I'm curious: I wonder if you replace the word HD with "16mm" and replace the word 4K with "35mm" does the (sadly, prevailing) argument still hold up that no one will benefit? Because this is roughly how I interpret these values, and I know there is some at least anecdotal evidence to back up the idea that it would take a 4K digital resolution image to roughly equal the resolution of a 35mm film frame. Personally, I like watching both 16mm and 35mm sourced projects, and even though I have no projectors, I still notice the difference. And when I work on these different formats, I certainly notice how much more latitude is available when working with the higher resolution source.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Benny Christensen <benny@producersplayhouse.com> wrote:
The only reason to replace a TV today is if you want one with Internet ready features such as WIFI built in or the ability to play video from a USB drive. So IMHO features, not image quality will drive replacements.
"Every day you may make progress. Every step may be fruitful. Yet there will stretch out before you an ever-lengthening, ever-ascending, ever-improving path. You know you will never get to the end of the journey. But this, so far from discouraging, only adds to the joy and glory of the climb." - Sir Winston Churchill
On Nov 6, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Pete Opotowsky <popix@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
< How are you going to convince Mr Joe Public that 'better pixels' is worth
him spending money on?>
Many of us seem to forget that the recent spike in TV sales had less to do with the quality of the image as the size and shape of the set. Once everyone has replaced their bulky CRT there is little incentive to replace the LCD:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/26/technology/innovation/tv-sales/
Pete O
POP Pictures
Orlando
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (11) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment