logo Sign In

Bossk

User Group
Members
Join date
10-Mar-2003
Last activity
13-Jan-2008
Posts
9,501

Post History

Post
#53561
Topic
Idea: Preserving the 1997 Special Editions of the Star Wars Original Trilogy on DVD-R
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/53561/action/topic#53561
Time
Betamax is used in some professional handheld videocameras. Although many of them have switched over to digital within the last few years. Back, say, 3 or so years, all news cameramen used Beta. Better quality than VHS any day of the week. Just a slave to poor marketing and few little recording time on the tapes. That's why it's perfect for news... high quality and short tapes. Doesn't take much tape space to shoot some news report and some B roll. And the tapes are a helluva lot smaller so cameramen can carry them in vest pockets without weighing themselves down too much or taking too much physical space on their person.
Post
#53528
Topic
Idea: Preserving the 1997 Special Editions of the Star Wars Original Trilogy on DVD-R
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/53528/action/topic#53528
Time
Coffee, did you not read my post? I said that CD "is" better meaning that the quality of the final product is better much like VHS vs DVD. Digital will always be better than analog. However, this doesn't always work better to listeners. I also said that in some instances vinyl "works" better. This means that for some groups, their recordings sound better on vinyl than on CD. An example that comes to mind is the Beatles. I cannot listen to the Beatles on CD. It sounds horrible. They work better on vinyl. Even more recent bands like Stone Temple Pilots work better on vinyl. But if you want to archive your stuff and make sure you have the best recorded copy possible, then digital is better than analog. Sound quality is strictly subjective. We can argue that all day long. So why bother? Let's just talk facts, and the fact is that digital (CD/DVD) is better than analog (vinyl/VHS).
Post
#53524
Topic
Harry Potter 3
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/53524/action/topic#53524
Time
Not even close. Everything was so out of proportion and fake looking. When the camera was in the stands looking at the players, they looked horribly hokey. When the camera was in the sky showing the stands, you could see it was blatant CGI. No attempt was made to make it look realistic because they wanted to get the movie out on time. The Quidditch matches are one of the major reasons I dislike the first two movies so much. At least, compared to the third one.

I thought you were a proponent of good CGI, Jimbo. These are two examples of CGI at their worst. Okay, maybe not as bad as Deep Blue Sea, but still and all the same.