Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iris_failsafe said:
Actually the best restoration house is a 100% mac company.
Not true. They use Imagica scanners to bring in the film and they run on PC x86 Linux and Windows NT (the newer scanners) and the older scanners run on x86 Linux and IRIX (so SGI machines) That would decidely make Lowry Digital not 100% Mac (also, nowhere in Apple's PR do could I find them mentioning such a statement.) These scanners are the ones that allow resolutions above telecine (like cineon 4K.) I've visited Lowry before and they definitely have PCs there.
 
Groves said:
The "thing" that you're missing is that each technology generation (VHS, CD,DVD, HD DVD) is a *fresh* opportunity for content providers to get their DRM ducks in a row before it becomes mainstream, which it will.

it's not that they're singling out HD DVD because of it's difference, but because NOBODY has it yet for all practical purposes, much like black and white televisions.
yeah, well it's obvious that future hd dvd's will have copy protection, but why would steve jobs say something to the effect that hd dvd burners should (potentially) not be implemented in personal computers? i fail to see how hd dvd burners have no more potential to undermine film industry profits (through piracy) than our regular dvd burners do.
 
Flynnstone said:
Probably everyone !
Most, if not all 2.5" hard disk drives contain an accelerometer to prevent writing "where it's not supposed to".
So just about all laptops have this "technology". It inhibits the write to disk when excessive forces are detected.
Yes, but it doesn't park the heads during acceleration. This isn't protecting writing to platters, this is protecting the heads from colliding with the platters.
 
Laslo Panaflex said:
Ok besides from me being totally wrong in my statements, film still needs to be compressed, and from my understanding (probably wrong again) HD wouldn't be "have" to be in order to fit on a HD DVD. Plus the film, is still contrained to the 1080i resolution, so it can't get any better than that no matter how good the original footage is. IMHO 1080i footage looks way better than HD film (I'm talking HD HBO movies), and if you ask most people (not film zealots), I think they will agree. I think 1080i looks better becuase it runs at 60fps (I could be wrong again), and film at 24.

Laslo, you really should stop... you're just getting deeper and deeper. Go with the old saying "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Panaflex would be abhorred with your statements on video and film.

First off, HD will have to be compressed to fit on HD-DVD. HD takes a tremendous amount of space. There is no such thing as "HD film"... film is film and has its own grade. HD is in reference to digital resolutions and digital cameras. Film can be transferred to a digital HD resolution, but you can work with it at much higher resolutions before printing to digital for distribution. When you work at higher resolutions, it gives you the ability to do greater composting work and graphics integrations and even colour correction-- that ends up with a better finished product.

Frame rates are a whole different topic. Even SD (Standard Definition) in the US runs at 60fps (30 interlaced.) Movies at the theater run at 24fps. Right now, any movie theater will look better than at your house. So I guess that shoots your fps theory out. This is a much larger discussion that you'd think about resolutions, frame rates, media, and analogue sampling. If you're really interested, a good book to check out is The Art of Digital Video by John Watkinson published by Focal Press. It's a good primer on all of this technology and really has little to do with actually shooting film.
 
And no one thinks it might be because HD-DVD is tied to Microsoft's Windows Media 9 as one of its formats? The other format is H.264 which Apple only demoed its implementation earlier this year and hasn't released yet.

So Steve fuds the industry while Apple gets its HD-DVD story together with a future release of QuickTime and FairPlay. Then it will suddenly be OK to ship the drives.

Not implausible.
 
VIIGemina said:
And no one thinks it might be because HD-DVD is tied to Microsoft's Windows Media 9 as one of its formats? The other format is H.264 which Apple only demoed earlier this year and hasn't released yet.

So Steve fuds the industry while Apple gets its HD-DVD story together with a future release of QuickTime and FairPlay. Then it will suddenly be OK to ship the drives.

Not implausible.

Actually AVC(h.264) is not an Apple creation. They are just pushing it because it combines nicely with MPEG4. You will see AVC everywhere in a year. It's a tough CODEC to encode though the small size comes at a hefty processing price which is 8x what it takes to process MPEG2 today.
 
Apple's game plan!

VIIGemina said:
And no one thinks it might be because HD-DVD is tied to Microsoft's Windows Media 9 as one of its formats? The other format is H.264 which Apple only demoed earlier this year and hasn't released yet.

So Steve fuds the industry while Apple gets its HD-DVD story together with a future release of QuickTime and FairPlay. Then it will suddenly be OK to ship the drives.

Not implausible.

I agree. Sounds like something Apple will do. Release it and tell the world here is the solution! Don't be surprised if QT is the answer and the WWDC is the launch. But then again I have no idea whatsoever
:)
 
VIIGemina said:
And no one thinks it might be because HD-DVD is tied to Microsoft's Windows Media 9 as one of its formats? The other format is H.264 which Apple only demoed its implementation earlier this year and hasn't released yet.

So Steve fuds the industry while Apple gets its HD-DVD story together with a future release of QuickTime and FairPlay. Then it will suddenly be OK to ship the drives.

Not implausible.
how is hd dvd tied to windows media 9?
 
legion said:
Laslo, you really should stop... you're just getting deeper and deeper. Go with the old saying "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Panaflex would be abhorred with your statements on video and film.

First off, HD will have to be compressed to fit on HD-DVD. HD takes a tremendous amount of space. There is no such thing as "HD film"... film is film and has its own grade. HD is in reference to digital resolutions and digital cameras. Film can be transferred to a digital HD resolution, but you can work with it at much higher resolutions before printing to digital for distribution. When you work at higher resolutions, it gives you the ability to do greater composting work and graphics integrations and even colour correction-- that ends up with a better finished product.

Frame rates are a whole different topic. Even SD (Standard Definition) in the US runs at 60fps (30 interlaced.) Movies at the theater run at 24fps. Right now, any movie theater will look better than at your house. So I guess that shoots your fps theory out. This is a much larger discussion that you'd think about resolutions, frame rates, media, and analogue sampling. If you're really interested, a good book to check out is The Art of Digital Video by John Watkinson published by Focal Press. It's a good primer on all of this technology and really has little to do with actually shooting film.

Really, you aren't understanding, I am not saying that film is not as high resolution, I understand that now. What I am saying is that HD footage to me and probably other people looks better on an HD TV than uprezed film (HD HBO). I am not talking about film in a cinema compared to a TV, they are different like you discribed.

I guess I need to get my hands on a film that has been adjusted for HD broadcast properly, because although slightly better than regular DVD, the movies on HD HBO are not anywhere near as good as sports or other programming in 1080i.

P.S. Sorry for pissing people off by making mistakes on the topic, I find it hard to be perfect.
:rolleyes:
 
legion said:
Frame rates are a whole different topic. Even SD (Standard Definition) in the US runs at 60fps (30 interlaced.) Movies at the theater run at 24fps. Right now, any movie theater will look better than at your house. So I guess that shoots your fps theory out.

Why is is better to have higher frame rates in video games? Becuase it looks better, and to me 1080i 60 looks better on an HDTV than film that I have seen, uprezed or not. So I guess the problem is that the films that I have seen, have not been encoded properly, becuase according to facts, Film should look as good if not better than 1080i. Please, by all means correct me if I am wrong (it wouldn't be the first time).
 
Laslo Panaflex said:
Why is is better to have higher frame rates in video games? Becuase it looks better, and to me 1080i 60 looks better on an HDTV than and film that I have seen, uprezed or not.

24fps doesn't look better than 30 or 60fps from a qualitative standpoint. Hollywood loves the "effect" of 24fps but it has no real bearing in resolution etc.

Think about it. Movies have that blur effect to them that our eyes are used to seeing. Video has a higher framerate so we don't see that blur. That's why video on the nightly news looks like "video from the nightly news" and not a movie.
 
The reason movies are still at 24FPS is because the public has been trained that it just looks right. When you see video (HD or SD), everything is harsher and more 'real' looking. Film == fantasy, Video == newscast/sports

At least that's what I've read and seems to be the common knowledge. The film vs. video debate has been going on long before HD was around. Heck, for a bigger debate, try to tell a high-end audiophile that tube amps are not better than solid state.

edit: hehe - Echo, Echo (I'm a slower typer than you I guess)
 
nuckinfutz said:
24fps doesn't look better than 30 or 60fps from a qualitative standpoint. Hollywood loves the "effect" of 24fps but it has no real bearing in resolution etc.

Think about it. Movies have that blur effect to them that our eyes are used to seeing. Video has a higher framerate so we don't see that blur. That's why video on the nightly news looks like "video from the nightly news" and not a movie.

I know, film is more natural and that is a part of the look, maybe there is something wrong with me, but I still think that 1080i/p HD footage looks way better, quality wise than film(on a HDTV). Maybe that has something to do with the camera's used and depth of field in each medium?

Anyway, I hope that films can look better on my HDTV in the future, because now, there is really no difference from my regular DVDs and movies on HD HBO.
 
VIIGemina said:
And no one thinks it might be because HD-DVD is tied to Microsoft's Windows Media 9 as one of its formats? The other format is H.264 which Apple only demoed its implementation earlier this year and hasn't released yet.

Finally someone with some sense on this forum. BTW, "HD-DVD" isn't the only format out there, there is the Sony (et.al.) Blu-Ray which is far further along than the WM9 tie-in since they actually have working prototypes.

It's a shame that Microsoft managed to push through "HD-DVD" name through DVD Forum. This confuses the issue with high definition on DVD.

Not sure what Apple's take on this is, but they seem a little behind the ball. I actually don't think this is a big deal since people are so confused about HD that you see people buying wide screen 480p TVs thinking that they "going high definition." It'll take a while before demand materializes while the industry sorts out the chicken-and-egg thing.

RE: the OT film vs. HD video debate. IANIFI (I am not in the Film Industry) I thought that the reason that film was 24fps was because that is the slowest rate that didn't bother people. Film was very expensive in the day (it still is) and a difference of a few fps means many feet of film. In any case, most report that HD is as good as 30mm, so many claiming HD is better than film are right when comparing to a low-budge shot in 16mm. I think many HD cameras have smaller aperture and thus larger depth of field which means that more parts of the video shot will be in focus (though you can get those cool film effects and lighting, I imagine, is much more painful). Film is developed and will have dust and scratches which won't appear in HD. These are things that may affect perceived quality also.

My gut instinct is that the perception of quality is highly dependent on playback environment. Many HD demo setups I have seen have near ideal conditions compared to some of the poorly maintained and movie theatre where there is always someone who thinks of it as an opportunity to play MST3K. We can be very gullible for that sort of thing where some engineer with too much control of the environment has deceived us into perceiving things as better than they really are--heck, I used to own a BOSE speaker setup. ;)

Take care,

terry
 
Laslo Panaflex said:
Why is is better to have higher frame rates in video games? Becuase it looks better, and to me 1080i 60 looks better on an HDTV than film that I have seen, uprezed or not. So I guess the problem is that the films that I have seen, have not been encoded properly, becuase according to facts, Film should look as good if not better than 1080i. Please, by all means correct me if I am wrong (it wouldn't be the first time).
this link should maybe help in clearing up some of this fps confusion...
http://www.whatvideotv.com/articles...tv.com/articles/general/200112_progscan.shtml
 
Laslo Panaflex said:
I know, film is more natural and that is a part of the look, maybe there is something wrong with me, but I still think that 1080i/p HD footage looks way better, quality wise than film(on a HDTV). Maybe that has something to do with the camera's used and depth of field in each medium?

Anyway, I hope that films can look better on my HDTV in the future, because now, there is really no difference from my regular DVDs and movies on HD HBO.
your posts are kind of confusing me... when you said '1080i/p HD footage' did you mean footage that is shot with digital video or film cameras? and when you say 'film (on a HDTV)' you mean movies that are shot on film and have been compressed into an HD format, like on hbo's HD channel?
 
bathysphere said:
your posts are kind of confusing me... when you said '1080i/p HD footage' did you mean footage that is shot with digital video or film cameras? and when you say 'film (on a HDTV)' you mean movies that are shot on film and have been compressed into an HD format, like on hbo's HD channel?

Yes, that's exactly what I am talking about. :D 1080i/p is digital video and "HD film" are movies converted to HD, like HD HBO.
 
Laslo Panaflex said:
Yes, that's exactly what I am talking about. :D 1080i/p is digital video and "HD film" are movies converted to HD, like HD HBO.
ok that i don't know. it must have to do with whatever settings hbo (or whatever company hbo pays) choose to compress their movies and programs to make them sufficiently manageable to broadcast. and my link was about frame rate and frame rate conversion. but since you're talking about film that's converted to video, then it applies a little less (or at least not in the way i intended it).
 
bathysphere said:
ok that i don't know. it must have to do with whatever settings hbo (or whatever company hbo pays) choose to compress their movies and programs to make them sufficiently manageable to broadcast. and my link was about frame rate and frame rate conversion. but since you're talking about film that's converted to video, then it applies a little less (or at least not in the way i intended it).

yeah, thanks though. I think you are right and it comes down to how the film is compressed for HD. Also, I think that since film and video are such different mediums, it really is hard to compare the two.
 
DGFan said:
DRM does in fact work and iTMS sales figures prove it. The necessary condition for DRM working is that the restrictions must not stop customers from using the media in they ways they most want to.
Actually, the necessary condition for DRM working is that, once all things are considered, the consumer would rather pay for the item than pirate the item.

DRM doesn't have to make things impossible. It just has to make them difficult enough, or perceived as dangerous enough (law suit wise).
 
Laslo Panaflex said:
HD footage to me and probably other people looks better on an HD TV than uprezed film (HD HBO).

You do not uprez film. Film is higher than any digital resolution right now.

Laslo Panaflex said:
P.S. Sorry for pissing people off by making mistakes on the topic, I find it hard to be perfect.

Quit while you're behind.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.