Regarding commentaries, etc., I sure those will come. Apple--or whoever--would need to insert additional tracks, and the rest of what's on a DVD can be downloaded as a package that iTunes 8 would unlock. Additional features, is something I wouldn't mind tiered in pricing. Some flicks, I couldn't care less what the director has to say; others, I'd like every commentary imaginable.
For Wal-Mart, I think they're firming-up a revenue stream that they see will eventually dry up. DVDs will go the way of the LPs, and all (or most) entertainment media will be online. Wal-Mart can price some items so low because of the pressure they apply to vendors. With downloaded movies, there is no manufacturing process to squeeze tighter.
Wal-Mart, I believe, sees this and decides to apply Cosa Nostra tactics to the studios, so when DVDs and CDs leave their shelves, they still will get the kickback from Apple.
"Supply and demand" is the simplest concept with regard to market prices, and it is the one given at every level for any percieved problems that consumers might have. For example if gas prices go up or Wal-Mart takes over a retail segment, economists will say it is merely the forces of supply and demand. Unfortunately the world and the "free" market are much more complicated than that.
Supply and demand only works if the markets are TRULY free, fair and sustainable from a social and ecological and fiscal perspective. Wal-Mart uses supply and demand to get the best prices for the goods IT buys. It prices its products in stores lower to gain market share and if that was the whole story, then everything would be fine. Unfortunately Wal-Mart also uses its size and money to warp the system, threaten local governments that want to regulate it, create artificial supply constraints (by threatening studios re DVD's) and many other methods.
My point is that there are plenty of legal ways businesses use to maximize profits and some of them are anti-free market when they claim to be totally free market. If the consumer really had a choice, then Windows probably would not have displaced the Apple OS so quickly. MS contracts constrained the use of its OS on the computer makers and from that point on, supply and demand were rigged. It does not matter that Apple chose to stay proprietary. It does not matter that MS did it legally. What matters is that board room argreements create the rules of the game before the consumer even gets to see what products they can buy. In industries with monopolies and cartels, there is little real choice.
"Supply and demand" is the simplest concept with regard to market prices, and it is the one given at every level for any percieved problems that consumers might have. For example if gas prices go up or Wal-Mart takes over a retail segment, economists will say it is merely the forces of supply and demand. Unfortunately the world and the "free" market are much more complicated than that.
Supply and demand only works if the markets are TRULY free, fair and sustainable from a social and ecological and fiscal perspective. Wal-Mart uses supply and demand to get the best prices for the goods IT buys. It prices its products in stores lower to gain market share and if that was the whole story, then everything would be fine. Unfortunately Wal-Mart also uses its size and money to warp the system, threaten local governments that want to regulate it, create artificial supply constraints (by threatening studios re DVD's) and many other methods.
My point is that there are plenty of legal ways businesses use to maximize profits and some of them are anti-free market when they claim to be totally free market. If the consumer really had a choice, then Windows probably would not have displaced the Apple OS so quickly. MS contracts constrained the use of its OS on the computer makers and from that point on, supply and demand were rigged. It does not matter that Apple chose to stay proprietary. It does not matter that MS did it legally. What matters is that board room argreements create the rules of the game before the consumer even gets to see what products they can buy. In industries with monopolies and cartels, there is little real choice.
Ok, I see what you mean. I can mostly go along with it.
That requires a front projection unit with a reverse anamorphic lens.
The DVD player (software or deck) or the TV does the (un) stretching, a lens is unnecessary.
I used to argue this too until I shot HD for the first time.
When shooting video with a native 16x9 sensor, the image will be 16x9 natively. Which means if you watch it on a 4x3 monitor the image will still be 16x9. Everything will be squeezed and stretched vertically.
To view this image properly on a 4x3 television the image has to be cropped or given a letterbox. When you view a 16x9 image on a 4x3 television you are loosing some picture information because of cropping or letterboxing.
When you are able to see an image properly it its full 16x9 on a full 16x9 television you are watching its full picture information.
For the sake of argument they call this digital anamorphic.
In real quality terms its not significantly better. What can add to one perceiving a difference is the fact that your newer plasma or LCD HD television is much much better than your old SD CRT television.
Quote:
Anamorphic requires a lens to undistort the image, and leads to LOWER quality.
This can be true in a sense. Because optically squeezing an image adds distortion and can be difficult to focus. But for theatrical filmmaking the advantages of optical anamorphic photography out weight the disadvantages. With anamorphic you are using the entire square Academy 35mm frame for picture. The rectangular 2.40:1 aspect ratio is squeezed into a .980 x .735 inch square.
Over the years most of the objectionable distortion problems have been worked out with improved lens design. The distortion that continues in anamorphic photography have actually become trademarks of big budget movie making. Oval bokeh and highlights that flare long horizontally across the frame are two classic looks of big budget Hollywood filmmaking.
The advantages of anamorphic is that it literally provides twice the picture area and twice the resolution of a standard flat 35mm frame. Depending on the speed of film that’s been shot anamorphic 35mm would need to be scanned at 6K to 8K to properly digitize most of its picture information. With this filmmakers are able to project a large 2.40 aspect ratio picture on a 50 – 60 foot screen with relatively little grain. Prior to anamorphic 35mm the most practical way to do this was to shoot 65mm film.
The other way to shoot 2.40:1 aspect ratio film is called super 35. Super 35 uses the entire Academy 35mm frame sprocket to sprocket horizontally but is cropped to 2.40 vertically. The difference is you are recoding a much smaller picture. A .935 x .394 inch picture would be extremely grainy projected onto a 50 – 60 foot screen.
Even though the picture has not been shot anamorphically it will need to be projected anamorphically because super 35mm cropped to 2.40 does not have the necessary resolution for big screen projection. The super 35mm negative has to be optically enlarged to a anamorphic 35mm print. Which introduces grain because you are optically enlarging the grain and you are loosing a generation every time a copy is made. This reason is why anamorphic has been used for large movies.
Over the past five years super 35mm has come more into favor for a number of reasons. The most notable reason is the digital intermediate. Because of the malleability of digital information. A super 35mm image with a high resolution scan can be digitally enlarged for anamorphic projection with much less degradation of the original look.
Quote:
Every time a discussion is started about almost any topic it ends up degenerating into an argument about whenther the damn video is 640x480, 720 dpi, HD, blah blah blah OR omfg they didn't release product x, I am so pissed... Give it a damn rest
I agree, but is irks me that people think lines of resolution tell the whole story of video quality. That was more true with analog but not so true in the digital world.
It also irks me that people think DVD is a paragon of quality. In reality DVD’s biggest selling point is that its better than VHS. The movie you are watching on DVD has exponentially less resolution, detail, color, and depth than the 1080P D5 master it came from. I’ve seen movies at this resolution and trust me there is a huge difference.
DVD is a compromise. It’s a compromise between quality, the limitation of optical disc storage, and price. CD, DVD, iTunes movies, and iTunes music are all compromises between these same variables. I disagree that one is significantly lower quality than another.
This has always been the case. Wall Street was founded by crooks and thieves.
Later it gained some degree of rule and law, which today many still attempt to break or circumvent.
Business isn't bad, it is just business. It is full of people who are willing to bend the rules to put food on their kids plate or a porche in their garage. Most people do bad things when they feel they need to. The economic system should be designed to make those times as infrequent as possible.
And those who are successful in business do not deserve any respect just because they make money ... the same goes for corporations. As long as businesses concede that they need regulations to control their excesses and that the rules of the "free" market are just tools that may need to be changed or modified as society deems necessary, it's all good.
"Capitalism is a great servant, a lousy boss and an even worse religion."
[QUOTE=TenoBell]I used to argue this too until I shot HD for the first time.
When shooting video with a native 16x9 sensor, the image will be 16x9 natively. Which means if you watch it on a 4x3 monitor the image will still be 16x9. Everything will be squeezed and stretched vertically.
To view this image properly on a 4x3 television the image has to be cropped or given a letterbox. When you view a 16x9 image on a 4x3 television you are loosing some picture information because of cropping or letterboxing.
When you are able to see an image properly it its full 16x9 on a full 16x9 television you are watching its full picture information.
For the sake of argument they call this digital anamorphic.
In real quality terms its not significantly better. What can add to one perceiving a difference is the fact that your newer plasma or LCD HD television is much much better than your old SD CRT television.
This can be true in a sense. Because optically squeezing an image adds distortion and can be difficult to focus. But for theatrical filmmaking the advantages of optical anamorphic photography out weight the disadvantages. With anamorphic you are using the entire square Academy 35mm frame for picture. The rectangular 2.40:1 aspect ratio is squeezed into a .980 x .735 inch square.
Over the years most of the objectionable distortion problems have been worked out with improved lens design. The distortion that continues in anamorphic photography have actually become trademarks of big budget movie making. Oval bokeh and highlights that flare long horizontally across the frame are two classic looks of big budget Hollywood filmmaking.
The advantages of anamorphic is that it literally provides twice the picture area and twice the resolution of a standard flat 35mm frame. Depending on the speed of film that?s been shot anamorphic 35mm would need to be scanned at 6K to 8K to properly digitize most of its picture information. With this filmmakers are able to project a large 2.40 aspect ratio picture on a 50 ? 60 foot screen with relatively little grain. Prior to anamorphic 35mm the most practical way to do this was to shoot 65mm film.
The other way to shoot 2.40:1 aspect ratio film is called super 35. Super 35 uses the entire Academy 35mm frame sprocket to sprocket horizontally but is cropped to 2.40 vertically. The difference is you are recoding a much smaller picture. A .935 x .394 inch picture would be extremely grainy projected onto a 50 ? 60 foot screen.
Even though the picture has not been shot anamorphically it will need to be projected anamorphically because super 35mm cropped to 2.40 does not have the necessary resolution for big screen projection. The super 35mm negative has to be optically enlarged to a anamorphic 35mm print. Which introduces grain because you are optically enlarging the grain and you are loosing a generation every time a copy is made. This reason is why anamorphic has been used for large movies.
Over the past five years super 35mm has come more into favor for a number of reasons. The most notable reason is the digital intermediate. Because of the malleability of digital information. A super 35mm image with a high resolution scan can be digitally enlarged for anamorphic projection with much less degradation of the original look.
I see you've read a lot about this in the last day.
It's mostly correct.
You can't compare what one HD camera does when the file is shown on an SD set, assuming that is what you meant, as hi def sets aren't 4:3 anymore. My SD camcorder that records 16:9 plays on an SD set without problems, it automatically letterboxes, though I have other choices. My HD camers is more complex, though I don't see the point of shooting 16:9 to show on 4:3. You then have to interpolate downwards anyway.
The player will automatically do this, if the player CAN. It's just like Tv's. A few can automatically adjust for anamorphic, but most can't play it properly (if at all).
The reason why anamorphic projects have lower quality is not so much the quality of the lens. It is mostly because the shoot lens is compressing information onto the film in such a way that the fine detail ends up being finer than the film can hold. When expanding this detail, some is then lost in the grain.
I see you've read a lot about this in the last day
LOL, yeah well.
Much of this stuff is pretty common information around cinematography circles. I also have direct access to people who have been doing this stuff much longer than I.
Quote:
It is mostly because the shoot lens is compressing information onto the film in such a way that the fine detail ends up being finer than the film can hold. When expanding this detail, some is then lost in the grain.
Honestly I've never heard anyone say this about anamorphic photography. I've seen people confuse optical compression and digital compression. Compression only meaning you squeeze twice the picture to fit half the space. You don't loose anything.
The whole purpose of anamorphic is to project the image onto a larger screen. Which means the detail is being magnified. If you were loosing detail that would defeat the whole purpose of shooting anamorphic in the fist place.
I've also seen Kodak studies that show the lens as a limiting factor because film MTF would be higher if it did not require a lens to focus light.
Much of this stuff is pretty common information around cinematography circles. I also have direct access to people who have been doing this stuff much longer than I.
Honestly I've never heard anyone say this about anamorphic photography. I've seen people confuse optical compression and digital compression. Compression only meaning you squeeze twice the picture to fit half the space. You don't loose anything.
The whole purpose of anamorphic is to project the image onto a larger screen. Which means the detail is being magnified. If you were loosing detail that would defeat the whole purpose of shooting anamorphic in the fist place.
I've also seen Kodak studies that show the lens as a limiting factor because film MTF would be higher if it did not require a lens to focus light.
You logic is fine, but not correct.
I've been in this business, one way or the other since 1969, I'm pretty familliar with how it works.
Comments
Another forum member said that the movie they bought had chapters.
Link to screen grab.
Regarding commentaries, etc., I sure those will come. Apple--or whoever--would need to insert additional tracks, and the rest of what's on a DVD can be downloaded as a package that iTunes 8 would unlock. Additional features, is something I wouldn't mind tiered in pricing. Some flicks, I couldn't care less what the director has to say; others, I'd like every commentary imaginable.
For Wal-Mart, I think they're firming-up a revenue stream that they see will eventually dry up. DVDs will go the way of the LPs, and all (or most) entertainment media will be online. Wal-Mart can price some items so low because of the pressure they apply to vendors. With downloaded movies, there is no manufacturing process to squeeze tighter.
Wal-Mart, I believe, sees this and decides to apply Cosa Nostra tactics to the studios, so when DVDs and CDs leave their shelves, they still will get the kickback from Apple.
You will have to explain that.
"Supply and demand" is the simplest concept with regard to market prices, and it is the one given at every level for any percieved problems that consumers might have. For example if gas prices go up or Wal-Mart takes over a retail segment, economists will say it is merely the forces of supply and demand. Unfortunately the world and the "free" market are much more complicated than that.
Supply and demand only works if the markets are TRULY free, fair and sustainable from a social and ecological and fiscal perspective. Wal-Mart uses supply and demand to get the best prices for the goods IT buys. It prices its products in stores lower to gain market share and if that was the whole story, then everything would be fine. Unfortunately Wal-Mart also uses its size and money to warp the system, threaten local governments that want to regulate it, create artificial supply constraints (by threatening studios re DVD's) and many other methods.
My point is that there are plenty of legal ways businesses use to maximize profits and some of them are anti-free market when they claim to be totally free market. If the consumer really had a choice, then Windows probably would not have displaced the Apple OS so quickly. MS contracts constrained the use of its OS on the computer makers and from that point on, supply and demand were rigged. It does not matter that Apple chose to stay proprietary. It does not matter that MS did it legally. What matters is that board room argreements create the rules of the game before the consumer even gets to see what products they can buy. In industries with monopolies and cartels, there is little real choice.
"Supply and demand" is the simplest concept with regard to market prices, and it is the one given at every level for any percieved problems that consumers might have. For example if gas prices go up or Wal-Mart takes over a retail segment, economists will say it is merely the forces of supply and demand. Unfortunately the world and the "free" market are much more complicated than that.
Supply and demand only works if the markets are TRULY free, fair and sustainable from a social and ecological and fiscal perspective. Wal-Mart uses supply and demand to get the best prices for the goods IT buys. It prices its products in stores lower to gain market share and if that was the whole story, then everything would be fine. Unfortunately Wal-Mart also uses its size and money to warp the system, threaten local governments that want to regulate it, create artificial supply constraints (by threatening studios re DVD's) and many other methods.
My point is that there are plenty of legal ways businesses use to maximize profits and some of them are anti-free market when they claim to be totally free market. If the consumer really had a choice, then Windows probably would not have displaced the Apple OS so quickly. MS contracts constrained the use of its OS on the computer makers and from that point on, supply and demand were rigged. It does not matter that Apple chose to stay proprietary. It does not matter that MS did it legally. What matters is that board room argreements create the rules of the game before the consumer even gets to see what products they can buy. In industries with monopolies and cartels, there is little real choice.
Ok, I see what you mean. I can mostly go along with it.
That requires a front projection unit with a reverse anamorphic lens.
The DVD player (software or deck) or the TV does the (un) stretching, a lens is unnecessary.
I used to argue this too until I shot HD for the first time.
When shooting video with a native 16x9 sensor, the image will be 16x9 natively. Which means if you watch it on a 4x3 monitor the image will still be 16x9. Everything will be squeezed and stretched vertically.
To view this image properly on a 4x3 television the image has to be cropped or given a letterbox. When you view a 16x9 image on a 4x3 television you are loosing some picture information because of cropping or letterboxing.
When you are able to see an image properly it its full 16x9 on a full 16x9 television you are watching its full picture information.
For the sake of argument they call this digital anamorphic.
In real quality terms its not significantly better. What can add to one perceiving a difference is the fact that your newer plasma or LCD HD television is much much better than your old SD CRT television.
Anamorphic requires a lens to undistort the image, and leads to LOWER quality.
This can be true in a sense. Because optically squeezing an image adds distortion and can be difficult to focus. But for theatrical filmmaking the advantages of optical anamorphic photography out weight the disadvantages. With anamorphic you are using the entire square Academy 35mm frame for picture. The rectangular 2.40:1 aspect ratio is squeezed into a .980 x .735 inch square.
Over the years most of the objectionable distortion problems have been worked out with improved lens design. The distortion that continues in anamorphic photography have actually become trademarks of big budget movie making. Oval bokeh and highlights that flare long horizontally across the frame are two classic looks of big budget Hollywood filmmaking.
The advantages of anamorphic is that it literally provides twice the picture area and twice the resolution of a standard flat 35mm frame. Depending on the speed of film that’s been shot anamorphic 35mm would need to be scanned at 6K to 8K to properly digitize most of its picture information. With this filmmakers are able to project a large 2.40 aspect ratio picture on a 50 – 60 foot screen with relatively little grain. Prior to anamorphic 35mm the most practical way to do this was to shoot 65mm film.
The other way to shoot 2.40:1 aspect ratio film is called super 35. Super 35 uses the entire Academy 35mm frame sprocket to sprocket horizontally but is cropped to 2.40 vertically. The difference is you are recoding a much smaller picture. A .935 x .394 inch picture would be extremely grainy projected onto a 50 – 60 foot screen.
Even though the picture has not been shot anamorphically it will need to be projected anamorphically because super 35mm cropped to 2.40 does not have the necessary resolution for big screen projection. The super 35mm negative has to be optically enlarged to a anamorphic 35mm print. Which introduces grain because you are optically enlarging the grain and you are loosing a generation every time a copy is made. This reason is why anamorphic has been used for large movies.
Over the past five years super 35mm has come more into favor for a number of reasons. The most notable reason is the digital intermediate. Because of the malleability of digital information. A super 35mm image with a high resolution scan can be digitally enlarged for anamorphic projection with much less degradation of the original look.
Every time a discussion is started about almost any topic it ends up degenerating into an argument about whenther the damn video is 640x480, 720 dpi, HD, blah blah blah OR omfg they didn't release product x, I am so pissed... Give it a damn rest
I agree, but is irks me that people think lines of resolution tell the whole story of video quality. That was more true with analog but not so true in the digital world.
It also irks me that people think DVD is a paragon of quality. In reality DVD’s biggest selling point is that its better than VHS. The movie you are watching on DVD has exponentially less resolution, detail, color, and depth than the 1080P D5 master it came from. I’ve seen movies at this resolution and trust me there is a huge difference.
DVD is a compromise. It’s a compromise between quality, the limitation of optical disc storage, and price. CD, DVD, iTunes movies, and iTunes music are all compromises between these same variables. I disagree that one is significantly lower quality than another.
Thus supply and demand is thwarted by business, not served by business.
This has always been the case. Wall Street was founded by crooks and thieves.
Later it gained some degree of rule and law, which today many still attempt to break or circumvent.
This has always been the case. Wall Street was founded by crooks and thieves.
Later it gained some degree of rule and law, which today many still attempt to break or circumvent.
Business isn't bad, it is just business. It is full of people who are willing to bend the rules to put food on their kids plate or a porche in their garage. Most people do bad things when they feel they need to. The economic system should be designed to make those times as infrequent as possible.
And those who are successful in business do not deserve any respect just because they make money ... the same goes for corporations. As long as businesses concede that they need regulations to control their excesses and that the rules of the "free" market are just tools that may need to be changed or modified as society deems necessary, it's all good.
"Capitalism is a great servant, a lousy boss and an even worse religion."
Finally, iPods built in Chinese sweatshops can be sold by America's worst labor provider.
When shooting video with a native 16x9 sensor, the image will be 16x9 natively. Which means if you watch it on a 4x3 monitor the image will still be 16x9. Everything will be squeezed and stretched vertically.
To view this image properly on a 4x3 television the image has to be cropped or given a letterbox. When you view a 16x9 image on a 4x3 television you are loosing some picture information because of cropping or letterboxing.
When you are able to see an image properly it its full 16x9 on a full 16x9 television you are watching its full picture information.
For the sake of argument they call this digital anamorphic.
In real quality terms its not significantly better. What can add to one perceiving a difference is the fact that your newer plasma or LCD HD television is much much better than your old SD CRT television.
This can be true in a sense. Because optically squeezing an image adds distortion and can be difficult to focus. But for theatrical filmmaking the advantages of optical anamorphic photography out weight the disadvantages. With anamorphic you are using the entire square Academy 35mm frame for picture. The rectangular 2.40:1 aspect ratio is squeezed into a .980 x .735 inch square.
Over the years most of the objectionable distortion problems have been worked out with improved lens design. The distortion that continues in anamorphic photography have actually become trademarks of big budget movie making. Oval bokeh and highlights that flare long horizontally across the frame are two classic looks of big budget Hollywood filmmaking.
The advantages of anamorphic is that it literally provides twice the picture area and twice the resolution of a standard flat 35mm frame. Depending on the speed of film that?s been shot anamorphic 35mm would need to be scanned at 6K to 8K to properly digitize most of its picture information. With this filmmakers are able to project a large 2.40 aspect ratio picture on a 50 ? 60 foot screen with relatively little grain. Prior to anamorphic 35mm the most practical way to do this was to shoot 65mm film.
The other way to shoot 2.40:1 aspect ratio film is called super 35. Super 35 uses the entire Academy 35mm frame sprocket to sprocket horizontally but is cropped to 2.40 vertically. The difference is you are recoding a much smaller picture. A .935 x .394 inch picture would be extremely grainy projected onto a 50 ? 60 foot screen.
Even though the picture has not been shot anamorphically it will need to be projected anamorphically because super 35mm cropped to 2.40 does not have the necessary resolution for big screen projection. The super 35mm negative has to be optically enlarged to a anamorphic 35mm print. Which introduces grain because you are optically enlarging the grain and you are loosing a generation every time a copy is made. This reason is why anamorphic has been used for large movies.
Over the past five years super 35mm has come more into favor for a number of reasons. The most notable reason is the digital intermediate. Because of the malleability of digital information. A super 35mm image with a high resolution scan can be digitally enlarged for anamorphic projection with much less degradation of the original look.
I see you've read a lot about this in the last day.
It's mostly correct.
You can't compare what one HD camera does when the file is shown on an SD set, assuming that is what you meant, as hi def sets aren't 4:3 anymore. My SD camcorder that records 16:9 plays on an SD set without problems, it automatically letterboxes, though I have other choices. My HD camers is more complex, though I don't see the point of shooting 16:9 to show on 4:3. You then have to interpolate downwards anyway.
The player will automatically do this, if the player CAN. It's just like Tv's. A few can automatically adjust for anamorphic, but most can't play it properly (if at all).
The reason why anamorphic projects have lower quality is not so much the quality of the lens. It is mostly because the shoot lens is compressing information onto the film in such a way that the fine detail ends up being finer than the film can hold. When expanding this detail, some is then lost in the grain.
I see you've read a lot about this in the last day
LOL, yeah well.
Much of this stuff is pretty common information around cinematography circles. I also have direct access to people who have been doing this stuff much longer than I.
It is mostly because the shoot lens is compressing information onto the film in such a way that the fine detail ends up being finer than the film can hold. When expanding this detail, some is then lost in the grain.
Honestly I've never heard anyone say this about anamorphic photography. I've seen people confuse optical compression and digital compression. Compression only meaning you squeeze twice the picture to fit half the space. You don't loose anything.
The whole purpose of anamorphic is to project the image onto a larger screen. Which means the detail is being magnified. If you were loosing detail that would defeat the whole purpose of shooting anamorphic in the fist place.
I've also seen Kodak studies that show the lens as a limiting factor because film MTF would be higher if it did not require a lens to focus light.
LOL, yeah well.
Much of this stuff is pretty common information around cinematography circles. I also have direct access to people who have been doing this stuff much longer than I.
Honestly I've never heard anyone say this about anamorphic photography. I've seen people confuse optical compression and digital compression. Compression only meaning you squeeze twice the picture to fit half the space. You don't loose anything.
The whole purpose of anamorphic is to project the image onto a larger screen. Which means the detail is being magnified. If you were loosing detail that would defeat the whole purpose of shooting anamorphic in the fist place.
I've also seen Kodak studies that show the lens as a limiting factor because film MTF would be higher if it did not require a lens to focus light.
You logic is fine, but not correct.
I've been in this business, one way or the other since 1969, I'm pretty familliar with how it works.