washng off with ambient light - tubes and plasma are far more tolerant of that, unless you have a completely dark room.
    - Not a good answer at all - clarkjohnsen 14:06:37 05/03/04 (0)
      Of course viewing angle is held mutatis mutandis; that should go without saying.
      However, viewing a tube at 1.5m has other problems.
      Dark rooms are standard in such evaluations.
      My word stands.
      clark
Re: "I can only state what I see..." *on your system*. Therein lies the problem. - patrickU 01:00:04 05/03/04 (0)
By the way I have access too. One of my friend has a studio with so I think the best stuff around in video, I just call him and ask him his opinion, well he said PAL is in theory better but factually in depend on the mastering...
Re: "I can only state what I see..." *on your system*. Therein lies the problem. - patrickU 00:25:05 05/03/04 (2)
Well, on my very limited system it is what I see. But there are also reviewers here wo said defintively, that PAL can be far better than NTSC. I must say with HD coming around this discussion is obsolete.
The best I ever have seen, half year ago, on video was the Digital VHS ( or what is it called? )
That HAD resolution!
- What most people mean, when they say PAL is better, is... - clarkjohnsen 08:45:21 05/03/04 (1)
  ...merely that it has more scan lines. That is only one item in the budget that determines resolution.
  clark
  - Re: What most people mean, when they say PAL is better, is... - patrickU 09:21:51 05/03/04 (0)
    Right.

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

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.

You can not post to an archived thread.

Films/DVD Asylum

"I can only state what I see..." *on your system*. Therein lies the problem.

"I can only state what I see..." on your system. Therein lies the problem.