Discussion:
"2001" on Blu-ray - first impressions
(too old to reply)
Randy Walters
2007-10-24 02:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the
Blu-ray release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.

What a banquet. What a transfer. What a movie, what a master of cinema.

I know, you're thinking "what a crock", and I deserve it, I guess...
I'm just stunned, which is pretty remarkable for a film I've seen many
dozens of times.

Before I go on, I've got to get something out of the way... I just
reviewed the thread "The Stanley Kubrick Collection on HD", and one
person was glibly posting repeatedly as if he was an oracle on the
subject of HD...

I don't like to get into name calling, and ragging on other posters,
but when I read a statement like

"I'm not saying you can't see a difference, I am saying the difference
does not warrant the hype and expectation and if I want the best
picture of all I can watch a Blueray DVD on my computer with the 27"
monitor."

I've just got to cry bullshit. What a load of tripe. This individual
clearly has no experience with a well calibrated high-end system, which
can truly rival the cinema experience - though of course, you still
can't beat that curved Cinerama screen I first experienced the movie on
nearly 40 years ago.

To claim that you're going to get "the best picture of all" sitting
hunched in front of your computer monitor is just daft.

*******

All right, sorry for the negativity.

Since I haven't watched the extras yet (I can't wait!) all I can talk
about is the film itself. The transfer is masterful, revealing things
I've never seen in all the times I've watched "2001" in theaters. Great
saturation, tremendous luminosity, and rich, deep blacks - never milky,
and I never saw any traveling mattes like those painfully apparent in
"Star Wars" transfers.

The level of detail is stunning - I repeatedly paused the disc to get
up and read the tiny little bits of text detail I've never been able to
make out before. I found some amazing things, including the occasional
sly joke hidden in plain sight.

Sometimes, the level of detail revealed flaws - I was astonished to
find that I could actually see strokes left from paint rollers
spreading reflective material on the front-projection screen in the
"Dawn of Man" sequence. Again, I paused the disc and checked to make
sure I wasn't seeing dust smears on my own screen!

I had the uncompressed PCM audio cranked, and it was fantastic. The
slit-scan sequence came alive, without a scratch or fleck of dust...
the best I've seen it since that first showing decades ago.

I know I'm sounding uncritical, like a real fanboy... well, guilty as
charged. Those responsible for this transfer really did a fantastic job
with the most challenging of material, and I can't wait to see the
other new releases. I sincerely hope the same artists can soon bring
their talents to "Barry Lyndon".

To SK's family, friends and associates, I offer my sincere
congratulations on this milestone release of his work. I believe that
while he would certainly prefer his work be seen in a theater, he would
be pleased that individuals now have the opportunity to study his work
at such a high level of quality in their own homes.

And I'm sorry for blowing off steam earlier. After the experience I had
just enjoyed with HD, the level of misinformation really rubbed me the
wrong way.
ichorwhip
2007-10-24 03:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Randy Walters
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the
Blu-ray release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.
What a banquet. What a transfer. What a movie, what a master of cinema.
I know, you're thinking "what a crock", and I deserve it, I guess...
I'm just stunned, which is pretty remarkable for a film I've seen many
dozens of times.
Before I go on, I've got to get something out of the way... I just
reviewed the thread "The Stanley Kubrick Collection on HD", and one
person was glibly posting repeatedly as if he was an oracle on the
subject of HD...
I don't like to get into name calling, and ragging on other posters,
but when I read a statement like
"I'm not saying you can't see a difference, I am saying the difference
does not warrant the hype and expectation and if I want the best
picture of all I can watch a Blueray DVD on my computer with the 27"
monitor."
I've just got to cry bullshit. What a load of tripe. This individual
clearly has no experience with a well calibrated high-end system, which
can truly rival the cinema experience - though of course, you still
can't beat that curved Cinerama screen I first experienced the movie on
nearly 40 years ago.
To claim that you're going to get "the best picture of all" sitting
hunched in front of your computer monitor is just daft.
*******
All right, sorry for the negativity.
Since I haven't watched the extras yet (I can't wait!) all I can talk
about is the film itself. The transfer is masterful, revealing things
I've never seen in all the times I've watched "2001" in theaters. Great
saturation, tremendous luminosity, and rich, deep blacks - never milky,
and I never saw any traveling mattes like those painfully apparent in
"Star Wars" transfers.
The level of detail is stunning - I repeatedly paused the disc to get
up and read the tiny little bits of text detail I've never been able to
make out before. I found some amazing things, including the occasional
sly joke hidden in plain sight.
Sometimes, the level of detail revealed flaws - I was astonished to
find that I could actually see strokes left from paint rollers
spreading reflective material on the front-projection screen in the
"Dawn of Man" sequence. Again, I paused the disc and checked to make
sure I wasn't seeing dust smears on my own screen!
I had the uncompressed PCM audio cranked, and it was fantastic. The
slit-scan sequence came alive, without a scratch or fleck of dust...
the best I've seen it since that first showing decades ago.
I know I'm sounding uncritical, like a real fanboy... well, guilty as
charged. Those responsible for this transfer really did a fantastic job
with the most challenging of material, and I can't wait to see the
other new releases. I sincerely hope the same artists can soon bring
their talents to "Barry Lyndon".
To SK's family, friends and associates, I offer my sincere
congratulations on this milestone release of his work. I believe that
while he would certainly prefer his work be seen in a theater, he would
be pleased that individuals now have the opportunity to study his work
at such a high level of quality in their own homes.
And I'm sorry for blowing off steam earlier. After the experience I had
just enjoyed with HD, the level of misinformation really rubbed me the
wrong way.
Don't sweat it Randy. The same domineering, blabbering lunatic you
speak of is convinced that Kubrick dropped acid constantly and was a
closet Buddhist. Namecalling his stupid ass is a good thing because
he'd certainly do the same thing to you, and then the goodness will
come of being plonked by his insipid chucklehead.

I really enjoyed your review, and it's entirely in line with what I've
seen and what I've read about the Blu-ray format on the proper
equipment. And your passion for the subject shows; you don't have to
be a "fanboy" to be excited about what's really good. This is the
kind of stuff this newsgroup ought to be about. Thanks!

"I'm damned if I can find anything wrong with it."
i
"piop"
Kelpzoidzl
2007-10-24 11:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the Blu-ray
release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.
What a banquet. What a transfer. What a movie, what a master of cinema.
I know, you're thinking "what a crock", and I deserve it, I guess... I'm
just stunned, which is pretty remarkable for a film I've seen many dozens
of times.
Before I go on, I've got to get something out of the way... I just
reviewed the thread "The Stanley Kubrick Collection on HD", and one
person was glibly posting repeatedly as if he was an oracle on the subject
of HD...
I don't like to get into name calling, and ragging on other posters, but
when I read a statement like
"I'm not saying you can't see a difference, I am saying the difference
does not warrant the hype and expectation and if I want the best picture
of all I can watch a Blueray DVD on my computer with the 27" monitor."
I've just got to cry bullshit. What a load of tripe. This individual
clearly has no experience with a well calibrated high-end system, which
can truly rival the cinema experience - though of course, you still can't
beat that curved Cinerama screen I first experienced the movie on nearly
40 years ago.
To claim that you're going to get "the best picture of all" sitting
hunched in front of your computer monitor is just daft.
Well I'm glad you like it. But apparently you are content with the mediocre
improvement of the picture with HD. So now you can repurchase your entire
movie collection of favorite films again and watch it on your projector.
For me, I will wait till technology has gotten better before I am going to
rave about how wonderful it all is and repurchase my collection of films, so
you can pack them in boxes when the next formats come out. Granted the TV
are better then ever, but the HD/Bluray disc formats are just a way to get
us to waste money on a new Movie collection.

In reality HD and Bluray is already 6 year old technology. Its all about
storage size with only a small improvement in picture quality. The change
from 1080i to 1080p is just a processing effect from interlaced to
progressive. One can do fine, just using using the processing in an
Upconvert player and stick with existing DVD's.

Sure, if I ever buy any new films I will buy them in HD or Blueray, but for
my favorite films in my collection, I am not about to buy a new collection
and fall for the marketing scam. The Bluray vs. HD debate is also a
ridulous fanbois argument.

Here are some links

http://www.fragland.net/specials.php?id=206

http://www.contentagenda.com/articleXml/LN655677711.html

http://askville.amazon.com/upconvert-DVD-players-produce-picture-quality-close-HD-BluRay/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4930219


As since it's really all about processing power--video scaling and how much
can be stored on a disk ---of course the picture is going to look better on
a high end computer, then the CON-sumer chips in the players.

Try hooking up your projector to a high end computer and just watching a reg
def DVD of 2001. You won't be "hunching" over it and you certainly will not
see a much of a difference with a silly HD or Bluray disk and if you use a
Upconvert technology the same is true. These discs are all just interim
technology which some people are falling for.

BTW there are already HD disks that hold 51 gigs of data and new disk
formats that holds more then 150 gigs.

Digitizing film, like digitizing music is still in it's infancy. Same
reason people still like Vinyl Lps over Cd's.

BTW I've seen the Sony Projectors, they are very nice, as projectors go,
but if you are talking about picture quality and not just a wide screen
effect, you are kidding yourself.


dc
*******
All right, sorry for the negativity.
Since I haven't watched the extras yet (I can't wait!) all I can talk
about is the film itself. The transfer is masterful, revealing things I've
never seen in all the times I've watched "2001" in theaters. Great
saturation, tremendous luminosity, and rich, deep blacks - never milky,
and I never saw any traveling mattes like those painfully apparent in
"Star Wars" transfers.
The level of detail is stunning - I repeatedly paused the disc to get up
and read the tiny little bits of text detail I've never been able to make
out before. I found some amazing things, including the occasional sly joke
hidden in plain sight.
Sometimes, the level of detail revealed flaws - I was astonished to find
that I could actually see strokes left from paint rollers spreading
reflective material on the front-projection screen in the "Dawn of Man"
sequence. Again, I paused the disc and checked to make sure I wasn't
seeing dust smears on my own screen!
I had the uncompressed PCM audio cranked, and it was fantastic. The
slit-scan sequence came alive, without a scratch or fleck of dust... the
best I've seen it since that first showing decades ago.
I know I'm sounding uncritical, like a real fanboy... well, guilty as
charged. Those responsible for this transfer really did a fantastic job
with the most challenging of material, and I can't wait to see the other
new releases. I sincerely hope the same artists can soon bring their
talents to "Barry Lyndon".
To SK's family, friends and associates, I offer my sincere congratulations
on this milestone release of his work. I believe that while he would
certainly prefer his work be seen in a theater, he would be pleased that
individuals now have the opportunity to study his work at such a high
level of quality in their own homes.
And I'm sorry for blowing off steam earlier. After the experience I had
just enjoyed with HD, the level of misinformation really rubbed me the
wrong way.
Don Stockbauer
2007-10-24 12:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the Blu-ray
release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.
What a banquet. What a transfer. What a movie, what a master of cinema.
I know, you're thinking "what a crock", and I deserve it, I guess... I'm
just stunned, which is pretty remarkable for a film I've seen many dozens
of times.
Before I go on, I've got to get something out of the way... I just
reviewed the thread "The Stanley Kubrick Collection on HD", and one
person was glibly posting repeatedly as if he was an oracle on the subject
of HD...
I don't like to get into name calling, and ragging on other posters, but
when I read a statement like
"I'm not saying you can't see a difference, I am saying the difference
does not warrant the hype and expectation and if I want the best picture
of all I can watch a Blueray DVD on my computer with the 27" monitor."
I've just got to cry bullshit. What a load of tripe. This individual
clearly has no experience with a well calibrated high-end system, which
can truly rival the cinema experience - though of course, you still can't
beat that curved Cinerama screen I first experienced the movie on nearly
40 years ago.
To claim that you're going to get "the best picture of all" sitting
hunched in front of your computer monitor is just daft.
Well I'm glad you like it. But apparently you are content with the mediocre
improvement of the picture with HD. So now you can repurchase your entire
movie collection of favorite films again and watch it on your projector.
For me, I will wait till technology has gotten better before I am going to
rave about how wonderful it all is and repurchase my collection of films, so
you can pack them in boxes when the next formats come out. Granted the TV
are better then ever, but the HD/Bluray disc formats are just a way to get
us to waste money on a new Movie collection.
In reality HD and Bluray is already 6 year old technology. Its all about
storage size with only a small improvement in picture quality. The change
from 1080i to 1080p is just a processing effect from interlaced to
progressive. One can do fine, just using using the processing in an
Upconvert player and stick with existing DVD's.
Sure, if I ever buy any new films I will buy them in HD or Blueray, but for
my favorite films in my collection, I am not about to buy a new collection
and fall for the marketing scam. The Bluray vs. HD debate is also a
ridulous fanbois argument.
Here are some links
http://www.fragland.net/specials.php?id=206
http://www.contentagenda.com/articleXml/LN655677711.html
http://askville.amazon.com/upconvert-DVD-players-produce-picture-qual...
As since it's really all about processing power--video scaling and how much
can be stored on a disk ---of course the picture is going to look better on
a high end computer, then the CON-sumer chips in the players.
Try hooking up your projector to a high end computer and just watching a reg
def DVD of 2001. You won't be "hunching" over it and you certainly will not
see a much of a difference with a silly HD or Bluray disk and if you use a
Upconvert technology the same is true. These discs are all just interim
technology which some people are falling for.
BTW there are already HD disks that hold 51 gigs of data and new disk
formats that holds more then 150 gigs.
Digitizing film, like digitizing music is still in it's infancy. Same
reason people still like Vinyl Lps over Cd's.
BTW I've seen the Sony Projectors, they are very nice, as projectors go,
but if you are talking about picture quality and not just a wide screen
effect, you are kidding yourself.
dc
*******
All right, sorry for the negativity.
Since I haven't watched the extras yet (I can't wait!) all I can talk
about is the film itself. The transfer is masterful, revealing things I've
never seen in all the times I've watched "2001" in theaters. Great
saturation, tremendous luminosity, and rich, deep blacks - never milky,
and I never saw any traveling mattes like those painfully apparent in
"Star Wars" transfers.
The level of detail is stunning - I repeatedly paused the disc to get up
and read the tiny little bits of text detail I've never been able to make
out before. I found some amazing things, including the occasional sly joke
hidden in plain sight.
Sometimes, the level of detail revealed flaws - I was astonished to find
that I could actually see strokes left from paint rollers spreading
reflective material on the front-projection screen in the "Dawn of Man"
sequence. Again, I paused the disc and checked to make sure I wasn't
seeing dust smears on my own screen!
I had the uncompressed PCM audio cranked, and it was fantastic. The
slit-scan sequence came alive, without a scratch or fleck of dust... the
best I've seen it since that first showing decades ago.
I know I'm sounding uncritical, like a real fanboy... well, guilty as
charged. Those responsible for this transfer really did a fantastic job
with the most challenging of material, and I can't wait to see the other
new releases. I sincerely hope the same artists can soon bring their
talents to "Barry Lyndon".
To SK's family, friends and associates, I offer my sincere congratulations
on this milestone release of his work. I believe that while he would
certainly prefer his work be seen in a theater, he would be pleased that
individuals now have the opportunity to study his work at such a high
level of quality in their own homes.
And I'm sorry for blowing off steam earlier. After the experience I had
just enjoyed with HD, the level of misinformation really rubbed me the
wrong way.
Interesting discussion emphasizing form over content.
Kelpzoidzl
2007-10-24 16:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Stockbauer
Post by Kelpzoidzl
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the Blu-ray
release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.
What a banquet. What a transfer. What a movie, what a master of cinema.
I know, you're thinking "what a crock", and I deserve it, I guess... I'm
just stunned, which is pretty remarkable for a film I've seen many dozens
of times.
Before I go on, I've got to get something out of the way... I just
reviewed the thread "The Stanley Kubrick Collection on HD", and one
person was glibly posting repeatedly as if he was an oracle on the subject
of HD...
I don't like to get into name calling, and ragging on other posters, but
when I read a statement like
"I'm not saying you can't see a difference, I am saying the difference
does not warrant the hype and expectation and if I want the best picture
of all I can watch a Blueray DVD on my computer with the 27" monitor."
I've just got to cry bullshit. What a load of tripe. This individual
clearly has no experience with a well calibrated high-end system, which
can truly rival the cinema experience - though of course, you still can't
beat that curved Cinerama screen I first experienced the movie on nearly
40 years ago.
To claim that you're going to get "the best picture of all" sitting
hunched in front of your computer monitor is just daft.
Well I'm glad you like it. But apparently you are content with the mediocre
improvement of the picture with HD. So now you can repurchase your entire
movie collection of favorite films again and watch it on your projector.
For me, I will wait till technology has gotten better before I am going to
rave about how wonderful it all is and repurchase my collection of films, so
you can pack them in boxes when the next formats come out. Granted the TV
are better then ever, but the HD/Bluray disc formats are just a way to get
us to waste money on a new Movie collection.
In reality HD and Bluray is already 6 year old technology. Its all about
storage size with only a small improvement in picture quality. The change
from 1080i to 1080p is just a processing effect from interlaced to
progressive. One can do fine, just using using the processing in an
Upconvert player and stick with existing DVD's.
Sure, if I ever buy any new films I will buy them in HD or Blueray, but for
my favorite films in my collection, I am not about to buy a new collection
and fall for the marketing scam. The Bluray vs. HD debate is also a
ridulous fanbois argument.
Here are some links
http://www.fragland.net/specials.php?id=206
http://www.contentagenda.com/articleXml/LN655677711.html
http://askville.amazon.com/upconvert-DVD-players-produce-picture-qual...
As since it's really all about processing power--video scaling and how much
can be stored on a disk ---of course the picture is going to look better on
a high end computer, then the CON-sumer chips in the players.
Try hooking up your projector to a high end computer and just watching a reg
def DVD of 2001. You won't be "hunching" over it and you certainly will not
see a much of a difference with a silly HD or Bluray disk and if you use a
Upconvert technology the same is true. These discs are all just interim
technology which some people are falling for.
BTW there are already HD disks that hold 51 gigs of data and new disk
formats that holds more then 150 gigs.
Digitizing film, like digitizing music is still in it's infancy. Same
reason people still like Vinyl Lps over Cd's.
BTW I've seen the Sony Projectors, they are very nice, as projectors go,
but if you are talking about picture quality and not just a wide screen
effect, you are kidding yourself.
dc
*******
All right, sorry for the negativity.
Since I haven't watched the extras yet (I can't wait!) all I can talk
about is the film itself. The transfer is masterful, revealing things I've
never seen in all the times I've watched "2001" in theaters. Great
saturation, tremendous luminosity, and rich, deep blacks - never milky,
and I never saw any traveling mattes like those painfully apparent in
"Star Wars" transfers.
The level of detail is stunning - I repeatedly paused the disc to get up
and read the tiny little bits of text detail I've never been able to make
out before. I found some amazing things, including the occasional sly joke
hidden in plain sight.
Sometimes, the level of detail revealed flaws - I was astonished to find
that I could actually see strokes left from paint rollers spreading
reflective material on the front-projection screen in the "Dawn of Man"
sequence. Again, I paused the disc and checked to make sure I wasn't
seeing dust smears on my own screen!
I had the uncompressed PCM audio cranked, and it was fantastic. The
slit-scan sequence came alive, without a scratch or fleck of dust... the
best I've seen it since that first showing decades ago.
I know I'm sounding uncritical, like a real fanboy... well, guilty as
charged. Those responsible for this transfer really did a fantastic job
with the most challenging of material, and I can't wait to see the other
new releases. I sincerely hope the same artists can soon bring their
talents to "Barry Lyndon".
To SK's family, friends and associates, I offer my sincere
congratulations
on this milestone release of his work. I believe that while he would
certainly prefer his work be seen in a theater, he would be pleased that
individuals now have the opportunity to study his work at such a high
level of quality in their own homes.
And I'm sorry for blowing off steam earlier. After the experience I had
just enjoyed with HD, the level of misinformation really rubbed me the
wrong way.
Interesting discussion emphasizing form over content.
The "content" is how much money the companies will make by suckers wasting
money on these 'new" repackaged disks and how much less content the
consumers will have in their pocket.

2001 is a mindblowing film on regular def DVD on any good, newer widescreen
TV.

The form is "misinformation" and consumer brainwashing making people think
that "high definition" is actually "high definition" when in fact it's
actually down-converted and processed.

Warners is using down-conversion on their new releases, so without HDMI it's
really only 1/4 the resolution of true HD and true HD isn't even true HD,
which is theoretically only 50% higher resolution, then standard def dvds.
This of course is to prevent piracy of first generation digital copies HDMI
cables will protect against piracy for a while. So the disks have Image
restraint tokens imbedded.

I am a believer in DRM and HDMI but I am not a believer in HD/Bluray,
because formats could and will be, in the near future, so much better.

The other part of the story is the cable companies.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6295306.html

dc
Kelpzoidzl
2007-10-24 21:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
ichorwhip . Don't sweat it Randy. The same domineering, blabbering
lunatic you speak of is convinced that Kubrick dropped acid constantly and
was a closet Buddhist. Namecalling his stupid ass is a good thing because
he'd certainly do the same thing to you, and then the goodness will come of
being plonked by his insipid chucklehead. I really enjoyed your review, and
it's entirely in line with what I've seen and what I've read about the
Blu-ray format on the proper equipment. And your passion for the subject
shows; you don't have to be a "fanboy" to be excited about what's really
good. This is the kind of stuff this newsgroup ought to be about. Thanks!
"I'm damned if I can find anything wrong with it." i "piop" - Hide quoted
text -- Show quoted text -
More options Oct 23, 8:54 pm

Newsgroups: alt.movies.kubrick
From: ichorwhip <***@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:54:49 -0000
Local: Tues, Oct 23 2007 8:54 pm
Subject: Re: "2001" on Blu-ray - first impressions
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Oct 23, 9:04 pm, Randy Walters <***@worldpeace.com> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -


Ichywhip seen on Google groups:


Don't sweat it Randy. The same domineering, blabbering lunatic you
speak of is convinced that Kubrick dropped acid constantly and was a
closet Buddhist. Namecalling his stupid ass is a good thing because
he'd certainly do the same thing to you, and then the goodness will
come of being plonked by his insipid chucklehead.

I really enjoyed your review, and it's entirely in line with what I've
seen and what I've read about the Blu-ray format on the proper
equipment. And your passion for the subject shows; you don't have to
be a "fanboy" to be excited about what's really good. This is the
kind of stuff this newsgroup ought to be about. Thanks!

"I'm damned if I can find anything wrong with it."
i
"piop" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You are lying again Ichorwhippy, with the same Bill Riedian, type nonsense.

I never said SK "dropped acid constantly," nor did I ever say I had any
information he continued to practice buddhism beyond 1968, after he returned
to the UK.

I am also not 'convinced' Sk used LSD. it is just a fact, well known to us
at that time in a circle of people. It is not a matter of being
"convinced' as though it is a mere belief.

And although I wasn't in attendence at the exact moment SK recieved his
Mandala from the buddhist sect in question I know for a fact that he did,
because I arrived at that location shortly after he had left and was told
he had just left. As I explained once before it was a particular American
director and his daughter, who had sponsored him and the daughter who had
told me what had happened, in person. I always regretted I had been late
that day to the ceremony, to see SK receive his mandala along with other
people on that day.

There is also the printed interview with ACC where he does finally admit to
have experimented with LSD himself. The other interviews where either of
them attempt to deny it, are just natural. By that time it was illegal. So
try not to be so idiotic. You already know Sk was a very private person and
didn't want other's to know his business. It was quite common for well
known people to deny experiementing with LSD--because there were witchhunts.

And only complete ninnies would imagine that SK did not experiement with
LSD. It was well known at the time where that LSD came from and from who he
got it from. It was also legal at the time and being used by psychiatrists,
pscyhologists, philosophers and all kinds of creative people and brilliant
people. Your derangement in this matter is absurd. I have no idea how many
times he used LSD, but I know he used it at least once.

It's not that you have anything to add to the conversation about HD, it's
just you, interjecting your low grade troll comments. Im sure you are
going to run out and buy all the HD disks you can find. Wasn't that you on
another thread saying how Vinyl Lps are better? Of course they are.
Digital media is still primitve and has numerous drawbacks,

Are we going to buy every edition of SK films dished out by the money
grubbing companies every three years?

I am not trying to rain on Randy's parade, he is loving his new TV and just
watched 2001 on it, but for people with big DVD collections, it is silly to
jump in and repurchase all the HD titles. All that does is encourage the
lackluster formats which will be replaced by new formats in a few years.
I'll be interested in repurchasing my favorite films again, when they are
many times better in 5 years and I am not holding my breath for a decent
film these days.



dc
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Don Stockbauer
Post by Kelpzoidzl
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the Blu-ray
release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.
What a banquet. What a transfer. What a movie, what a master of cinema.
I know, you're thinking "what a crock", and I deserve it, I guess... I'm
just stunned, which is pretty remarkable for a film I've seen many dozens
of times.
Before I go on, I've got to get something out of the way... I just
reviewed the thread "The Stanley Kubrick Collection on HD", and one
person was glibly posting repeatedly as if he was an oracle on the subject
of HD...
I don't like to get into name calling, and ragging on other posters, but
when I read a statement like
"I'm not saying you can't see a difference, I am saying the difference
does not warrant the hype and expectation and if I want the best picture
of all I can watch a Blueray DVD on my computer with the 27" monitor."
I've just got to cry bullshit. What a load of tripe. This individual
clearly has no experience with a well calibrated high-end system, which
can truly rival the cinema experience - though of course, you still can't
beat that curved Cinerama screen I first experienced the movie on nearly
40 years ago.
To claim that you're going to get "the best picture of all" sitting
hunched in front of your computer monitor is just daft.
Well I'm glad you like it. But apparently you are content with the mediocre
improvement of the picture with HD. So now you can repurchase your entire
movie collection of favorite films again and watch it on your projector.
For me, I will wait till technology has gotten better before I am going to
rave about how wonderful it all is and repurchase my collection of films, so
you can pack them in boxes when the next formats come out. Granted the TV
are better then ever, but the HD/Bluray disc formats are just a way to get
us to waste money on a new Movie collection.
In reality HD and Bluray is already 6 year old technology. Its all about
storage size with only a small improvement in picture quality. The change
from 1080i to 1080p is just a processing effect from interlaced to
progressive. One can do fine, just using using the processing in an
Upconvert player and stick with existing DVD's.
Sure, if I ever buy any new films I will buy them in HD or Blueray, but for
my favorite films in my collection, I am not about to buy a new collection
and fall for the marketing scam. The Bluray vs. HD debate is also a
ridulous fanbois argument.
Here are some links
http://www.fragland.net/specials.php?id=206
http://www.contentagenda.com/articleXml/LN655677711.html
http://askville.amazon.com/upconvert-DVD-players-produce-picture-qual...
As since it's really all about processing power--video scaling and how much
can be stored on a disk ---of course the picture is going to look better on
a high end computer, then the CON-sumer chips in the players.
Try hooking up your projector to a high end computer and just watching a reg
def DVD of 2001. You won't be "hunching" over it and you certainly will not
see a much of a difference with a silly HD or Bluray disk and if you use a
Upconvert technology the same is true. These discs are all just interim
technology which some people are falling for.
BTW there are already HD disks that hold 51 gigs of data and new disk
formats that holds more then 150 gigs.
Digitizing film, like digitizing music is still in it's infancy. Same
reason people still like Vinyl Lps over Cd's.
BTW I've seen the Sony Projectors, they are very nice, as projectors go,
but if you are talking about picture quality and not just a wide screen
effect, you are kidding yourself.
dc
*******
All right, sorry for the negativity.
Since I haven't watched the extras yet (I can't wait!) all I can talk
about is the film itself. The transfer is masterful, revealing things I've
never seen in all the times I've watched "2001" in theaters. Great
saturation, tremendous luminosity, and rich, deep blacks - never milky,
and I never saw any traveling mattes like those painfully apparent in
"Star Wars" transfers.
The level of detail is stunning - I repeatedly paused the disc to get up
and read the tiny little bits of text detail I've never been able to make
out before. I found some amazing things, including the occasional sly joke
hidden in plain sight.
Sometimes, the level of detail revealed flaws - I was astonished to find
that I could actually see strokes left from paint rollers spreading
reflective material on the front-projection screen in the "Dawn of Man"
sequence. Again, I paused the disc and checked to make sure I wasn't
seeing dust smears on my own screen!
I had the uncompressed PCM audio cranked, and it was fantastic. The
slit-scan sequence came alive, without a scratch or fleck of dust... the
best I've seen it since that first showing decades ago.
I know I'm sounding uncritical, like a real fanboy... well, guilty as
charged. Those responsible for this transfer really did a fantastic job
with the most challenging of material, and I can't wait to see the other
new releases. I sincerely hope the same artists can soon bring their
talents to "Barry Lyndon".
To SK's family, friends and associates, I offer my sincere
congratulations
on this milestone release of his work. I believe that while he would
certainly prefer his work be seen in a theater, he would be pleased that
individuals now have the opportunity to study his work at such a high
level of quality in their own homes.
And I'm sorry for blowing off steam earlier. After the experience I had
just enjoyed with HD, the level of misinformation really rubbed me the
wrong way.
Interesting discussion emphasizing form over content.
The "content" is how much money the companies will make by suckers wasting
money on these 'new" repackaged disks and how much less content the
consumers will have in their pocket.
2001 is a mindblowing film on regular def DVD on any good, newer
widescreen TV.
The form is "misinformation" and consumer brainwashing making people think
that "high definition" is actually "high definition" when in fact it's
actually down-converted and processed.
Warners is using down-conversion on their new releases, so without HDMI
it's really only 1/4 the resolution of true HD and true HD isn't even true
HD, which is theoretically only 50% higher resolution, then standard def
dvds. This of course is to prevent piracy of first generation digital
copies HDMI cables will protect against piracy for a while. So the disks
have Image restraint tokens imbedded.
I am a believer in DRM and HDMI but I am not a believer in HD/Bluray,
because formats could and will be, in the near future, so much better.
The other part of the story is the cable companies.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6295306.html
dc
blue
2007-10-24 23:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ichorwhip
Don't sweat it Randy. The same domineering, blabbering lunatic you
speak of is convinced that Kubrick dropped acid constantly and was a
closet Buddhist. Namecalling his stupid ass is a good thing because
he'd certainly do the same thing to you, and then the goodness will
come of being plonked by his insipid chucklehead.
I really enjoyed your review, and it's entirely in line with what I've
seen and what I've read about the Blu-ray format on the proper
equipment. And your passion for the subject shows; you don't have to
be a "fanboy" to be excited about what's really good. This is the
kind of stuff this newsgroup ought to be about. Thanks!
"I'm damned if I can find anything wrong with it."
i
"piop" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are lying again Ichorwhippy, with the same Bill Riedian, type nonsense.
I never said SK "dropped acid constantly," nor did I ever say I had any
information he continued to practice buddhism beyond 1968, after he
returned to the UK.
I am also not 'convinced' Sk used LSD. it is just a fact, well known to
us at that time in a circle of people. It is not a matter of being
"convinced' as though it is a mere belief.
And although I wasn't in attendence at the exact moment SK recieved his
Mandala from the buddhist sect in question I know for a fact that he
did, because I arrived at that location shortly after he had left and
was told he had just left. As I explained once before it was a
particular American director and his daughter, who had sponsored him and
the daughter who had told me what had happened, in person. I always
regretted I had been late that day to the ceremony, to see SK receive
his mandala along with other people on that day.
There is also the printed interview with ACC where he does finally admit
to have experimented with LSD himself. The other interviews where
either of them attempt to deny it, are just natural. By that time it was
illegal. So try not to be so idiotic. You already know Sk was a very
private person and didn't want other's to know his business. It was
quite common for well known people to deny experiementing with
LSD--because there were witchhunts.
And only complete ninnies would imagine that SK did not experiement with
LSD. It was well known at the time where that LSD came from and from
who he got it from. It was also legal at the time and being used by
psychiatrists, pscyhologists, philosophers and all kinds of creative
people and brilliant people. Your derangement in this matter is
absurd. I have no idea how many times he used LSD, but I know he used
it at least once.
It's not that you have anything to add to the conversation about HD,
it's just you, interjecting your low grade troll comments. Im sure
you are going to run out and buy all the HD disks you can find. Wasn't
that you on another thread saying how Vinyl Lps are better? Of course
they are. Digital media is still primitve and has numerous drawbacks,
Are we going to buy every edition of SK films dished out by the money
grubbing companies every three years?
I am not trying to rain on Randy's parade, he is loving his new TV and
just watched 2001 on it, but for people with big DVD collections, it is
silly to jump in and repurchase all the HD titles. All that does is
encourage the lackluster formats which will be replaced by new formats
in a few years. I'll be interested in repurchasing my favorite films
again, when they are many times better in 5 years and I am not holding
my breath for a decent film these days.
dc
Now I'm not sure if you can read this dc as I was plonked by you a while
back so I'd like to ask somebody to reiterate this to him as well.

But as far as I remember you always stated that the mandala was what had
inspired the monolith in 2001, you always claimed that this was obvious
and actually called me a fool for questioning it. But you say that this
rare and not often viewed object (you couldn't even link to a picture of
it as I seem to remember) yet here you say that he recieved it in 1968.

This is of course after the premiere of 2001, so how exactly did it
inspire the monolith and how did he ingest the LSD (presumably part of
the ritual) to inspire the stargate sequence?

SK was making 2001 in England for the entire five years previously. You
have to remember that YOU WERE THERE just after the ceremony and unless
you are about to rewrite everything that you have ever said about SK
taking drugs I call major bullshit on you, or whoever told you the story.

There is a massive discrepency here. SK might well have taken part in
this ceremony as you said (maybe out of curiousity as he was an
incredibly curious fellow) but there is now absolutely no way that said
ceremony could have inspired the end of the film. You said that you knew
where the LSD came from, and how he got it but I'm not quite sure that
anybody would believe a story about somebody posting LSD to SK during
the shoot of 2001. Did they say they visited him on set or something?

I always assumed that you were talking about 1963-64 as the only facts
that you repeated were that you were part of that crowd at the time. So
unless you were witness to an earlier 'appearance' of SK (that you
haven't previously mentioned) there is no way this could have happened.
ichorwhip
2007-10-24 23:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Edited barely intelligible mess posted by AMK's resident fuckwit Dizzy
Post by Kelpzoidzl
You are lying again Ichorwhippy, with the same Bill Riedian, type nonsense.
Neah, obviously exaggerating a little you lying idiot. You are a
festering boil on the ass of AMK, and you can smoke a turd with your
evil twin in the humidore that others call an outhouse blumpkin-
style... puff!!!

Now what lie could you possibly tell to cover up for the fact that I
am unplonked again? You rotten bastard! How about another laundry
list of all the stupid equipment you say you have and how you can't
even manage to use any of it properly let alone post anything here of
value? No thanks stanky...
Post by Kelpzoidzl
I never said SK "dropped acid constantly," nor did I ever say I had any
information he continued to practice buddhism beyond 1968, after he returned
to the UK.
But you did say Kubrick took LSD and that he practiced Buddhism and
have said it ad nauseam, and as if it is an essential component of
Kubrick's 2001, and as if it ought to be common knowledge when it's
not. If I exaggerated what you said it's only because it doesn't
matter at all, you thoroughly discredited, empty-headed, drug-addled
moron. You seem to think you've got some hold and sway over what is
said here, and no one can even fart on AMK without you soon arriving
to huff it. I simply can't allow you to post your constant bullshit
unopposed.
Post by Kelpzoidzl
I am also not 'convinced' Sk used LSD. it is just a fact, well known to us
at that time in a circle of people. It is not a matter of being
"convinced' as though it is a mere belief.
<SNIP>

I'm not further addressing your persistent, unsubstantiated, demented
fantasies.
Post by Kelpzoidzl
It's not that you have anything to add to the conversation about HD, it's
just you, interjecting your low grade troll comments.
That's completely wrong. I am very interested in HD as a matter of
fact, and am currently shopping around for what I'll be satisfied
with. I don't buy anything too soon or without proper research when
it comes to this sort of thing. Just because you fancy yourself an
expert on HD etcetera (and every other thing) gives me perfect warrant
to oppose you and your faulty, ego-driven perceptions and arguments.
I have also looked at many players and monitors, and I'll briefly say
that Blu-ray on 1080p is the best picture I have seen in person as of
yet next to actual cinema and that includes high-end computer
monitors. Now are you going to tell me that I'm lying? That I have
seen better? That I should take acid and go look at players and TV's
and try not to set myself on fire? I don't want or need your help
Trailmix!
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Im sure you are
going to run out and buy all the HD disks you can find.
Wasn't that you on
another thread saying how Vinyl Lps are better? Of course they are.
Digital media is still primitve and has numerous drawbacks,
What is your fucking argument here nitwit? Are you trying to say that
I'm too cheap to buy HD because I like LP's? Or are you trying to
equate phonograph audio with filmed video? Or both? Nevermind, I
don't want to know.
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Are we going to buy every edition of SK films dished out by the money
grubbing companies every three years?
I'm going to buy what I want, when I want, and you aren't going to
have any say in it.
Post by Kelpzoidzl
I am not trying to rain on Randy's parade,
Then shut up! Why do you think he or anybody else cares to hear what
you have to say when you already proven yourself aberrant and useless
time and time again?
Post by Kelpzoidzl
he is loving his new TV and just
watched 2001 on it, but for people with big DVD collections, it is silly to
jump in and repurchase all the HD titles.
Who said to do that? Did I miss something?

Oh fuck it! Why not just permanently pseudo-plonk me and everybody
else here and hold all further "discussions" with yourself?

"Fuck you cowboy! Fuck all you assholes!"
i
"piop"
darinb
2007-10-25 00:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
First, it looks like the group hasn't changed in personalities and
tone in a long time. It is, ah, interesting to visit again.

Second, statements like the one above...
Post by Kelpzoidzl
The best way to really understand just how digital has a long way to go
before it reaches the level of analog/optical, is to study the resolution of
a film camera vs. the best digital camera. You would need a 500 megapixel
digital still camera to have the same resolution as a 4x5 Hasselblad and
even then if you blow the image up into very large size the greater loss on
the digital will be obvious.
...sort of sum up the value of this discussion. (If you were surprised
by this claim--by a self-proclaimed imaging system expert--about a 500
megapixel still camera equaling a 4x5 Hasselblad you weren't half as
surprised as the engineers and employees of Hasselblad itself! They're
checking their historical records right now trying to locate that 4x5
Hasselblad.

Third, on the assumption that this thread really is about the films of
Kubrick, and even about the new DVDs, can anyone tell me if the seams
of the reflective panels are visible in the new version? I can see
them in the earlier, remastered version and it is sort of a bummer.

Thanks,

--Darin
Kelpzoidzl
2007-10-25 00:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by darinb
First, it looks like the group hasn't changed in personalities and
tone in a long time. It is, ah, interesting to visit again.
Second, statements like the one above...
Post by Kelpzoidzl
The best way to really understand just how digital has a long way to go
before it reaches the level of analog/optical, is to study the resolution of
a film camera vs. the best digital camera. You would need a 500 megapixel
digital still camera to have the same resolution as a 4x5 Hasselblad and
even then if you blow the image up into very large size the greater loss on
the digital will be obvious.
...sort of sum up the value of this discussion. (If you were surprised
by this claim--by a self-proclaimed imaging system expert--about a 500
megapixel still camera equaling a 4x5 Hasselblad you weren't half as
surprised as the engineers and employees of Hasselblad itself! They're
checking their historical records right now trying to locate that 4x5
Hasselblad.
Ugh.

Amazing. Do a search for "4x5 Hasselblad" Do a search for "500 megapixels"

I think that line from Aliens would be appropriate, when Ripley reflects on
the state of people after she wakes up in her future.

dc
darinb
2007-10-25 02:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by darinb
First, it looks like the group hasn't changed in personalities and
tone in a long time. It is, ah, interesting to visit again.
Second, statements like the one above...
Post by Kelpzoidzl
The best way to really understand just how digital has a long way to go
before it reaches the level of analog/optical, is to study the resolution of
a film camera vs. the best digital camera. You would need a 500 megapixel
digital still camera to have the same resolution as a 4x5 Hasselblad and
even then if you blow the image up into very large size the greater loss on
the digital will be obvious.
...sort of sum up the value of this discussion. (If you were surprised
by this claim--by a self-proclaimed imaging system expert--about a 500
megapixel still camera equaling a 4x5 Hasselblad you weren't half as
surprised as the engineers and employees of Hasselblad itself! They're
checking their historical records right now trying to locate that 4x5
Hasselblad.
Ugh.
Amazing. Do a search for "4x5 Hasselblad" Do a search for "500 megapixels"
I think that line from Aliens would be appropriate, when Ripley reflects on
the state of people after she wakes up in her future.
dc
O.K., I did a search. Didn't see any "4x5 Hasselblad." Did you find
one?

--Darin (a photographer who actually owned a 'blad in his film days...)
blue
2007-10-25 09:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by darinb
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by darinb
First, it looks like the group hasn't changed in personalities and
tone in a long time. It is, ah, interesting to visit again.
Second, statements like the one above...
Post by Kelpzoidzl
The best way to really understand just how digital has a long way to go
before it reaches the level of analog/optical, is to study the resolution of
a film camera vs. the best digital camera. You would need a 500 megapixel
digital still camera to have the same resolution as a 4x5 Hasselblad and
even then if you blow the image up into very large size the greater loss on
the digital will be obvious.
...sort of sum up the value of this discussion. (If you were surprised
by this claim--by a self-proclaimed imaging system expert--about a 500
megapixel still camera equaling a 4x5 Hasselblad you weren't half as
surprised as the engineers and employees of Hasselblad itself! They're
checking their historical records right now trying to locate that 4x5
Hasselblad.
Ugh.
Amazing. Do a search for "4x5 Hasselblad" Do a search for "500 megapixels"
I think that line from Aliens would be appropriate, when Ripley reflects on
the state of people after she wakes up in her future.
dc
O.K., I did a search. Didn't see any "4x5 Hasselblad." Did you find
one?
--Darin (a photographer who actually owned a 'blad in his film days...)
Kelps likes to make up words and 'facts', soon he will start insulting
you in a passive agressive way for questioning his belief in a 4x5 and
eventually he will plonk you as you get more and more annoyed at him for
not grasping reality. I did the search and came up empty too. I don't
think he understands punctuation.
Kelpzoidzl
2007-10-26 22:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I was referring to the Apollo Moon Camera with 70mm film. The 500 megapixel
number I posted, came from a website which called it a 4x5 hasselblad by
mistake and I grabbed thw quote. I forgot about the illusive 4x6
Hasselblad joke. A number of sites talking about the Apollo cameras call
the space camera a 4x5. At any rate estimates I see say it would take as
much as a 900 megapixel digital camera to equal a piece of 70mm film. My
point had nothing to do with Hasselblad --I used it because of its name
There are all kinds of 4x5 digital film backs for the Hasslblad.

dc
Post by darinb
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by darinb
First, it looks like the group hasn't changed in personalities and
tone in a long time. It is, ah, interesting to visit again.
Second, statements like the one above...
Post by Kelpzoidzl
The best way to really understand just how digital has a long way to go
before it reaches the level of analog/optical, is to study the
resolution
of
a film camera vs. the best digital camera. You would need a 500 megapixel
digital still camera to have the same resolution as a 4x5 Hasselblad and
even then if you blow the image up into very large size the greater
loss
on
the digital will be obvious.
...sort of sum up the value of this discussion. (If you were surprised
by this claim--by a self-proclaimed imaging system expert--about a 500
megapixel still camera equaling a 4x5 Hasselblad you weren't half as
surprised as the engineers and employees of Hasselblad itself! They're
checking their historical records right now trying to locate that 4x5
Hasselblad.
Ugh.
Amazing. Do a search for "4x5 Hasselblad" Do a search for "500 megapixels"
I think that line from Aliens would be appropriate, when Ripley reflects on
the state of people after she wakes up in her future.
dc
O.K., I did a search. Didn't see any "4x5 Hasselblad." Did you find
one?
--Darin (a photographer who actually owned a 'blad in his film days...)
darinb
2007-11-05 22:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm afraid you continue to give the impression that you have no idea
what you are talking about.

I will try to help.

The "Apollo Moon Camera" you refer to is simply a modified Hasselblad.
They used 500c's at first and then the motorized 500EL's later. All
Hasselblads use "120" sized-film as their standard back, though they
can be fitted with other (smaller) sized backs such as "645,"
Superslide, etc., or a double-length version of 120 called "220."
There were also larger capacity backs for specialized use. The image
area, if I recall correctly, is 56x56mm. 70mm film is just the
perforated version of 120 film (from a still photographer's point of
view) and was used in extra-large capacity backs. But, again, the
image area is still 56x56mm.

I believe that NASA purchased a thin-version film to allow more
exposures per back (to decrease the number of back changes) but I
don't know the details.

There is a photo of Kubrick and his Hasselblad. I forget which model
it is.

A 4x5 camera, by contrast, is what some people call an "old fashioned"
camera with belows and a dark cloth that goes over your head--that
sort of thing. Almost always used on a tripod due to their size,
weight, and slowness of use. They are actually very common in the
commercial and fine-art photography worlds to this day, and there are
probably more manufacturers of these cameras than ever before.

Their film size is 4x5 inches. They are generally called "View
cameras"--Hasselblads are "medium format cameras." The film they use
is usually loaded, one sheet at a time, in special holders.

Ansel Adams used this sort of camera (often a bigger 8x10) for many of
his famous landscapes. (He used all sorts of cameras other than
8x10/4x5, by the way.)

You say there "are all kinds of 4x5 digital film backs for the
Hasslblad." There's actually only a small handful, and none of them
produce a 4x5 image. I think the point of such backs is to use the
Hasselblad-sized digital back on a 4x5 view camera. This doesn't do
anything for you in terms of image size but it does allow you to take
advantage of the image control techniques (such as swings, tilts, etc--
where you move the film plane, lens, and/or subject plane out or
parallel) available on view cameras and very important in commercial
work. Sort of like having a Hasselblad with view camera's movements.

But it has no relationship to resolution.

Finally, your claim that it would take a 900 megapixel camera to equal
a 4x5. If you check the photographer forums nowadays you will find a
lot of discussion that leads one to think that 40 to 50 megapixels
will do it. Certainly nothing like 900 megapixels.

I've ignored a number of issues and have written from memory rather
than looking up sources but I hope this gets you on the right path.

--Darin
Post by Kelpzoidzl
I was referring to the Apollo Moon Camera with 70mm film. The 500 megapixel
number I posted, came from a website which called it a 4x5 hasselblad by
mistake and I grabbed thw quote. I forgot about the illusive 4x6
Hasselblad joke. A number of sites talking about the Apollo cameras call
the space camera a 4x5. At any rate estimates I see say it would take as
much as a 900 megapixel digital camera to equal a piece of 70mm film. My
point had nothing to do with Hasselblad --I used it because of its name
There are all kinds of 4x5 digital film backs for the Hasslblad.
dc
Post by darinb
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by darinb
First, it looks like the group hasn't changed in personalities and
tone in a long time. It is, ah, interesting to visit again.
Second, statements like the one above...
Post by Kelpzoidzl
The best way to really understand just how digital has a long way to go
before it reaches the level of analog/optical, is to study the
resolution
of
a film camera vs. the best digital camera. You would need a 500 megapixel
digital still camera to have the same resolution as a 4x5 Hasselblad and
even then if you blow the image up into very large size the greater
loss
on
the digital will be obvious.
...sort of sum up the value of this discussion. (If you were surprised
by this claim--by a self-proclaimed imaging system expert--about a 500
megapixel still camera equaling a 4x5 Hasselblad you weren't half as
surprised as the engineers and employees of Hasselblad itself! They're
checking their historical records right now trying to locate that 4x5
Hasselblad.
Ugh.
Amazing. Do a search for "4x5 Hasselblad" Do a search for "500 megapixels"
I think that line from Aliens would be appropriate, when Ripley reflects on
the state of people after she wakes up in her future.
dc
O.K., I did a search. Didn't see any "4x5 Hasselblad." Did you find
one?
--Darin (a photographer who actually owned a 'blad in his film days...)
Kelpzoidzl
2007-11-06 07:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by darinb
I'm afraid you continue to give the impression that you have no idea
what you are talking about.
I will try to help.
The "Apollo Moon Camera" you refer to is simply a modified Hasselblad.
They used 500c's at first and then the motorized 500EL's later. All
Hasselblads use "120" sized-film as their standard back, though they
can be fitted with other (smaller) sized backs such as "645,"
Superslide, etc., or a double-length version of 120 called "220."
There were also larger capacity backs for specialized use. The image
area, if I recall correctly, is 56x56mm. 70mm film is just the
perforated version of 120 film (from a still photographer's point of
view) and was used in extra-large capacity backs. But, again, the
image area is still 56x56mm.
I believe that NASA purchased a thin-version film to allow more
exposures per back (to decrease the number of back changes) but I
don't know the details.
There is a photo of Kubrick and his Hasselblad. I forget which model
it is.
A 4x5 camera, by contrast, is what some people call an "old fashioned"
camera with belows and a dark cloth that goes over your head--that
sort of thing. Almost always used on a tripod due to their size,
weight, and slowness of use. They are actually very common in the
commercial and fine-art photography worlds to this day, and there are
probably more manufacturers of these cameras than ever before.
Their film size is 4x5 inches. They are generally called "View
cameras"--Hasselblads are "medium format cameras." The film they use
is usually loaded, one sheet at a time, in special holders.
Ansel Adams used this sort of camera (often a bigger 8x10) for many of
his famous landscapes. (He used all sorts of cameras other than
8x10/4x5, by the way.)
You say there "are all kinds of 4x5 digital film backs for the
Hasslblad." There's actually only a small handful, and none of them
produce a 4x5 image. I think the point of such backs is to use the
Hasselblad-sized digital back on a 4x5 view camera. This doesn't do
anything for you in terms of image size but it does allow you to take
advantage of the image control techniques (such as swings, tilts, etc--
where you move the film plane, lens, and/or subject plane out or
parallel) available on view cameras and very important in commercial
work. Sort of like having a Hasselblad with view camera's movements.
But it has no relationship to resolution.
Finally, your claim that it would take a 900 megapixel camera to equal
a 4x5. If you check the photographer forums nowadays you will find a
lot of discussion that leads one to think that 40 to 50 megapixels
will do it. Certainly nothing like 900 megapixels.
I've ignored a number of issues and have written from memory rather
than looking up sources but I hope this gets you on the right path.
--Darin
Post by Kelpzoidzl
I was referring to the Apollo Moon Camera with 70mm film. The 500 megapixel
number I posted, came from a website which called it a 4x5 hasselblad by
mistake and I grabbed thw quote. I forgot about the illusive 4x6
Hasselblad joke. A number of sites talking about the Apollo cameras call
the space camera a 4x5. At any rate estimates I see say it would take as
much as a 900 megapixel digital camera to equal a piece of 70mm film.
My
point had nothing to do with Hasselblad --I used it because of its name
There are all kinds of 4x5 digital film backs for the Hasslblad.
dc
Post by darinb
First, it looks like the group hasn't changed in personalities and
tone in a long time. It is, ah, interesting to visit again.
Second, statements like the one above...
Post by Kelpzoidzl
The best way to really understand just how digital has a long way to go
before it reaches the level of analog/optical, is to study the
resolution
of
a film camera vs. the best digital camera. You would need a 500 megapixel
digital still camera to have the same resolution as a 4x5
Hasselblad
and
even then if you blow the image up into very large size the greater
loss
on
the digital will be obvious.
...sort of sum up the value of this discussion. (If you were surprised
by this claim--by a self-proclaimed imaging system expert--about a 500
megapixel still camera equaling a 4x5 Hasselblad you weren't half as
surprised as the engineers and employees of Hasselblad itself! They're
checking their historical records right now trying to locate that 4x5
Hasselblad.
Ugh.
You are mistaken about the 500-900 Pixels. I posted sufficent web resources
to back that up. You didn't read them. Otherwise I've already explained
that I was referring to the space camera.

No matter what you say, digital has a long way to go before it can match up
with film. And my point was regarding, whether this HDDVD scam was worth
buying into when there are much better formats waiting in the wings they
should be concentrating on.


dc
darinb
2007-11-06 21:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I get the impression you are one of those people who consider it
impossible to admit when they are wrong. (I've always found that the
smartest people I've ever met readily admit to error...)

But for anyone else interested, here is a short history of the
Hasselblad cameras in space:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/moon/1.htm

By the way, the camera Kubrick seemed to favor in his Look Magazine
days was a Rolleiflex, if I'm not mistaken--same frame size, same
resolution as the Hasselblad (same as the "space camera"). Same, same,
same!

Finally, as for film vs digital comparisons, there are many factors
that go into any such comparison--many of them often are not included
in tests that get put on the Internet by "experts."

For example, you'll see tests done with cameras smaller than 4x5 (say,
a Hasselblad) and then they'll extrapolate up to 4x5. But the films
for 4x5 are generally thicker than for 120 or 35mm--it has an effect
on gain formation and probably resolution.

Another oft-not considered factor is the test chart. Most resolution
tests are done with a black and white test chart. That's good for
film--a film "grain" is either there or not there. But not as good for
digital. It could have recorded a lot more information on that one
pixel--color information. It would take a lot of grains to equal to
recording potential of that one pixel.

Finally, to your larger point about scams and better formats waiting
in the wings: I have a 60-inch Sony screen. I can see the difference
between regular DVD and the hi-def. But my wife can't. My kids can't.
Neighbors and friends can't. Side-by-side I think they would be able
to see. But it is no where near the *visual* jump going from DVD to hi-
def as it was from VHS to DVD. It will be a long time before we see
the next jump, I think.

--Darin
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by darinb
I'm afraid you continue to give the impression that you have no idea
what you are talking about.
I will try to help.
The "Apollo Moon Camera" you refer to is simply a modified Hasselblad.
They used 500c's at first and then the motorized 500EL's later. All
Hasselblads use "120" sized-film as their standard back, though they
can be fitted with other (smaller) sized backs such as "645,"
Superslide, etc., or a double-length version of 120 called "220."
There were also larger capacity backs for specialized use. The image
area, if I recall correctly, is 56x56mm. 70mm film is just the
perforated version of 120 film (from a still photographer's point of
view) and was used in extra-large capacity backs. But, again, the
image area is still 56x56mm.
I believe that NASA purchased a thin-version film to allow more
exposures per back (to decrease the number of back changes) but I
don't know the details.
There is a photo of Kubrick and his Hasselblad. I forget which model
it is.
A 4x5 camera, by contrast, is what some people call an "old fashioned"
camera with belows and a dark cloth that goes over your head--that
sort of thing. Almost always used on a tripod due to their size,
weight, and slowness of use. They are actually very common in the
commercial and fine-art photography worlds to this day, and there are
probably more manufacturers of these cameras than ever before.
Their film size is 4x5 inches. They are generally called "View
cameras"--Hasselblads are "medium format cameras." The film they use
is usually loaded, one sheet at a time, in special holders.
Ansel Adams used this sort of camera (often a bigger 8x10) for many of
his famous landscapes. (He used all sorts of cameras other than
8x10/4x5, by the way.)
You say there "are all kinds of 4x5 digital film backs for the
Hasslblad." There's actually only a small handful, and none of them
produce a 4x5 image. I think the point of such backs is to use the
Hasselblad-sized digital back on a 4x5 view camera. This doesn't do
anything for you in terms of image size but it does allow you to take
advantage of the image control techniques (such as swings, tilts, etc--
where you move the film plane, lens, and/or subject plane out or
parallel) available on view cameras and very important in commercial
work. Sort of like having a Hasselblad with view camera's movements.
But it has no relationship to resolution.
Finally, your claim that it would take a 900 megapixel camera to equal
a 4x5. If you check the photographer forums nowadays you will find a
lot of discussion that leads one to think that 40 to 50 megapixels
will do it. Certainly nothing like 900 megapixels.
I've ignored a number of issues and have written from memory rather
than looking up sources but I hope this gets you on the right path.
--Darin
Post by Kelpzoidzl
I was referring to the Apollo Moon Camera with 70mm film. The 500 megapixel
number I posted, came from a website which called it a 4x5 hasselblad by
mistake and I grabbed thw quote. I forgot about the illusive 4x6
Hasselblad joke. A number of sites talking about the Apollo cameras call
the space camera a 4x5. At any rate estimates I see say it would take as
much as a 900 megapixel digital camera to equal a piece of 70mm film.
My
point had nothing to do with Hasselblad --I used it because of its name
There are all kinds of 4x5 digital film backs for the Hasslblad.
dc
Post by darinb
First, it looks like the group hasn't changed in personalities and
tone in a long time. It is, ah, interesting to visit again.
Second, statements like the one above...
Post by Kelpzoidzl
The best way to really understand just how digital has a long way to go
before it reaches the level of analog/optical, is to study the
resolution
of
a film camera vs. the best digital camera. You would need a 500 megapixel
digital still camera to have the same resolution as a 4x5
Hasselblad
and
even then if you blow the image up into very large size the greater
loss
on
the digital will be obvious.
...sort of sum up the value of this discussion. (If you were surprised
by this claim--by a self-proclaimed imaging system expert--about a 500
megapixel still camera equaling a 4x5 Hasselblad you weren't half as
surprised as the engineers and employees of Hasselblad itself! They're
checking their historical records right now trying to locate that 4x5
Hasselblad.
Ugh.
You are mistaken about the 500-900 Pixels. I posted sufficent web resources
to back that up. You didn't read them. Otherwise I've already explained
that I was referring to the space camera.
No matter what you say, digital has a long way to go before it can match up
with film. And my point was regarding, whether this HDDVD scam was worth
buying into when there are much better formats waiting in the wings they
should be concentrating on.
dc
Kelpzoidzl
2007-11-06 22:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by darinb
I get the impression you are one of those people who consider it
impossible to admit when they are wrong. (I've always found that the
smartest people I've ever met readily admit to error...)
Just check the posts. I already said it was an error I picked up off a
website about the 4x5 hasselblad. A number of storys on the Space Camera
included the phrase. "4x5 Hasselblad." I posted links that explained why
the 500-900 Megapixel number is comparable to the 70mm film in the space
camera.

Everything else I said is correct and the point should be clear as a bell.
There are multiple reasons why digitial images in general or, HD dvd and
bluray is no where near film and why it is dumb to replace a movie
collection till future generations. It's not that the technology isn't yet
discovered, it's that the Companies choose to drag their feet and dumb it
down and use sales hype to tell you how wonderful it all is and why you
should waste your money on their interim product. Ill vote with my dollars.

dc
blue
2007-11-07 00:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by darinb
I get the impression you are one of those people who consider it
impossible to admit when they are wrong. (I've always found that the
smartest people I've ever met readily admit to error...)
Just check the posts. I already said it was an error I picked up off a
website about the 4x5 hasselblad. A number of storys on the Space Camera
included the phrase. "4x5 Hasselblad." I posted links that explained
why the 500-900 Megapixel number is comparable to the 70mm film in the
space camera.
Everything else I said is correct and the point should be clear as a
bell. There are multiple reasons why digitial images in general or, HD
dvd and bluray is no where near film and why it is dumb to replace a
movie collection till future generations. It's not that the technology
isn't yet discovered, it's that the Companies choose to drag their feet
and dumb it down and use sales hype to tell you how wonderful it all is
and why you should waste your money on their interim product. Ill vote
with my dollars.
dc
You might be waiting a while. When I first logged on to the 'new'
internet in 1993 I was watching full screen streaming video - I can't
remember the monitor specs but they were pretty low by today's
standards. As far as my memory goes it was about as good as youtube, a
bit blocky but in real time.

I asked somebody a couple of years later about this and he told me that
a lot of software gets bought up instantly by large companies and buried
- much like 'the car that didn't rust' was bought up by Ford.

You're right that big companies control the flow of development, until
somebody comes along and outpaces them. Like what has happened with
mp3's and movies on torrent sites, then they don't know what to do.
blue
2007-10-25 09:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ichorwhip
Don't sweat it Randy. The same domineering, blabbering lunatic you
speak of is convinced that Kubrick dropped acid constantly and was a
closet Buddhist. Namecalling his stupid ass is a good thing because
he'd certainly do the same thing to you, and then the goodness will
come of being plonked by his insipid chucklehead.
I really enjoyed your review, and it's entirely in line with what I've
seen and what I've read about the Blu-ray format on the proper
equipment. And your passion for the subject shows; you don't have to
be a "fanboy" to be excited about what's really good. This is the
kind of stuff this newsgroup ought to be about. Thanks!
"I'm damned if I can find anything wrong with it."
i
"piop" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are lying again Ichorwhippy, with the same Bill Riedian, type nonsense.
I never said SK "dropped acid constantly," nor did I ever say I had
any information he continued to practice buddhism beyond 1968, after he
returned to the UK.
Post by ichorwhip
I am also not 'convinced' Sk used LSD. it is just a fact, well known
to us at that time in a circle of people. It is not a matter of being
"convinced' as though it is a mere belief.
Post by ichorwhip
And although I wasn't in attendence at the exact moment SK recieved
his Mandala from the buddhist sect in question I know for a fact that he
did, because I arrived at that location shortly after he had left and
was told he had just left. As I explained once before it was a
particular American director and his daughter, who had sponsored him and
the daughter who had told me what had happened, in person. I always
regretted I had been late that day to the ceremony, to see SK receive
his mandala along with other people on that day.
Post by ichorwhip
There is also the printed interview with ACC where he does finally
admit to have experimented with LSD himself. The other interviews
where either of them attempt to deny it, are just natural. By that time
it was illegal. So try not to be so idiotic. You already know Sk was a
very private person and didn't want other's to know his business. It
was quite common for well known people to deny experiementing with
LSD--because there were witchhunts.
Post by ichorwhip
And only complete ninnies would imagine that SK did not experiement
with LSD. It was well known at the time where that LSD came from and
from who he got it from. It was also legal at the time and being used
by psychiatrists, pscyhologists, philosophers and all kinds of creative
people and brilliant people. Your derangement in this matter is absurd.
I have no idea how many times he used LSD, but I know he used it at
least once.
Post by ichorwhip
It's not that you have anything to add to the conversation about HD,
it's just you, interjecting your low grade troll comments. Im sure
you are going to run out and buy all the HD disks you can find. Wasn't
that you on another thread saying how Vinyl Lps are better? Of course
they are. Digital media is still primitve and has numerous drawbacks,
Post by ichorwhip
Are we going to buy every edition of SK films dished out by the money
grubbing companies every three years?
Post by ichorwhip
I am not trying to rain on Randy's parade, he is loving his new TV
and just watched 2001 on it, but for people with big DVD collections, it
is silly to jump in and repurchase all the HD titles. All that does is
encourage the lackluster formats which will be replaced by new formats
in a few years. I'll be interested in repurchasing my favorite films
again, when they are many times better in 5 years and I am not holding
my breath for a decent film these days.
Post by ichorwhip
dc
Now I'm not sure if you can read this dc as I was plonked by you a while
back so I'd like to ask somebody to reiterate this to him as well.

But as far as I remember you always stated that the mandala was what had
inspired the monolith in 2001, you always claimed that this was obvious
and actually called me a fool for questioning it. But you say that this
rare and not often viewed object (you couldn't even link to a picture of
it as I seem to remember) yet here you say that he recieved it in 1968.

This is of course after the premiere of 2001, so how exactly did it
inspire the monolith and how did he ingest the LSD (presumably part of
the ritual) to inspire the stargate sequence?

SK was making 2001 in England for the entire five years previously. You
have to remember that YOU WERE THERE just after the ceremony and unless
you are about to rewrite everything that you have ever said about SK
taking drugs I call major bullshit on you, or whoever told you the story.

There is a massive discrepency here. SK might well have taken part in
this ceremony as you said (maybe out of curiousity as he was an
incredibly curious fellow) but there is now absolutely no way that said
ceremony could have inspired the end of the film. You said that you knew
where the LSD came from, and how he got it but I'm not quite sure that
anybody would believe a story about somebody posting LSD to SK during
the shoot of 2001. Did they say they visited him on set or something?

I always assumed that you were talking about 1963-64 as the only facts
that you repeated were that you were part of that crowd at the time. So
unless you were witness to an earlier 'appearance' of SK (that you
haven't previously mentioned) there is no way this could have happened.
M***@gmail.com
2007-10-27 04:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kelpzoidzl
2007-10-27 11:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Too much LSD, DVD, SK and HD, ACC and TV for dc.


No, too much nagging ninnys on AMK that love to argue about how many Bagels
dance on the tip of a pinhead.

The people I was talking to about the HD have no money anyway. I was trying
to do them a favor so they wouldnt waste what little they have on useless
JUNK that will be extinct in a few years.

And I havent had LSD for 40 years, but it is far and away the greatest
discovery of science so far in modern times.

dc
Warchild
2007-10-27 15:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Too much LSD, DVD, SK and HD, ACC and TV for dc.
No, too much nagging ninnys on AMK that love to argue about how many Bagels
dance on the tip of a pinhead.
The people I was talking to about the HD have no money anyway. I was trying
to do them a favor so they wouldnt waste what little they have on useless
JUNK that will be extinct in a few years.
And I havent had LSD for 40 years, but it is far and away the greatest
discovery of science so far in modern times.
dc
Do you have an actual, rational, argument to make? I have had to
replace my DVD player because it was flaking out. It was a very nice
Mitsubishi. I choose a Toshiba HD 2. I can play all my existing DVDs
on it. I switched my Netflix preferences to send me HD versions when
available. So its a win-win for me.

I will be replacing my Kubrick films with HD versions.

You got a problem with that?
Kelpzoidzl
2007-10-27 23:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Too much LSD, DVD, SK and HD, ACC and TV for dc.
No, too much nagging ninnys on AMK that love to argue about how many Bagels
dance on the tip of a pinhead.
The people I was talking to about the HD have no money anyway. I was trying
to do them a favor so they wouldnt waste what little they have on useless
JUNK that will be extinct in a few years.
And I havent had LSD for 40 years, but it is far and away the greatest
discovery of science so far in modern times.
dc
Do you have an actual, rational, argument to make? I have had to
replace my DVD player because it was flaking out. It was a very nice
Mitsubishi. I choose a Toshiba HD 2. I can play all my existing DVDs
on it. I switched my Netflix preferences to send me HD versions when
available. So its a win-win for me.
I will be replacing my Kubrick films with HD versions.
You got a problem with that?
As I said in my previous posts, if your DVD player dies then of course get
an HD. But replacing a big DVD collection of your favorite films, I think
is a silly waste and to me I think it is a good thing not to pay money to
the companies when in fact they are not doing all they can to produce a far
better product. No way am I going to replace my movie collection yet again,
until it is really worth it. They are fine as they are until products are
much better. thats my opinion.

dc
Unmutual
2007-11-03 21:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Too much LSD, DVD, SK and HD, ACC and TV for dc.
No, too much nagging ninnys on AMK that love to argue about how many Bagels
dance on the tip of a pinhead.
The people I was talking to about the HD have no money anyway. I was trying
to do them a favor so they wouldnt waste what little they have on useless
JUNK that will be extinct in a few years.
And I havent had LSD for 40 years, but it is far and away the greatest
discovery of science so far in modern times.
dc
Do you have an actual, rational, argument to make? I have had to
replace my DVD player because it was flaking out. It was a very nice
Mitsubishi. I choose a Toshiba HD 2. I can play all my existing DVDs
on it. I switched my Netflix preferences to send me HD versions when
available. So its a win-win for me.
I will be replacing my Kubrick films with HD versions.
You got a problem with that?
As I said in my previous posts, if your DVD player dies then of course
get an HD. But replacing a big DVD collection of your favorite films, I
think is a silly waste and to me I think it is a good thing not to pay
money to the companies when in fact they are not doing all they can to
produce a far better product. No way am I going to replace my movie
collection yet again, until it is really worth it. They are fine as
they are until products are much better. thats my opinion.
dc
Ah well.. what I do with my money is none of your business.
Kelpzoidzl
2007-11-04 03:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Too much LSD, DVD, SK and HD, ACC and TV for dc.
No, too much nagging ninnys on AMK that love to argue about how many Bagels
dance on the tip of a pinhead.
The people I was talking to about the HD have no money anyway. I was trying
to do them a favor so they wouldnt waste what little they have on useless
JUNK that will be extinct in a few years.
And I havent had LSD for 40 years, but it is far and away the greatest
discovery of science so far in modern times.
dc
Do you have an actual, rational, argument to make? I have had to
replace my DVD player because it was flaking out. It was a very nice
Mitsubishi. I choose a Toshiba HD 2. I can play all my existing DVDs
on it. I switched my Netflix preferences to send me HD versions when
available. So its a win-win for me.
I will be replacing my Kubrick films with HD versions.
You got a problem with that?
As I said in my previous posts, if your DVD player dies then of course
get an HD. But replacing a big DVD collection of your favorite films, I
think is a silly waste and to me I think it is a good thing not to pay
money to the companies when in fact they are not doing all they can to
produce a far better product. No way am I going to replace my movie
collection yet again, until it is really worth it. They are fine as they
are until products are much better. thats my opinion.
dc
Ah well.. what I do with my money is none of your business.
Of course not...pay the devil his dues if you like. I'll vote no with my
dollars.


dc
Warchild
2007-11-04 04:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Too much LSD, DVD, SK and HD, ACC and TV for dc.
No, too much nagging ninnys on AMK that love to argue about how many Bagels
dance on the tip of a pinhead.
The people I was talking to about the HD have no money anyway. I was trying
to do them a favor so they wouldnt waste what little they have on useless
JUNK that will be extinct in a few years.
And I havent had LSD for 40 years, but it is far and away the greatest
discovery of science so far in modern times.
dc
Do you have an actual, rational, argument to make? I have had to
replace my DVD player because it was flaking out. It was a very nice
Mitsubishi. I choose a Toshiba HD 2. I can play all my existing DVDs
on it. I switched my Netflix preferences to send me HD versions when
available. So its a win-win for me.
I will be replacing my Kubrick films with HD versions.
You got a problem with that?
As I said in my previous posts, if your DVD player dies then of course
get an HD. But replacing a big DVD collection of your favorite films, I
think is a silly waste and to me I think it is a good thing not to pay
money to the companies when in fact they are not doing all they can to
produce a far better product. No way am I going to replace my movie
collection yet again, until it is really worth it. They are fine as they
are until products are much better. thats my opinion.
dc
Ah well.. what I do with my money is none of your business.
Of course not...pay the devil his dues if you like. I'll vote no with my
dollars.
dc
your shit is just tired and pointless
Kelpzoidzl
2007-11-04 08:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Too much LSD, DVD, SK and HD, ACC and TV for dc.
No, too much nagging ninnys on AMK that love to argue about how many Bagels
dance on the tip of a pinhead.
The people I was talking to about the HD have no money anyway. I
was
trying
to do them a favor so they wouldnt waste what little they have on useless
JUNK that will be extinct in a few years.
And I havent had LSD for 40 years, but it is far and away the greatest
discovery of science so far in modern times.
dc
Do you have an actual, rational, argument to make? I have had to
replace my DVD player because it was flaking out. It was a very nice
Mitsubishi. I choose a Toshiba HD 2. I can play all my existing DVDs
on it. I switched my Netflix preferences to send me HD versions when
available. So its a win-win for me.
I will be replacing my Kubrick films with HD versions.
You got a problem with that?
As I said in my previous posts, if your DVD player dies then of course
get an HD. But replacing a big DVD collection of your favorite films, I
think is a silly waste and to me I think it is a good thing not to pay
money to the companies when in fact they are not doing all they can to
produce a far better product. No way am I going to replace my movie
collection yet again, until it is really worth it. They are fine as they
are until products are much better. thats my opinion.
dc
Ah well.. what I do with my money is none of your business.
Of course not...pay the devil his dues if you like. I'll vote no with my
dollars.
dc
your shit is just tired and pointless
the most salient feature of life these days is brainwashed masses
subscribing and feeding the beast. it's a club. you're in it.

dc
blue
2007-11-04 12:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Too much LSD, DVD, SK and HD, ACC and TV for dc.
No, too much nagging ninnys on AMK that love to argue about how
many
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Bagels
dance on the tip of a pinhead.
The people I was talking to about the HD have no money anyway.
I >>>> was
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
trying
to do them a favor so they wouldnt waste what little they have on useless
JUNK that will be extinct in a few years.
And I havent had LSD for 40 years, but it is far and away the greatest
discovery of science so far in modern times.
dc
Do you have an actual, rational, argument to make? I have had to
replace my DVD player because it was flaking out. It was a very
nice
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Mitsubishi. I choose a Toshiba HD 2. I can play all my existing DVDs
on it. I switched my Netflix preferences to send me HD versions when
available. So its a win-win for me.
I will be replacing my Kubrick films with HD versions.
You got a problem with that?
As I said in my previous posts, if your DVD player dies then of
course
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
get an HD. But replacing a big DVD collection of your favorite
films, >> I
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
think is a silly waste and to me I think it is a good thing not to
pay
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
money to the companies when in fact they are not doing all they
can to
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
produce a far better product. No way am I going to replace my movie
collection yet again, until it is really worth it. They are fine
as >> they
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
are until products are much better. thats my opinion.
dc
Ah well.. what I do with my money is none of your business.
Of course not...pay the devil his dues if you like. I'll vote no with my
dollars.
dc
your shit is just tired and pointless
the most salient feature of life these days is brainwashed masses
subscribing and feeding the beast. it's a club. you're in it.
dc
We're all in it dude, it's called humanity.
Unmutual
2007-11-10 08:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Too much LSD, DVD, SK and HD, ACC and TV for dc.
No, too much nagging ninnys on AMK that love to argue about how
many
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Bagels
dance on the tip of a pinhead.
The people I was talking to about the HD have no money anyway.
I >>>> was
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
trying
to do them a favor so they wouldnt waste what little they have on useless
JUNK that will be extinct in a few years.
And I havent had LSD for 40 years, but it is far and away the greatest
discovery of science so far in modern times.
dc
Do you have an actual, rational, argument to make? I have had to
replace my DVD player because it was flaking out. It was a very
nice
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Mitsubishi. I choose a Toshiba HD 2. I can play all my existing DVDs
on it. I switched my Netflix preferences to send me HD versions when
available. So its a win-win for me.
I will be replacing my Kubrick films with HD versions.
You got a problem with that?
As I said in my previous posts, if your DVD player dies then of
course
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
get an HD. But replacing a big DVD collection of your favorite
films, >> I
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
think is a silly waste and to me I think it is a good thing not to
pay
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
money to the companies when in fact they are not doing all they
can to
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
produce a far better product. No way am I going to replace my movie
collection yet again, until it is really worth it. They are fine
as >> they
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
are until products are much better. thats my opinion.
dc
Ah well.. what I do with my money is none of your business.
Of course not...pay the devil his dues if you like. I'll vote no with my
dollars.
dc
your shit is just tired and pointless
the most salient feature of life these days is brainwashed masses
subscribing and feeding the beast. it's a club. you're in it.
dc
Hardly brainwashing. I see a jump in quality I'm happy to pay for. I pay
for it. Nobody is fooling me into thinking that 1080 is better than 480
or that True HD is better than dolby digital.
Unmutual
2007-11-10 08:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Unmutual
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Warchild
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Too much LSD, DVD, SK and HD, ACC and TV for dc.
No, too much nagging ninnys on AMK that love to argue about how many Bagels
dance on the tip of a pinhead.
The people I was talking to about the HD have no money anyway. I was trying
to do them a favor so they wouldnt waste what little they have on useless
JUNK that will be extinct in a few years.
And I havent had LSD for 40 years, but it is far and away the greatest
discovery of science so far in modern times.
dc
Do you have an actual, rational, argument to make? I have had to
replace my DVD player because it was flaking out. It was a very nice
Mitsubishi. I choose a Toshiba HD 2. I can play all my existing DVDs
on it. I switched my Netflix preferences to send me HD versions when
available. So its a win-win for me.
I will be replacing my Kubrick films with HD versions.
You got a problem with that?
As I said in my previous posts, if your DVD player dies then of
course get an HD. But replacing a big DVD collection of your
favorite films, I think is a silly waste and to me I think it is a
good thing not to pay money to the companies when in fact they are
not doing all they can to produce a far better product. No way am I
going to replace my movie collection yet again, until it is really
worth it. They are fine as they are until products are much better.
thats my opinion.
dc
Ah well.. what I do with my money is none of your business.
Of course not...pay the devil his dues if you like. I'll vote no with
my dollars.
dc
Well whatever you do....do it quietly. You're like one of those
religious folk that feel the need to knock people's doors to ram their
unwelcome opinions down people's throats. I'm happy with the upgrade in
picture quality and think it's worthy of my disposable income. I don't
feel the need to hunt down anyone without HD-DVD and tell them how
stupid they are for not upgrading.
Gunther Gloop
2007-10-24 22:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Randy Walters
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the >
Blu-ray
release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.
The "content" is how much money the companies will make by suckers
wasting money on these 'new" repackaged disks and how much less content
the consumers will have in their pocket.
2001 is a mindblowing film on regular def DVD on any good, newer
widescreen TV.
The form is "misinformation" and consumer brainwashing making people
think that "high definition" is actually "high definition" when in fact
it's actually down-converted and processed.
Warners is using down-conversion on their new releases, so without HDMI
it's really only 1/4 the resolution of true HD and true HD isn't even
true HD, which is theoretically only 50% higher resolution, then
standard def dvds. This of course is to prevent piracy of first
generation digital copies HDMI cables will protect against piracy for a
while. So the disks have Image restraint tokens imbedded.
I am a believer in DRM and HDMI but I am not a believer in HD/Bluray,
because formats could and will be, in the near future, so much better.
The Original Poster is using a hi-definition Blu-Ray player to screen
the film on his hi-def projector at 1080p. That is "pure" hi-def. There
is no downscaling.
He isn't watching the standard-DVD content of the disc (although I don't
think there is any on blu-ray discs?) -it's the hi-def content he is
describing.

He has HDMI. DRM isn't an issue here. Neither is cable companies.
1080p is as good as it gets for home entertainment for a looong time to
come.

Your scaling issues should at worst be aimed at those "poor fools" who
recently bought certain HD-Ready screens that can "only" view 720p.
Players (or screens) will downscale those images to 720p, but where (as
above) 1080p is available, Blu-Ray and HDDVD can and will output the
'full' HD content.
Still, even the '720p people' will see some improvement -although as you
say, they won't see as great an improvement over 720p upscaled hdmi/dvi
"standard dvd".


So, to clarify the point I think you're making...

Projectors/ tvs/ monitors/ etc. that can only show 720p or 1080i at best
will not get the best from hi-definition dvd.
(Although it is still pretty good and better than current regular DVD).

Those that can display pure 1080p (as per the OP) have 100% "High
Definition" as laid out in any technical specs anywhere.


Thanks to the OP for sharing the experience.

I'd love to watch 2001 especially on such a set up. For now I'll just
have to make do with my 'Remastered' dvd on upscaled 720p via DVI.
Since that's the best my projector can handle, I agree there's not much
point in me buying a hi-def player without upgrading the pj.
But still, I've had a good 4 years with my current projector and I've
been very happy with my dvds -and will still be happy with most of them
even after the upgrade.

-Kevin.
Kelpzoidzl
2007-10-25 00:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Randy Walters
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the >
Blu-ray
release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.
The "content" is how much money the companies will make by suckers
wasting money on these 'new" repackaged disks and how much less content
the consumers will have in their pocket.
2001 is a mindblowing film on regular def DVD on any good, newer
widescreen TV.
The form is "misinformation" and consumer brainwashing making people
think that "high definition" is actually "high definition" when in fact
it's actually down-converted and processed.
Warners is using down-conversion on their new releases, so without HDMI
it's really only 1/4 the resolution of true HD and true HD isn't even
true HD, which is theoretically only 50% higher resolution, then
standard def dvds. This of course is to prevent piracy of first
generation digital copies HDMI cables will protect against piracy for a
while. So the disks have Image restraint tokens imbedded.
I am a believer in DRM and HDMI but I am not a believer in HD/Bluray,
because formats could and will be, in the near future, so much better.
The Original Poster is using a hi-definition Blu-Ray player to screen the
film on his hi-def projector at 1080p. That is "pure" hi-def. There is no
downscaling.
He isn't watching the standard-DVD content of the disc (although I don't
think there is any on blu-ray discs?) -it's the hi-def content he is
describing.
He has HDMI. DRM isn't an issue here. Neither is cable companies.
1080p is as good as it gets for home entertainment for a looong time to
come.
Your scaling issues should at worst be aimed at those "poor fools" who
recently bought certain HD-Ready screens that can "only" view 720p.
Players (or screens) will downscale those images to 720p, but where (as
above) 1080p is available, Blu-Ray and HDDVD can and will output the
'full' HD content.
Still, even the '720p people' will see some improvement -although as you
say, they won't see as great an improvement over 720p upscaled hdmi/dvi
"standard dvd".
So, to clarify the point I think you're making...
Projectors/ tvs/ monitors/ etc. that can only show 720p or 1080i at best
will not get the best from hi-definition dvd.
(Although it is still pretty good and better than current regular DVD).
Those that can display pure 1080p (as per the OP) have 100% "High
Definition" as laid out in any technical specs anywhere.
Thanks to the OP for sharing the experience.
I'd love to watch 2001 especially on such a set up. For now I'll just have
to make do with my 'Remastered' dvd on upscaled 720p via DVI.
Since that's the best my projector can handle, I agree there's not much
point in me buying a hi-def player without upgrading the pj.
But still, I've had a good 4 years with my current projector and I've been
very happy with my dvds -and will still be happy with most of them even
after the upgrade.
-Kevin.
I am still not making my point am I? Full HD as we call it today is not a
big enough improvement to go out and replace your Movie collection. In fact
it is stupid to do so. New formats will be here sooner then you think.

As far as his 1080p I am perfectly aware he is probably using HDMI.
Regarding 720p HD my earlier posts suggesting the people with less available
funds should buy a $999.00 wide screen 55" hitachi, is to try to save
people from making a stupid mistake by investing heavy in these
super-interim technologies--and still give then a very fine picture that
they would barely be able to tell the difference from full HD. I have also
said it is smarter to invest the big money in a new high end computer with
double digit frame frames.

And as you say, you are quite happy with the older stuff. If the new stuff
was 50 times better I'd be all gung ho, but i know how the companies have
conspired to dumb people down and I am voting NO with my dollars on HD or
Blueray.

As far as broadcast HD as I said earlier it is a big rip off and the laws
forcing the providers into making them all HD by 2009 is a big farce.
Anyone wonder why their internet cable is always crashing?

dc
Jan Bielawski
2007-10-30 23:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kelpzoidzl
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the Blu-ray
release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.
What a banquet. What a transfer. What a movie, what a master of cinema.
I know, you're thinking "what a crock", and I deserve it, I guess... I'm
just stunned, which is pretty remarkable for a film I've seen many dozens
of times.
Before I go on, I've got to get something out of the way... I just
reviewed the thread "The Stanley Kubrick Collection on HD", and one
person was glibly posting repeatedly as if he was an oracle on the subject
of HD...
I don't like to get into name calling, and ragging on other posters, but
when I read a statement like
"I'm not saying you can't see a difference, I am saying the difference
does not warrant the hype and expectation and if I want the best picture
of all I can watch a Blueray DVD on my computer with the 27" monitor."
I've just got to cry bullshit. What a load of tripe. This individual
clearly has no experience with a well calibrated high-end system, which
can truly rival the cinema experience - though of course, you still can't
beat that curved Cinerama screen I first experienced the movie on nearly
40 years ago.
To claim that you're going to get "the best picture of all" sitting
hunched in front of your computer monitor is just daft.
Well I'm glad you like it. But apparently you are content with the mediocre
improvement of the picture with HD. So now you can repurchase your entire
movie collection of favorite films again and watch it on your projector.
For me, I will wait till technology has gotten better before I am going to
rave about how wonderful it all is and repurchase my collection of films, so
you can pack them in boxes when the next formats come out. Granted the TV
are better then ever, but the HD/Bluray disc formats are just a way to get
us to waste money on a new Movie collection.
Let's talk the actual technical specs for few secs (sorry, couldn't
help myself). Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it true that the
resolution of _film_ (meaning: _projected_ 35mm moving image - not a
still-frame!) AND the resolution of HD are about the same?

I wish I had a technical reference for the above statement. I'm about
80% sure it's true.

Given that - what are you trying to say?

I stress again we are talking the _moving_ image resolution, not that
of a still image. Projected image shows a continuously shifting grain
pattern which lowers the resolution compared to that obtained from the
film's lines-per-millimeter value.

(Caveat: granted, films shot on 70mm or in VistaVision have better
resolution but your negative statement regarding HD covers all films,
including 35mm ones.)

--
Jan Bielawski
Kelpzoidzl
2007-10-31 01:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jan Bielawski
Post by Kelpzoidzl
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the Blu-ray
release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.
What a banquet. What a transfer. What a movie, what a master of cinema.
I know, you're thinking "what a crock", and I deserve it, I guess... I'm
just stunned, which is pretty remarkable for a film I've seen many dozens
of times.
Before I go on, I've got to get something out of the way... I just
reviewed the thread "The Stanley Kubrick Collection on HD", and one
person was glibly posting repeatedly as if he was an oracle on the subject
of HD...
I don't like to get into name calling, and ragging on other posters, but
when I read a statement like
"I'm not saying you can't see a difference, I am saying the difference
does not warrant the hype and expectation and if I want the best picture
of all I can watch a Blueray DVD on my computer with the 27" monitor."
I've just got to cry bullshit. What a load of tripe. This individual
clearly has no experience with a well calibrated high-end system, which
can truly rival the cinema experience - though of course, you still can't
beat that curved Cinerama screen I first experienced the movie on nearly
40 years ago.
To claim that you're going to get "the best picture of all" sitting
hunched in front of your computer monitor is just daft.
Well I'm glad you like it. But apparently you are content with the mediocre
improvement of the picture with HD. So now you can repurchase your entire
movie collection of favorite films again and watch it on your projector.
For me, I will wait till technology has gotten better before I am going to
rave about how wonderful it all is and repurchase my collection of films, so
you can pack them in boxes when the next formats come out. Granted the TV
are better then ever, but the HD/Bluray disc formats are just a way to get
us to waste money on a new Movie collection.
Let's talk the actual technical specs for few secs (sorry, couldn't
help myself). Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it true that the
resolution of _film_ (meaning: _projected_ 35mm moving image - not a
still-frame!) AND the resolution of HD are about the same?
I wish I had a technical reference for the above statement. I'm about
80% sure it's true.
Given that - what are you trying to say?
I stress again we are talking the _moving_ image resolution, not that
of a still image. Projected image shows a continuously shifting grain
pattern which lowers the resolution compared to that obtained from the
film's lines-per-millimeter value.
(Caveat: granted, films shot on 70mm or in VistaVision have better
resolution but your negative statement regarding HD covers all films,
including 35mm ones.)
--
Jan Bielawski
First of all realize that new formats are already waiting in the wings,
such as Ultra HD, which is 4 times better then HD
7,680 × 4,320 pixels=33,177600 vs. 1920x1080 for HD=2,073, 600 pixels

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

This means a huge expediture by the companies, for all new scanning
equipment as well.


No it's far from the same at this time. First of all, the film has it's
own resolution, then has to be scanned digitally.

Digital and HD is still in its primitve phase.

Here are two links that cover more on film vs. digital.
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_digital_cinemas_special/

http://www.filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm

Here'a another quote:


"A 35mm film frame is approximately 24mm x 36 mm. Thus, to get an
approximate pixel equivalent you'd multiply 24mm x lines/mm x 36mm x
lines/mm, and then multiply this by 3 for 8-bit RGB color equivalent data.

24mm x 60 x 36mm x 60 x 3 = 9,331,200 pixels (approx.)
24mm x 160 x 36mm x 160 x 3 = 66,355,200 pixels (approx.)

Compare this to the advertised performance of professional digital
cameras such as the Nikon D1x (5,327,776 pixels), the Canon EOS 10D
(6,518,336 pixels) and the Kodak DCS 14n (13,898,880 pixels).

While these cameras are now approaching the resolution capabilities of
*some* films, they have not yet surpassed film in maximum resolution nor
in other areas of performance."

And keep in mind 8 bit RGB is a huge limitation.

A $48,000 Panasonic 1080p camcorder has 2,073, 600 pixels by comparison.

To compare, for 70mm film one would need a digital camera capable of
500--900 megapixels. Cut that in half for 35 millimeter.

It is also misleading to just consider resolution, the "other areas of
performance," includes Color and Depth in a digital image, after scanning.
The eye and brain plays a huge role in all this----light vs. pixels-----

And then a scanned film converted into HD is far less resolution. So there
are still many strikes against so-called "HD" compared to film. I am not
arguing that digital will never be as good as film. Its just not there yet.
and HD is just the beginning and is an interim technology they are trying to
sell us. (i own the hardware, it but am not going to be buying HD dvd's
unless the versions are different enough for me to care. (I might buy the
EWS for the unedited scenes--but really I have seen the unedited scenes and
its not that big a thing.) For me not good enougth to replace a whole DVD
collection---which has been my point all along. I see it as a rip off.

dc
gh
2007-10-31 04:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jan Bielawski
Let's talk the actual technical specs for few secs (sorry, couldn't
help myself). Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it true that the
resolution of _film_ (meaning: _projected_ 35mm moving image - not a
still-frame!) AND the resolution of HD are about the same?
It's not even close. HD is not even equal to 16mm motion picture in
image resolution. However, the dynamic range of the image in HD vs
film, from brightest white to blackest black is an issue, as well as
the color gamut HD is capable of handling. HD is miles ahead of the
NTSC video we've all been used to watching, so it looks very good by
comaprison to that, but consumers are being conned by the home
electronics manufacturers into thinking they are buying equipment that
will bring a cinema quality image into their living rooms and that is
not even close to the truth.

G
d***@earthlink.net
2007-10-31 17:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You have to compare apples to apples, two acquisition formats, let's
say, like 35mm neg versus HD origination, both then displayed using
the same technology (digital projection, 35mm print, etc.)

Sure, there is a loss in the chain from shooting in 35mm neg to making
prints and projecting them, which is why for a moderate-sized screen,
HD or 2K projection seems on par with 35mm print projection.

However, the downside is if you shot in HD to begin with and had to
also release the movie in mass 35mm prints made from an IP/IN, then
you would have started out with less resolution to begin with than a
35mm movie, and thus had worse-looking release prints at the end of
the chain of degradation. But if you could be assured that the movie
would only be shown in HD/2K projection, then HD origination would
look pretty comparable to 35mm-to-HD in terms of sharpness.

However, you are essentially "oversampling" by originating on 35mm
instead of HD, so even on lower-resolution display technologies, the
benefits are still visible, just harder to see. Otherwise, why shoot
35mm for standard-def TV broadcast, like for high-end commercials and
TV shows? Even on NTSC, you can see the difference between 35mm, HD,
and 16mm, despite the fact that NTSC has less resolution than all
three of them.

Pixels are not really a measure of resolution, visible detail,
anyway. Not all 1080P cameras are alike. You have to factor in MTF
of both the lenses used and the recording format, which is why a 1080P
camera with a larger sensor (like a 35mm-sized sensor in a Panavision
Genesis of Arri-D20 recording to 1080P) versus a smaller sensor (2/3"
in most HD cameras) tends to capture fine detail better; the larger
the sensor, the lower the MTF of the lens can be, which is why 65mm
cameras with older optics produce sharper images than 35mm cameras
with modern optics. It's partially an issue of degree of enlargement.

Just from general experience, it seems to me that 2K projection is
similar to 35mm answer print projection and 4K projection is similar
to 70mm print projection, whereas in the origination side of things,
35mm neg is more like 4K and 65mm would be more like 6K. Which means
in theory that 35mm neg shot on a slow-speed fine-grained stock (since
grain size is a clue into the size of the original negative) and sharp
lenses, scanned and projected at 4K, could seem like a 70mm print of
65mm photography. In theory, at least.

Grain is such a telltale clue as to the size of the original, that
digitally degrained and sharpened 35mm images can be blown-up to IMAX
with some moderate success, as can digital photography. Images from a
1080P 2/3" CCD HD cameras look pretty good partially because you've
got the resolution of 16mm (or between 16mm and 35mm) but the
grainlessness of 65mm, hence why it feels like it could be 35mm. Our
eyes are confused by the lack of grain.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
Warchild
2007-10-31 22:55:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@earthlink.net
You have to compare apples to apples, two acquisition formats, let's
say, like 35mm neg versus HD origination, both then displayed using
the same technology (digital projection, 35mm print, etc.)
Sure, there is a loss in the chain from shooting in 35mm neg to making
prints and projecting them, which is why for a moderate-sized screen,
HD or 2K projection seems on par with 35mm print projection.
However, the downside is if you shot in HD to begin with and had to
also release the movie in mass 35mm prints made from an IP/IN, then
you would have started out with less resolution to begin with than a
35mm movie, and thus had worse-looking release prints at the end of
the chain of degradation. But if you could be assured that the movie
would only be shown in HD/2K projection, then HD origination would
look pretty comparable to 35mm-to-HD in terms of sharpness.
However, you are essentially "oversampling" by originating on 35mm
instead of HD, so even on lower-resolution display technologies, the
benefits are still visible, just harder to see. Otherwise, why shoot
35mm for standard-def TV broadcast, like for high-end commercials and
TV shows? Even on NTSC, you can see the difference between 35mm, HD,
and 16mm, despite the fact that NTSC has less resolution than all
three of them.
Pixels are not really a measure of resolution, visible detail,
anyway. Not all 1080P cameras are alike. You have to factor in MTF
of both the lenses used and the recording format, which is why a 1080P
camera with a larger sensor (like a 35mm-sized sensor in a Panavision
Genesis of Arri-D20 recording to 1080P) versus a smaller sensor (2/3"
in most HD cameras) tends to capture fine detail better; the larger
the sensor, the lower the MTF of the lens can be, which is why 65mm
cameras with older optics produce sharper images than 35mm cameras
with modern optics. It's partially an issue of degree of enlargement.
Just from general experience, it seems to me that 2K projection is
similar to 35mm answer print projection and 4K projection is similar
to 70mm print projection, whereas in the origination side of things,
35mm neg is more like 4K and 65mm would be more like 6K. Which means
in theory that 35mm neg shot on a slow-speed fine-grained stock (since
grain size is a clue into the size of the original negative) and sharp
lenses, scanned and projected at 4K, could seem like a 70mm print of
65mm photography. In theory, at least.
Grain is such a telltale clue as to the size of the original, that
digitally degrained and sharpened 35mm images can be blown-up to IMAX
with some moderate success, as can digital photography. Images from a
1080P 2/3" CCD HD cameras look pretty good partially because you've
got the resolution of 16mm (or between 16mm and 35mm) but the
grainlessness of 65mm, hence why it feels like it could be 35mm. Our
eyes are confused by the lack of grain.
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
OH MY GOD! Someone who actually *knows* what he is talking about.

Hey Bud, this is Usenet.... We don't cotton to your kind 'round here.
Bill Reid
2007-11-04 17:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warchild
Post by d***@earthlink.net
You have to compare apples to apples, two acquisition formats, let's
say, like 35mm neg versus HD origination, both then displayed using
the same technology (digital projection, 35mm print, etc.)
Sure, there is a loss in the chain from shooting in 35mm neg to making
prints and projecting them, which is why for a moderate-sized screen,
HD or 2K projection seems on par with 35mm print projection.
However, the downside is if you shot in HD to begin with and had to
also release the movie in mass 35mm prints made from an IP/IN, then
you would have started out with less resolution to begin with than a
35mm movie, and thus had worse-looking release prints at the end of
the chain of degradation. But if you could be assured that the movie
would only be shown in HD/2K projection, then HD origination would
look pretty comparable to 35mm-to-HD in terms of sharpness.
However, you are essentially "oversampling" by originating on 35mm
instead of HD, so even on lower-resolution display technologies, the
benefits are still visible, just harder to see. Otherwise, why shoot
35mm for standard-def TV broadcast, like for high-end commercials and
TV shows? Even on NTSC, you can see the difference between 35mm, HD,
and 16mm, despite the fact that NTSC has less resolution than all
three of them.
Pixels are not really a measure of resolution, visible detail,
anyway. Not all 1080P cameras are alike. You have to factor in MTF
of both the lenses used and the recording format, which is why a 1080P
camera with a larger sensor (like a 35mm-sized sensor in a Panavision
Genesis of Arri-D20 recording to 1080P) versus a smaller sensor (2/3"
in most HD cameras) tends to capture fine detail better; the larger
the sensor, the lower the MTF of the lens can be, which is why 65mm
cameras with older optics produce sharper images than 35mm cameras
with modern optics. It's partially an issue of degree of enlargement.
Just from general experience, it seems to me that 2K projection is
similar to 35mm answer print projection and 4K projection is similar
to 70mm print projection, whereas in the origination side of things,
35mm neg is more like 4K and 65mm would be more like 6K. Which means
in theory that 35mm neg shot on a slow-speed fine-grained stock (since
grain size is a clue into the size of the original negative) and sharp
lenses, scanned and projected at 4K, could seem like a 70mm print of
65mm photography. In theory, at least.
Grain is such a telltale clue as to the size of the original, that
digitally degrained and sharpened 35mm images can be blown-up to IMAX
with some moderate success, as can digital photography. Images from a
1080P 2/3" CCD HD cameras look pretty good partially because you've
got the resolution of 16mm (or between 16mm and 35mm) but the
grainlessness of 65mm, hence why it feels like it could be 35mm. Our
eyes are confused by the lack of grain.
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
OH MY GOD! Someone who actually *knows* what he is talking about.
Hey Bud, this is Usenet.... We don't cotton to your kind 'round here.
Yeah, where's "Icky 'Dog The Bounty Hunter' Whipped" to call
him the "n-word" or wish death on him when you need him?

Looks like I'll have to drag this whole conversation back down by
getting all "McLuhan-esque" on you. Here's the thing: digital really
can't look like film, and in many respects (but not all) that's not
necessarily a GOOD or a BAD thing, just a DIFFERENT thing.

Let's say you're "Creepznoidal" in the 60's and you've just
taken three purple barrels and slide into your front-row seat
at the Sinny-Rama-D-Ommm for your 30th viewing of "2001".
The first thing you notice as the stylized MGM lion makes
his appearance is the tiny flecks of grain swimming around
that make up the picture, and the jitter as the films flutters
about in the limits of the mechanical precision of the projector's
film gate...but of course it's actually a double-jitter as the
film itself was exposed in a mechanically-imperfect (though
ridiculously expensive) 70mm Super-Panavision(TM) camera.

Later, you're not flying so high on acid that you don't notice
that the baroque bedroom scene at the end changes the precise
shade of white of the back-lit floor 24 times a second as the
original film stock flutters about in the limits of chemical precision.
You notice this even though the actual flicker of the film, with
the screen going black 24 times a second, has never really
been consciously considered at part of the film-going
"experience" for you, though it is definitely at the level of
human perception.

Guess what, all of the wonderous resolution and color range
"superiorities" of film are being used to transmit this jittering,
flickering, color-shifting mess to you in all its analog glory. From
the standpoint of pure photographic reproduction accuracy,
just how many terabytes of digital sampling bandwidth do
you want to accurately reproduce every single speck of
dancing grain in "Eyes Wide Shut", which I found very
annoying when I saw the movie in a theater?

The first thing that happens when you go to any type of
video presentation of a film is the "frame rate" increases at
least 25%, but perceptually the signature flicker of theatrical
film presentation is completely modified in nature and
basically eliminated. Does that mean that video is "better"?

Well, to make good on my threat to drag Marshall McLuhan
into this, he postulated that the flicker of film, the fact that the
screen is REFLECTING a beam of light from over your
shoulder in the DARK rather than PROJECTING light towards
you, and other differences between video and film, changes your
perception of the CONTENT of the work itself.

So, at least according to McLuhan, watching "2001" on a video
screen can NEVER be like watching the original film while whacked
out of your skull on acid, and a long debate about lines of resolution,
color/dynamic range, etc., is somewhat pointless in that regard...frankly,
I just want fewer scratches and mold, my own self, is all...

---
William Ernest "Hot-Medium-Cold" Reid
ichorwhip
2007-11-05 00:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Warchild
Post by d***@earthlink.net
You have to compare apples to apples, two acquisition formats, let's
say, like 35mm neg versus HD origination, both then displayed using
the same technology (digital projection, 35mm print, etc.)
Sure, there is a loss in the chain from shooting in 35mm neg to making
prints and projecting them, which is why for a moderate-sized screen,
HD or 2K projection seems on par with 35mm print projection.
However, the downside is if you shot in HD to begin with and had to
also release the movie in mass 35mm prints made from an IP/IN, then
you would have started out with less resolution to begin with than a
35mm movie, and thus had worse-looking release prints at the end of
the chain of degradation. But if you could be assured that the movie
would only be shown in HD/2K projection, then HD origination would
look pretty comparable to 35mm-to-HD in terms of sharpness.
However, you are essentially "oversampling" by originating on 35mm
instead of HD, so even on lower-resolution display technologies, the
benefits are still visible, just harder to see. Otherwise, why shoot
35mm for standard-def TV broadcast, like for high-end commercials and
TV shows? Even on NTSC, you can see the difference between 35mm, HD,
and 16mm, despite the fact that NTSC has less resolution than all
three of them.
Pixels are not really a measure of resolution, visible detail,
anyway. Not all 1080P cameras are alike. You have to factor in MTF
of both the lenses used and the recording format, which is why a 1080P
camera with a larger sensor (like a 35mm-sized sensor in a Panavision
Genesis of Arri-D20 recording to 1080P) versus a smaller sensor (2/3"
in most HD cameras) tends to capture fine detail better; the larger
the sensor, the lower the MTF of the lens can be, which is why 65mm
cameras with older optics produce sharper images than 35mm cameras
with modern optics. It's partially an issue of degree of enlargement.
Just from general experience, it seems to me that 2K projection is
similar to 35mm answer print projection and 4K projection is similar
to 70mm print projection, whereas in the origination side of things,
35mm neg is more like 4K and 65mm would be more like 6K. Which means
in theory that 35mm neg shot on a slow-speed fine-grained stock (since
grain size is a clue into the size of the original negative) and sharp
lenses, scanned and projected at 4K, could seem like a 70mm print of
65mm photography. In theory, at least.
Grain is such a telltale clue as to the size of the original, that
digitally degrained and sharpened 35mm images can be blown-up to IMAX
with some moderate success, as can digital photography. Images from a
1080P 2/3" CCD HD cameras look pretty good partially because you've
got the resolution of 16mm (or between 16mm and 35mm) but the
grainlessness of 65mm, hence why it feels like it could be 35mm. Our
eyes are confused by the lack of grain.
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
OH MY GOD! Someone who actually *knows* what he is talking about.
Hey Bud, this is Usenet.... We don't cotton to your kind 'round here.
Yeah, where's "Icky 'Dog The Bounty Hunter' Whipped" to call
him the "n-word" or wish death on him when you need him?
So Monsieur Malfeast is here to spite some more at last.
Misappropriated any funds that were not yours lately? Do you like to
steal? Does it make you feel good? And this whole calling me a
redneck racist thing is such pot calling the kettle black material
within your constant conceit of superiority. What a sham! Nietzsche
spits hunks of hock in your face for ever having read him (as if...)
And what a sore losing loser you are!
Post by Bill Reid
Looks like I'll have to drag this whole conversation back down by
getting all "McLuhan-esque" on you. Here's the thing: digital really
can't look like film, and in many respects (but not all) that's not
necessarily a GOOD or a BAD thing, just a DIFFERENT thing.
What a stupidly obvious opus this is shaping up to be...
Post by Bill Reid
Let's say you're "Creepznoidal" in the 60's and you've just
taken three purple barrels and slide into your front-row seat
at the Sinny-Rama-D-Ommm for your 30th viewing of "2001".
This is about the only sort of thing that you ever say that I would
actually approve of. Your PushmePullme llamaswalladingdong
kissincousin is even more of an asshole than you are although you do
share the same one. You should feel proud, and thanks for insulting
him for me.

enough...

'"You said, "You don't make something up unless it's sure to help."'
i
"piop"
Unmutual
2007-11-10 08:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gh
Post by Jan Bielawski
Let's talk the actual technical specs for few secs (sorry, couldn't
help myself). Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it true that the
resolution of _film_ (meaning: _projected_ 35mm moving image - not a
still-frame!) AND the resolution of HD are about the same?
It's not even close. HD is not even equal to 16mm motion picture in
image resolution. However, the dynamic range of the image in HD vs film,
from brightest white to blackest black is an issue, as well as the color
gamut HD is capable of handling. HD is miles ahead of the NTSC video
we've all been used to watching, so it looks very good by comaprison to
that, but consumers are being conned by the home electronics
manufacturers into thinking they are buying equipment that will bring a
cinema quality image into their living rooms and that is not even close
to the truth.
G
No....noone thinks that. We just see it is as significantly better than
what we currently have so we buy it.
kelpzoidzl
2015-09-05 05:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Saw Lawrence of Arabia on my Sony 4k. It's nice.

Now the issue is how long do we have to wait to replace our collection, so that when we die, they can be squished into a landfill
Jan Bielawski
2015-09-06 01:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
Saw Lawrence of Arabia on my Sony 4k. It's nice.
Now the issue is how long do we have to wait to replace our collection, so that when we die, they can be squished into a landfill
Any news on making the outtakes from 2001 available as a supplement?

--
Jan
kelpzoidzl
2015-09-10 00:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A wish greatly to be desired. No haven't heard a thng.

All I want to complain about is in creating the future 4K or 8K versions of Kubrick, they had better not be done using shortcuts, like printing HD versions and using some kind of upscaling to simulate 4K. Am I asking too much?
kelpzoidzl
2015-09-10 20:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
New Canon products 8K video camera and 120mp dslr in pipeline:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2389085425/canon-plans-high-res-future-with-120mp-dslr-and-8k-cinema-eos-in-development
Jan Bielawski
2015-09-10 23:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2389085425/canon-plans-high-res-future-with-120mp-dslr-and-8k-cinema-eos-in-development
DSLR cameras are utter nonsense. In the digital era having a mirror and a
pentaprism is a total money waster. I suspect this is exactly why this
idiocy is pushed on the public: the profit margins on unnecessary hardware.

Similar situation exists in the binocular market: the Porro design is
superior to roof in every way yet it is roof that gets pushed due to
the profit margins on the extra hardware allows.

So much for "markets know best".

--
Jan

Kelpzoidzl
2007-10-24 12:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The best way to really understand just how digital has a long way to go
before it reaches the level of analog/optical, is to study the resolution of
a film camera vs. the best digital camera. You would need a 500 megapixel
digital still camera to have the same resolution as a 4x5 Hasselblad and
even then if you blow the image up into very large size the greater loss on
the digital will be obvious.

You can get a 160 megapixel camera today for about $37,000

The resolution is 7,500 x 21,250.
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm



The word, "High Definition" is a BIG lie. these movies are being scanned
at 1080 and even down coverted before it gets to the disc.

dc
Bill Reid
2007-10-25 14:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Randy Walters
The transfer is masterful, revealing things
I've never seen in all the times I've watched "2001" in theaters.
Unfortunately, this reminds me of stuff I saw (and heard) in the
"restored" version of "2001" they showed in 70mm in 2001, stuff
that I also had never seen (or heard)...
Post by Randy Walters
Great
saturation, tremendous luminosity, and rich, deep blacks - never milky,
and I never saw any traveling mattes like those painfully apparent in
"Star Wars" transfers.
The matting in "2001" was a superior (and painstaking) process
compared to the blue-screen in "Star Wars", so avoided the possible
additional digital artifacting on the mattes...but it sounds like they
have continued to "restore" the movie since 2001, since THAT
restored version not only had some milkiness, at times you could
pick out the individual tendrils of the fungus that had been growing
on the film for decades...
Post by Randy Walters
The level of detail is stunning - I repeatedly paused the disc to get
up and read the tiny little bits of text detail I've never been able to
make out before. I found some amazing things, including the occasional
sly joke hidden in plain sight.
When Floyd appears on the video screen in the HAL brain room,
there is a subtitle that reads "sitting on a zero-gravity toilet"...
Post by Randy Walters
Sometimes, the level of detail revealed flaws - I was astonished to
find that I could actually see strokes left from paint rollers
spreading reflective material on the front-projection screen in the
"Dawn of Man" sequence. Again, I paused the disc and checked to make
sure I wasn't seeing dust smears on my own screen!
Yeah, this is something that cropped up in the DVD/digital era,
probably some kind of binary color boundary artifact...

What concerned me more with the "restored" version I saw
a few times in 2001 was the appearance of the studio lights
hanging from the ceiling in this and another scene...an "extra"?
Post by Randy Walters
I had the uncompressed PCM audio cranked, and it was fantastic.
Also, as an audio "extra", they had made several disturbing changes
to the soundtrack, such as cranking up the volume on certain musical
passages (apparently only to cross the threshhold of pain, since
that was the effect they had), and adding a Darth Vader-like menacing
echo to HAL's voice...
Post by Randy Walters
The
slit-scan sequence came alive, without a scratch or fleck of dust...
the best I've seen it since that first showing decades ago.
Well, that's good, the 2001 theatrical "restored" version had this
gigantic scratch that ran throughout most of that sequence, after
starting a few minutes earlier in the moons of Jupiter...
Post by Randy Walters
I know I'm sounding uncritical, like a real fanboy... well, guilty as
charged. Those responsible for this transfer really did a fantastic job
with the most challenging of material, and I can't wait to see the
other new releases. I sincerely hope the same artists can soon bring
their talents to "Barry Lyndon".
Well, if they really finally "restored" the film to something resembling
its original state, I say great, because I was (and still am) concerned that
the original film had been lost forever, and would never be seen again
"as it was intended"...
Post by Randy Walters
To SK's family, friends and associates, I offer my sincere
congratulations on this milestone release of his work. I believe that
while he would certainly prefer his work be seen in a theater, he would
be pleased that individuals now have the opportunity to study his work
at such a high level of quality in their own homes.
Well, I've always agreed with the idea that the movie tends to
work well in ANY format, that in the smaller formats it just tends
to be a more iconic metaphor, while in the original Cinerama(TM)
it is a more of a breath-taking experience, but that both have equal
value, just in a different way...

---
William Ernest "Never Had Any Work Done Myself" Reid
Unmutual
2007-10-26 18:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the Blu-ray
release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.
What a banquet. What a transfer. What a movie, what a master of cinema.
I know, you're thinking "what a crock", and I deserve it, I guess... I'm
just stunned, which is pretty remarkable for a film I've seen many
dozens of times.
Before I go on, I've got to get something out of the way... I just
reviewed the thread "The Stanley Kubrick Collection on HD", and one
person was glibly posting repeatedly as if he was an oracle on the
subject of HD...
I don't like to get into name calling, and ragging on other posters, but
when I read a statement like
"I'm not saying you can't see a difference, I am saying the difference
does not warrant the hype and expectation and if I want the best picture
of all I can watch a Blueray DVD on my computer with the 27" monitor."
I've just got to cry bullshit. What a load of tripe. This individual
clearly has no experience with a well calibrated high-end system, which
can truly rival the cinema experience - though of course, you still
can't beat that curved Cinerama screen I first experienced the movie on
nearly 40 years ago.
To claim that you're going to get "the best picture of all" sitting
hunched in front of your computer monitor is just daft.
*******
All right, sorry for the negativity.
Since I haven't watched the extras yet (I can't wait!) all I can talk
about is the film itself. The transfer is masterful, revealing things
I've never seen in all the times I've watched "2001" in theaters. Great
saturation, tremendous luminosity, and rich, deep blacks - never milky,
and I never saw any traveling mattes like those painfully apparent in
"Star Wars" transfers.
The level of detail is stunning - I repeatedly paused the disc to get up
and read the tiny little bits of text detail I've never been able to
make out before. I found some amazing things, including the occasional
sly joke hidden in plain sight.
Sometimes, the level of detail revealed flaws - I was astonished to find
that I could actually see strokes left from paint rollers spreading
reflective material on the front-projection screen in the "Dawn of Man"
sequence. Again, I paused the disc and checked to make sure I wasn't
seeing dust smears on my own screen!
I had the uncompressed PCM audio cranked, and it was fantastic. The
slit-scan sequence came alive, without a scratch or fleck of dust... the
best I've seen it since that first showing decades ago.
I know I'm sounding uncritical, like a real fanboy... well, guilty as
charged. Those responsible for this transfer really did a fantastic job
with the most challenging of material, and I can't wait to see the other
new releases. I sincerely hope the same artists can soon bring their
talents to "Barry Lyndon".
To SK's family, friends and associates, I offer my sincere
congratulations on this milestone release of his work. I believe that
while he would certainly prefer his work be seen in a theater, he would
be pleased that individuals now have the opportunity to study his work
at such a high level of quality in their own homes.
And I'm sorry for blowing off steam earlier. After the experience I had
just enjoyed with HD, the level of misinformation really rubbed me the
wrong way.
<Runs all the way to Movietyme.com with credit card in hand>
Loading...