logo Sign In

Post #223953

Author
Mielr
Parent topic
Explaining the shoddy OOT treatment in public
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/223953/action/topic#223953
Date created
2-Jul-2006, 7:58 PM
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Zion

This doesn't make any sense to me. The answer seems to go off on a tangent about HDTV when the claim makes no allusions to it at all. Of course the film looked better in the theater than on home video. To ask for an HD transfer of it is justified, but to me the claim is only referring to the version of the film, not its resolution.


Technically, since the original film version is analog, wouldn't even an HD transfer incorrectly represent some of the details?

Still, I think Vigo's point answers its attached question in the sense that an HDTV version would probably be the ultimate visual way to represent the original film quality at home.

Yes, unless you have a 35mm film projector and a print of the movie, a blu-ray or hd-dvd transfer of the film would be the best way to see a film at home. Only an HD source would come close to capturing all the resolution of 35mm film.

There probably would be some digitally-introduced artifacting, but there's not a lot that can be done about that. Film is analog, and doesn't have pixels, so whenever you're making something digital that didn't start out that way, there's going to be some distortion.

Here's my "experiment" with my piece of 70mm film, BTW. I can see now that I've added way too much cyan and green to cancel out the magenta, but it still looks a lot better than the "before" pic (top).

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c229/queen1970/rebelceremony.jpg