Apple sends out invitations for Oct. 16 iPad event: 'It's been way too long'

191011121315»

Comments

  • Reply 281 of 287
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Noise can be easily cleaned up. I see many old movies converted to HD, and they look phenomenal. Some even look better than movies filmed in HD.



    Yet the image is still restricted by the original data, which has a finite content (for Kodachrome approx. 20 megapixels according to some sources). Otherwise the same could be said about digital camera files: expanded and manipulated to whatever resolution you wanted. At which point there's no defined advantage for film, which was the point of what I was responding to. 

  • Reply 282 of 287
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    jfc1138 wrote: »

    Yet the image is still restricted by the original data, which has a finite content (for Kodachrome approx. 20 megapixels according to some sources). Otherwise the same could be said about digital camera files: expanded and manipulated to whatever resolution you wanted. At which point there's no defined advantage for film, which was the point of what I was responding to. 

    It's a pixel-less image, so it has infinite divisibility. To upconvert HD to anything higher involves filling in the blanks, or creating pixels.
  • Reply 283 of 287
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    It's a pixel-less image, so it has infinite divisibility. To upconvert HD to anything higher involves filling in the blanks, or creating pixels.



    Film has units of information, they're just not called "pixels", silver grains that have been photo impacted sufficiently to have their chemistry shifted or photo-dye molecules that have similarly been changed by their interaction with photons. Not in the least "infinite", the film's information density is defined by the density of it's light sensitive particles which in turn is often influenced by the intended light sensitivity, "faster" films being structured with larger silver grains at the expense of a lower information density: aka "graininess", since the bigger grains take up more space on the emulsion.

  • Reply 284 of 287
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    jfc1138 wrote: »

    Film has units of information, they're just not called "pixels", silver grains that have been photo impacted sufficiently to have their chemistry shifted or photo-dye molecules that have similarly been changed by their interaction with photons. Not in the least "infinite", the film's information density is defined by the density of it's light sensitive particles which in turn is often influenced by the intended light sensitivity, "faster" films being structured with larger silver grains at the expense of a lower information density: aka "graininess", since the bigger grains take up more space on the emulsion.

    I get what you mean, but going that route everything is made up of particles. There's nothing that's completely solid. I think at this point we should agree to disagree, because there's really no 'right' answer because both film, and digital have their pros and cons.
  • Reply 285 of 287

    MAAAAAAAC MIIIIIIINIIIIIIIII

  • Reply 286 of 287
    wigbywigby Posts: 688member
    Your definitions of TV content is very limited. Who cares what networks do over cable? Every channel is already streamed online with no additional infrastructure spending needed. It's just a matter of a bigger pipe which all satellite ISPs already deliver anywhere in the world. Most ISPs hit the target data rate to allow 4k movie to play after a moment of initial buffering. If you want live TV get a bigger pipe. The reason why so many people are cable cutting is because they just don't care about live / conventional TV.
Sign In or Register to comment.