[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd:cbs,bs,s



---- Begin Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <Mailer-Daemon>
Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com 
[206.214.98.12]) by ixmail3.ix.netcom.com (8.7.5/SMI-4.1/Netcom)
	id TAA19708; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:36:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com 
(8.6.13/8.6.12) with internal id TAA01116; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:35:49 
-0800
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:35:49 -0800
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: xyz.alegria.com: 
host not found)
Message-Id: <199701170335.TAA01116 at dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com>
To: <joebeats at ix.netcom.com>

The original message was received at Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:35:46 -0800
from joebeats at whx-ca14-16.ix.netcom.com [207.93.160.80]

   ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
<telecine at xyz.alegria.com>  (unrecoverable error)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <telecine at xyz.alegria.com>... Host unknown (Name server: 
xyz.alegria.com: host not found)

   ----- Original message follows -----
Return-Path: joebeats at ix.netcom.com
Received: from  (joebeats at whx-ca14-16.ix.netcom.com [207.93.160.80]) by 
dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA01106 for 
<telecine at xyz.alegria.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:35:46 -0800
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:35:46 -0800
Message-Id: <199701170335.TAA01106 at dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com>
From: joebeats at ix.netcom.com (Lou Levinson )
Subject: CBS,BS,S
To: telecine at xyz.alegria.com

Folks,

        I've seen the material and the paper that goes with it and I 
have to agree with the conclusion that 16mm is a third choice in terms 
of picture quality, and I very much doubt any double blind test would 
be needed to tell. You could probably tell by picture stability alone 
in most cases. Most HD will be watched on large (28"diag) or bigger
monitors, and mild stability issues become obvious. We at MCA have been 

saying this about 16mm for three years now.
        HD video from Sony 500 or higher series cameras looks pretty
damnded good as well, and at its heart, the Sony scanner is a 500.
        The HD did indeed seem to measure higher on the resolution 
scale than their telecine, but it must be kept in mind that some of the 

depth of modulation measurements were in the 90's and at least one was 
over 100%. The question should be how much enhancement, aperture, or 
whatever you want to call it was dialed in, and where did the test 
depart from an apples to apples comparison??
        One comparison that wasn't done was comparing 35 film at 30fps
to HD video (also 30fps).
        As for one comment I saw about 35 film being 4000 lines of 
resolution, all I have to say is maybe in theory it is, but rarely on 
real 35mm film in a real camera with a real lens bolted on the front, 
shooting a real scene from a real moving dolly. What film will do and 
what camera systems will do are two different things.
        One interesting stat that was attributed to Kodak was the
S/N ration claimed for 35mm film(i've forgotten which stock) was
47db.  Even wheezy Old flying spots that have been NO2'd to do 30 mhz
do better than that.
        For JC: I'll bet in a real, blind, apples to apples comparison
you'd have a very hard time telling a Spirit from a Rank from a Field
CCD telecine on spherically shot, 1.85 composed and displayed material 
if all you got to evaluate was D1 resolution video.


                    More later,

                                    JoeBeats