|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.91.201.174
In Reply to: For many of us here the "Pickpocket" spells relief posted by Victor Khomenko on August 16, 2006 at 07:12:37:
I thought you didn't care about image quality.
Follow Ups:
I think what I have been saying was above certain level the image quality stops being an annyoance, it kind of disappears. Unless it is a movie where it matters, but I hardly watch such movies.Now... since we are on this subject... I had some recent experiences where image quality was superb, but you know what? You note it at the beginning, and then forget about it if the movie is good.
I still contend that better the image quality aids in the suspension of disbelief and one's involvement in a film, particularly a good or great film.
smaller to be exact, issue of screen size?
Watching a film on a 27" tv screen hardly is ideal but I derive great enjoyment from it.
Of course, seeing that massive wrap-around screening of 2001 years ago left an indelible impression--- or was it just the LSD?
I believe that some experts consider 27" the minimum screen size for suspension of disbelief. I agree that the larger the screen size (all else being equal) the greter the involvement. In September of 1968 I saw "@001..." on a huge curved Cinerama screen and have never forgotten it.
screens, the original ones, are long gone. However, Paul Allen, gazillionaire, also loved it so... he has built a screen that size in Seattle and occasionally... 2001 is screened.
I believe there is one in Dayton. Ohio, Utah, and also one or two in England. There may be more. Toward the end Super Panavision 70 replaced the three camera technique of the original Cinerama.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: