Will Warner support Blu-ray?

[iknowall]

Because I was talking 35mm (film master) resolution, whereas you were talking about copy resolutions, not source (film master) resolutions. Only that wasn't clear in how you worded your response to LB. From how you worded your response to, you were saying film in general was nearer 2k, HDTV resolution.

NO it was clear i was talking about final copy resolution, because i said :

"he fact is that when you develop it you lose a lot of resolution "

What the hell you develop if not the final copy ?

Sorry but you really seem you want to kidding me.

 

[iknowall]

Bullshit. It was bullshit 5 pages ago in this thread when you first spouted it and it's not smelling any better today. Get over it.

Sorry is true :

"A higher compression factor leads to lower video quality with more artifacts. "

http://www.xs4all.nl/~brw/ds_products/hot_math.html


"A compression artifact (or artefact) is the result of an aggressive data compression "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact

 

[AlphaWolf]

Sorry is true :

"A higher compression factor leads to lower video quality with more artifacts. "

http://www.xs4all.nl/~brw/ds_products/hot_math.html


"A compression artifact (or artefact) is the result of an aggressive data compression "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact

Those go out the window when you account for using a different algorithm.

2+2+2+2=8
4x2=8

 

[Shifty Geezer]

NO it was clear i was talking about final copy resolution, because i said :

"he fact is that when you develop it you lose a lot of resolution "

What the hell you develop if not the final copy ?

You develop the 35mm negative with developer fluid, fixing solutions etc. That's what develop means, especially in use with celluloid films where that's exactly the term used. I don't know what the official industry term is for producing copies from a master but I doubt in English it's 'develop'.

Hence from what you said, reading it exactly as written, you said the moment you take your negative and develop in in the various chemical solutions, it's resolution drops to 2k LPI, which isn't true and hence this big long argument where I've been disupting a fact you said without meaning to say it.

 

[iknowall]

Those go out the window when you account for using a different algorithm.

2+2+2+2=8
4x2=8

oh yeah so you are right and wikipedia and the other link are all wrong

Sorry but wikipedia have more credibility whan you

"A compression artifact (or artefact) is the result of an aggressive data compression"

And mpeg4 compression in more aggressive than mpeg2 compression.


p.s.

If what you say would be the case when you would never have artifact


Btw you made a very stupid example because actually the codec have to transport data, information, not a result.

so if you have 2 2 2 2 you can have more combination and every combination is an information


2+2+2+2 = 8 information A

2+2= 4 information B

2+2+2= 6 information C

2 = 2 information D



But when you have only 4+2 you lose the possiblity to make A


4 + 2 = 6

4 = 4

2 = 2

 

[iknowall]

You develop the 35mm negative with developer fluid, fixing solutions etc. That's what develop means, especially in use with celluloid films where that's exactly the term used. I don't know what the official industry term is for producing copies from a master but I doubt in English it's 'develop'.
Hence from what you said, reading it exactly as written, you said the moment you take your negative and develop in in the various chemical solutions, it's resolution drops to 2k LPI, which isn't true and hence this big long argument where I've been disupting a fact you said without meaning to say it.

Sorry but i explained it clearly in the other quote :

You are nonsense becaue from the internegative to the final copy you lose almost half the resolution, that's because you have to deal with the film organic loss, and you won't get more whan 3-2k for the final positive 35mm copy.


Nice try tough

 

[aaronspink]

[follow me here, i really know very little about cinemas]
But i thought "real" film had pretty much infinite resolution so to speak, so in theory they should be more detailed? I guess it's all in the projector isn't it...

A first run film print on a properly calibrated projector is a thing to behold. Unfortunately, very few theatres actually have a properly calibrated projector and only the first showing (if that, most theatres will do an edit check before the first showing) will get a first run print. After the first run, there will be stretching of the film stock, scratches, dust, etc.

There was a company in the late 80's that was trying to get buy in for full frame 35mm at 60 frames per second, but it didn't take off because of the cost. I would have been incredible if it did though.

 

[aaronspink]

That's weird. I'm sure I saw in various 'makings of HP' TV programs they were using film cameras. Is it the reproduction to cinema film that's causing the dowgrade in quality? Certainly it can't be digital capturing that's producing the better quality because HP isn't (AFAIK)

Currently, a lot of films are shot on full frame 35mm film and then scanned into the digital systems for mastering, special effects, and post. They are then generally laser scan'd back out to cinema, partial frame 35mm for projection. The actual 35mm partial frame IS of higher quality than the digital projection, but it degrades after the first projection.

 

[hongcho]

FYI...

1) ITU document on MPEG-4 AVC (2004).

http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-site/2004_07_Redmond/JVT-L033.doc

Check out Figure 1 on page 1.

2) Tandberg's MPEG-2/MPEG-4 AVC/VC-1 Comparison (2005).

http://data.memberclicks.com/site/hopa/2005TR_MG_H264_VC1.pdf

Refer to page 18 and 19. Tandberg makes broadcasting equipments, but what do they know.

Hong.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sorry but i explained it clearly in the other quote :

You are nonsense becaue from the internegative to the final copy you lose almost half the resolution, that's because you have to deal with the film organic loss, and you won't get more whan 3-2k for the final positive 35mm copy.

Which you mentioned in post #624. Whereas on the previous post I had already mentioned perhaps you didn't mean develop in the sense that it's proper usage is.

Nice try tough

Nice try at what? Trying to understand what you're talking about? See, any normal civilised person would have responded something like,'oh, okay. No, I didn't mean develop that way. Sorry for the confusion.' No harm done. But it seems you won't accept that you can be at all wrong to the smallest degree, which isn't a helpful attitude. It's my comprehensin that's wrong when you say develop when talking about 35mm celluloid film and I understand you to mean what it actually means instead of what you intend to mean because you used the wrong word. It's obviously everyone else's fault they don't understand you, right? It seems to me the similar argument with the MPEG4 is one of understanding too, but you've managed to a offend a lot of people there too.

 

[iknowall]

Which you mentioned in post #624. Whereas on the previous post I had already mentioned perhaps you didn't mean develop in the sense that it's proper usage is.

Sorry but develop film is a common industrial term used when you have to develop the negative to get the final print :

" Develop Color FilmDeveloping "

" How to Develop Color Film"

http://www.ehow.com/how_1354_develop-color-film.html

During the film developing process, we also scan your negatives to create ..

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:F7amd4YtJTUJ:www.snapfish.com/helpsendingfilm+develop+film&hl=it


"Technicolor used a railroad car for a portable lab which allowed the Boston based
company to shoot on location and develop and print the product on the spot ..."

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor1.htm

Official word by technicolor, one of the biggest movie post production studios.

"Technicolor had a business doing that. CFI had been doing that, ... To develop
a negative, the technician carries film stock stored in cans into a dark room ...

http://www.worldenteractive.com/cfi.htm

Nice try at what? Trying to understand what you're talking about?

About the fact that you are trying to fool me.

And now i have the proff :

Look at this quote you said :

"No, we're not. LB asked about how the quality differs between digital and analogue projection, saying film was 'infinite' resolution. You reply saying film has a resolution of no more than 2-3k once printed. I explain otherwise."


saying "once printed" means you knew i was talking about the the film once printed, and not about the negative.

And now you act like you did not know that i was talking about the final print.

Again, nice try

 

[Mythos]

Some more PS3 Bluray dvd thingy...

Fox sees Blu-ray DVDs gaining edge

By Reuters

Fox Filmed Entertainment sees the Sony-led Blu-ray high-definition DVDs winning the next-generation DVD technology battle on the back of widespread Hollywood support and the release next year of the PlayStation 3 video game console.

"In terms of the number of companies involved, the PS3 (PlayStation 3) momentum and the level of content that is committed to Blu-ray, it does seem to have a pretty strong lead," James Gianopulos, co-chairman of Fox Filmed Entertainment, said Thursday at the Reuters Media and Advertising Summit in New York.

"We believe that Blu-ray not only has the superior technology and backing in terms of strength to market but also the superior content protection," Gianopulos added.

The media and technology industry is racing to offer next-generation DVDs that offer higher-definition video amid a spike in sales of flat-screen high-definition television sets. But many in the industry are concerned the dueling new DVD standards will confuse consumers and slow early growth.

The Sony-led Blu-ray DVD technology, which will be built into Sony's PlayStation 3 video game console next year, is fighting a consortium that includes Toshiba that has developed the HD DVD format.

Gianopulos said Fox has no plans to release movies in HD DVD.

 

[mckmas8808]

And this my friends show the true power that Blu-ray has. Can HD-DVD get millions of units into the homes of consumers within the first month? I don't think so.

 

[drpepper]

Blu-Ray wins purely because of Star Wars.

 

[Inane_Dork]

And this my friends show the true power that Blu-ray has. Can HD-DVD get millions of units into the homes of consumers within the first month? I don't think so.

And you think Sony will have millions of PS3s to sell within one month of launch? Seriously, you believe that?

Besides, that's not the power of BR. That's the power of PS. BR or not the first month of PS sales will equal supply.

 

[HappyBread]

50GB & Hybrid disc delayed. Walt Disney will wait until the 50GB Blu-Ray disc is available before releasing HD content on the format.

 

[mckmas8808]

And you think Sony will have millions of PS3s to sell within one month of launch? Seriously, you believe that?

Besides, that's not the power of BR. That's the power of PS. BR or not the first month of PS sales will equal supply.

Why can't Sony sell 1 million PS3's in one month? It is possible if the supply is there.

50GB & Hybrid disc delayed. Walt Disney will wait until the 50GB Blu-Ray disc is available before releasing HD content on the format.

Not saying I don't believe you, but do you have a link to that sir?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Why can't Sony sell 1 million PS3's in one month? It is possible if the supply is there.

That's his point, the supply won't be there. 1million maybe, more than that in the first month? Not likely.

See you were totally exagerating, millions of BR players in the first month? No. Maybe 1million consoles sold, lets say a generous 20% of them have HDTV. You have 200,000 BR players within a month with customers who can actually USE it.

Now, how many of those 200,000 are interested in buying new movies and replacing their DVD collection? Not 100%. For teh sake of argument lets say the vast majority, pick a number..oh..say...~75%.

So you instead of your 'millions' realistically you have maybe 150,000 consumers that will actually go out a buy discs, and that's what really matter, movie sales.

Every single HD-DVD player sold, will result in movie sales, every standalone BR player will result in movie sales, however only a small fraction of the PS3's sold will result in movie sales.

 

[Ty]

That's his point, the supply won't be there. 1million maybe, more than that in the first month? Not likely.

I too highly doubt the supply will be anything close to 1 million (not in the first month).

See you were totally exagerating, millions of BR players in the first month? No. Maybe 1million consoles sold, lets say a generous 20% of them have HDTV. You have 200,000 BR players within a month with customers who can actually USE it.

This is where I'll disagree though (I know you were just using 20% as an example) because I bet that the early adopters have a much higher % of HDTVs in their homes, after all, they are early adopters likely not merely limited to video games.

 

[mckmas8808]

That's his point, the supply won't be there. 1million maybe, more than that in the first month? Not likely.

See you were totally exagerating, millions of BR players in the first month? No. Maybe 1million consoles sold, lets say a generous 20% of them have HDTV. You have 200,000 BR players within a month with customers who can actually USE it.

Now, how many of those 200,000 are interested in buying new movies and replacing their DVD collection? Not 100%. For teh sake of argument lets say the vast majority, pick a number..oh..say...~75%.

So you instead of your 'millions' realistically you have maybe 150,000 consumers that will actually go out a buy discs, and that's what really matter, movie sales.

Every single HD-DVD player sold, will result in movie sales, every standalone BR player will result in movie sales, however only a small fraction of the PS3's sold will result in movie sales.

Great post scooby. You're right only a fraction of PS3 buyers will blu-ray movies. But we both know that number (PS3 buyers that buy blu-ray movies) will still surpass the total number of HD-DVD players numbers. Especially in the beginning.