|
In article ws.net,
"Dave C." wrote: This setup will work just fine for all but the largest of living rooms or family rooms. And a small movie theater is bigger than any fifteen or twenty living rooms put together. |
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 07:17:07 -0400, forge
wrote: In article [email protected], wrote: Well for what it is worth, George Lucas wants digital projection, so I doubt it really matters what we think. Also for what it's worth, theatres use xenon projection lamps, they no longer use carbon arc.(Unless the switched back after I got outof the business fifteen years ago. Everyone on Earth can now tell George Lucas to go scratch his ass. He will never release another film that anyone will pay money to watch. Georgie don't have to make any movies, it's JUST a hobby for him. He got out of movies and into support: special effects and sound. Probably 2 out of 3 movies you watch use his services. PS what's your hobby ? |
In article ,
lid (Howard Christeller) says... Stop right there. This is incredibly wrong. Analog has limited resolution, just like digital. EVERYTHING physical has limited resolution. Infinite resolution is equivalent to perpetual motion. Both film and video use discrete samples over time, with rather poor sample rates at that. Film makers have been messing with film formats for decades. Besides the triple camera/projector Cinerama experiment, there is 70mm wide screen (still seen at super cinemas), anamorphic wide screen, often used to strike 70mm prints, or just projected through an anamorphic lens from a 35mm print, super 35, and of course, the Super 70 IMAX format, that turns 70mm on its side and shoots a frame 7 cm high and 15 sprocket pins wide, while moving the sound track off of the film onto a synchronized 35mm tape. I imagine we have seen the last of the film innovations, but digital innovations are just getting started. Digital processing will eventually offer a viewing experience not available in theaters. When that happens, the multiplexes will be hard put to survive. -- http://home.teleport.com/~larryc |
Larry Caldwell wrote in
k.net: In article , lid (Howard Christeller) says... Stop right there. This is incredibly wrong. Analog has limited resolution, just like digital. EVERYTHING physical has limited resolution. Infinite resolution is equivalent to perpetual motion. Both film and video use discrete samples over time, with rather poor sample rates at that. Film makers have been messing with film formats for decades. Besides the triple camera/projector Cinerama experiment, there is 70mm wide screen (still seen at super cinemas), anamorphic wide screen, often used to strike 70mm prints, or just projected through an anamorphic lens from a 35mm print, super 35, and of course, the Super 70 IMAX format, that turns 70mm on its side and shoots a frame 7 cm high and 15 sprocket pins wide, while moving the sound track off of the film onto a synchronized 35mm tape. I imagine we have seen the last of the film innovations, but digital innovations are just getting started. Digital processing will eventually offer a viewing experience not available in theaters. When that happens, the multiplexes will be hard put to survive. Oh, I think they'll do just fine. By putting in large digital screens. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all. God is an evolutionist. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com