In Reply to: reminds me of those people whose audio system is so revealing... posted by tunenut on June 8, 2008 at 21:01:01:
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- The latest HD - unclestu52 22:49:21 06/09/08 (2)
- "Academy Awards ceremony where they pointed out that the stars have to redo their makeup" - GTF 05:49:28 06/10/08 (1)
- It's rather funny - unclestu52 12:34:46 06/10/08 (0)