Haha, no problem. Enjoy your dinner.

I enjoy a wide range of movies so i don't think age will be an issue. Heck, some black and white films are much better than many of today's.

 

Brotha, you ain't seen nothing. Cruise the home theater forums and read the audio snobs posts about how much cleaner/crisper the sound is with their $200/foot silver cables sound over our crappy copper or oxygen free copper cable.

If I'm lying, I'm dieing.

 

wow you guys know how to turn up the heat on tv info

i think im just going to be geting a lcd, since it fit what i need the best

 

OK, first, the really short answer which probably won't make much sense out of context:
The problems and length of time and cost has nothing to do with the resolution of 35mm film. It took so long and cost so much because it required changing the entire infrastructure of television from the ground up. It meant changing everything from how material was shot, to how it was processed, to how it was handled in post production, to how it was delivered. This meant eleventy kabillion businesses with eleventh katrillion dollars invested in equipment had to buy all new stuff, in addition to every broadcaster in the country having to get all new broadcasting equipment and on and on and on (not to mention you had to buy a new TV - if you're old enough to have your first TV not being an HD model).

But this involves some history and a story, which I'll try to keep brief. (and even the brief version will be long but it will help you to understand why things were done the way they were), and along the way you'll see that HD doesn't even come close to showing the resolution of film. By the way, I'm sure you'll know a lot of what I'm writing but some reading this won't which is why I'm mentioning a lot of what might be obvious to you. This is also for them. So grab a beer, or a coffee (French roast is preferred) or whatever, kick off your shoes, sit back, and enjoy:

Film . . . it still rocks, by the way.

Let's see, where to start . . . O.K., remember TV before the widescreen HD set you see before you? It's aspect ratio was 4:3 (today's is 16:9). But before there was TV, film's aspect ratio was not widescreen like you see in the theaters today, it was 4:3. When TV came along they made the aspect ratio of the tube the same as film. When everyone started watching TV and not going out to movies the studios started losing bucks so they changed movies to a wider aspect ratio (something you could not see on TV) which made movies "bigger", and unique to draw people into the theaters.

Interesting, eh? Whatever.

OK, so in early TV there was no video tape, there was live broadcast and kinescope (which was when they took a film camera and placed it in front of a TV (synchronizing the frame rate to the flicker of the magic picture box) and filmed the picture on the TV. This was the only way of preserving TV shows prior to the invention of videotape which was some time in the late 50s.

OK….so fast forward to more modern times. (Mostly because the above is before my time and I'm not sure how all that worked) Shows and commercials made it to television in basically one of three ways. Live broadcast, video tape or film (for example multi-camera sitcoms were usually shot on video directly although some were shot on film with multi cameras - further example .. . remember "Cheers"? That was a multi came FILM show. Shot on multiple film cameras simultaneously, edited on film, and then transferred on video tape - we'll get to that process in a bit, - in contrast, remember "Three's Company"? That was shot on tape, multi camera, and the cuts were done ,while shooting, in a booth near the stage. some additional video editing could be done but it was shot directly to tape (1" in case you're interested) I mention this because if you remember those shows you'll remember there was a different quality look to them (one looked like film, one looked like video tape - and that's important to remember).

So, For the longest time, series shows were mostly shot on film, and many still are. Commercials are almost always shot on film. Have you ever wondered how films and shows and commercials shot on film get to TV? They have to be transferred from film to video (well, they did, now they are scanned and posted on files, but more on that later)

The process to transfer stuff shot on film to video is called Telecine. For example, you're watching a movie on DVD. When you see that movie in a theater it's projected from a print. The image on that print has amazing resolution, a ton of contrast, amazing chroma saturation . . . none of which comes across on TV . . . because back then TV was 525 lines (480 lines of picture), had none of the contrast ratio of film, had no where near the color rendition of film. So, you have to take the film and electronically manipulate it to make it look as much like what it would look like if you were seeing it projected in a theater . . . which, while it looked OK, still looked nothing like real film.

And because of this the people grumbled and were not happy. There had to be a better way.

But before we get to that, keep this in mind - many post production houses, the companies that transfer the film to tape, and edited the tape, and had audio equipment to do all the sound editing, and makes titles, and on and on and everything else involved in getting something filmed onto broadcast tape . . . those facilities had millions and millions of dollars invested in equipment in their facilities, and there were hundreds of such facilities in the country cranking out 525 NTSC video (the precursor to HD) In addition, the studios also had millions upon millions of dollars invested in such equipment . . . and then, after all those shows and movies were transferred over to and edited, and duplicated onto tape, it went out to the various broadcasters and retail channels . . . who had billions of dollars invested in equipment to broadcast that tape. And all of these billions of dollars of equipment owned by all these thousands of companies were only compatible with the one format - 525 NTSC - and analogue at that!

And then came High Def. And everything had to change.

Well, HD didn't come that quickly, there was a lot to be decided. Here's sort of how it happened.

There are a bunch of different professional film formats 16mm, Super16mm, 35mm, Super35, single perf, dbl. perf, 65mm, 70mm, iMax, whatever . . . but for the most part shows and movies were shot mostly either in 16 or 35. And for the rest of the story we'll concern ourselves with 35.

35mm film has an amazing amount of resolution. Far beyond what HD shows. When most are thinking of HD they're thinking of pixels, a resolution of 1920x1080 (or else 1280x720) If you're wondering how they arrived at 1920 by 1080 it wasn't entirely arbitrary. First, 16x9 aspect ratio . . . how'd they arrive at that? Well, that was kind of arbitrary. They decided on that because they felt that was the best compromise to display the two main widescreen formats that motion pictures were presented in (which are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1) (I'm not even gonna get into panning and scanning and letterbox formatting). Now, if you were to look at what the inherent resolution of 35mm motion picture film is (since it doesn't have pixels) it works out to about 6000 lines of resolution. A butt-load more than 480 lines of NTSC (and a ton more than HD) but, if you scan a 35mm frame at 2K resolution it works out to be the equivalent of 2048×1080 not the full resolution of camera negative, but good enough. . . so, they took the inherent resolution of 2K and used that, hence the 1080 part. The 16x9 aspect ration made it 1920 across they kept that 1080 form the 2K resolution and viola! 1920x1080.

So, they decided on a format - sort of, (some broadcasters decided to go with 1280 by 720, but whatever, it doesn't matter). But regardless of whatever format they decided to adopt, it still meant that all the equipment in all the labs, and studios, and post houses, and tv stations, and broadcast facilities (and TVs at home) were no longer any good. They were all obsolete, they all had to be junked and all new equipment and towers had to be built and bought . . . and it would take a long time to change everything over . . . and cost billions upon billions of dollars (I think the final figure was Eleventy-Kabillion). So, you see, the resolution of 35mm film wasn't germane to the issue. The cost and time had to do with trashing all the old equipment and infrastructure and buying and building an entirely new one. Which is why even though we can get better resolution (4K and 8K . . . . I'll get to that in a bit), no one on the post production and broadcasting side is going to trash the stuff they already have (and still haven't paid for yet) for something better . . . (because honestly, Sam and Sally Suburbia can't even tell the difference between standard def and high def . . . and most don't even realize they're looking at standard def. Seriously, do you know how many people are under the impression that since they bought an HDTV, that everything they are watching is HD? They don't know that most of the 500 stations on their DirecTV feed or cable feed are still standard def. (and don't get me started on the "digital standard". Most folks think that digital means HD. And guess what? Do you have any idea how many people are buying 3D - TVs and are under the impression that when they get home all shows will be in 3D? A lot. So really, when half a billion people are oblivious to that, why dump a trillion dollars into upgrading to an even higher resolution when no one will know? Actually, not everyone has transitioned to HD as far as broadcasters. Most still are Standard Def, but they did have to transition to digital, which still cost a fortune and put a lot of small market stations into bankruptcy forcing to them to sell.

That said.

Today's HD is 1920x1080 or 1280x720. 35mm film has an inherent resolution of 2048×1080*when scanned at 2K, 4096×2160 when scanned at 4K but it will never see TV like that for a long time if ever. First issue is the costs mentioned above. Second is inherent cost to scan and transfer in post, and third even at 4K it's still doesn't capture the full resolution of 35 film. HOW FREAKING AWESOME IS THAT? More and more theaters are getting digital projectors, most are 2K, although some - but not many - are 4K, so, if something is shot digitally at 4K or film is scanned at 4K and is projected at 4K, it looks just as good as film (although you could FleaF it in debate of specs).

Today, a lot of shows and even some movies are shot digitally (to disk not on film) on Red, or Genesis, et al., and these days shooting digitally looks really, really good. Does it have the detail of film - nope, but at todays TV resolution it doesn't matter. Does it capture the detail of film - nope, but again, same thing, doesn't matter.

Ultimately, it comes down to money. And no one, especially in these times, is gonna trash everything and spend untold fortunes just because something is doable. There needs to be a reason. So get used to that 1080 and 720 and learn to love it cause it's gonna be around for a long time.

 

I'm sort of one of those guys, but not totally.

And this sort of relates to the mention earlier about all the specs and special do-dads that don't necessarily amount to much.

The amp equipment for my system is McIntosh (If you've never heard of them check out their site) http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/

And no, it has no relation to Apple.

Anyway, UnGodly expensive and it doesn't even have tonal controls. What goes in is what comes out. If it's a bad recording you hear every nuance of it's crappiness. But if it's awesome, you hear every nuance of its awesomeness. It's just pure clean sound - made all the more better by my God Awesome Speakers. And this is two channel, by the way. I can't stand surround. I've got two ears and listen to two channel stereo, just like God does. And, I'll put my two channel system up against your five or seven channels and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you'd like my two channel better.

It's just that good. No, seriously, God even approves of it:



Now, about those 200 dollar a foot cables.

No, I don't go that far. I've got really nice cables but they didn't cost anywhere near that much.

Anyone remember Dzervit? He's one of those 200 dollar a foot cable guys. You gotta draw the line somewhere, I draw it a bit before there.

 

well here are my two cents i bought a vizio razer lcd led and for the money is an awesome tv is like looking thrue a mirror my opinion buy what you like just go out and look at them for a while before making any decisions or listening to a 17 year old bla bla bla LCD LED is the way lol......

 

Which is why I said three or four times that ultimately he needs to look at various monitors and see what looks best to his eye. (But, in addition, y'all got a lot of cool info at no additional charge)

By the way, if the person trying to convince him one way or the other to buy TV "X" over TV "Y" were 18, should he give him more credence?

 

Kobi, I can't tell you how much i appreciate that little summary you just provided me with. Really helped put a lot of things into perspective that I was a bit unclear on...isn't it disappointing that most consumers know nothing of quality and feel that a 480i broadcast on a 1080p display looks the same as a blu-ray high definition video on the same display. I guess for those who actually care about quality and long for improvements, we will just be left in the dust.

I myself cannot afford what it takes to get a decent audio/video setup that i can truly appreciate but I hope, someday, I can. I wish instead of coming up with all these ways to give a false appearance of a quality image or a crisp sound, companies would focus more on the image in its original and true self and the sound in its "un-tampered with", imperfect tones.

As for your two channel speakers, I don't think many people understand what it costs to have a quality audio setup. Getting the most expensive, brand name 7.1's is not comparable to a setup like you have. (Although I do have to say, DTS Master Audio is good stuff )

I have to ask, what form of media do you purchase for musical albums? I assume vinyl?

 

Actually, no. Just like I don't spend 200 bucks a foot for cables, there are also other things I'm not in on. One of those is vinyl.

I must have a couple of hundred records in boxes, upstairs. Albums that I have had since my teen years (which was back around 1830 - yeah, I'm old, in fact I helped Edison invent the phonograph), but seriously, I started buying CDs when they first came out and have buying them ever since. By the way . . . records, when you've hundreds of them . . . they weigh a ton. I never listen to them but I can't being myself to get rid of them . . . too many memories. Still have a turntable too - old Technics, also up in the attic.

I know all the arguments each side of the debate about which sounds better . . . but the way I look at it is like this. (Here comes another extended story) . . . back in the days of analogue video tape when I was a video tape operator, digital video tape was just coming out (D1 and D2 - component and composite digital). With component the big news was about how you could do generation after generation without degradation. And in terms of the digital content - that was true . . . however, consider what that digital content was on - tons of magnetic particles glued onto Mylar physically dragged over insanely fast spinning rotating magnetic heads. With each use some of that magnetic material is physically degraded. The content may have been digital but you could get dropouts, tape creases, etc. The world's newest and coolest signal format (at the time) and its delivery system had to be one of the most archaic ever devised.

I always felt it was kind of the same with records. Vinyl, that has been pressed to contain groves, with a needle dragged across it. You've got physical degradation from a needle digging into vinyl, dirt that accumulates in the grooves (I remember constantly using cleaning systems to clean my albums and needle). People can believe what they want about the subtleties and nuances of vinyl and the fullness and "non-flatness" the format provides . . . but I can't honestly believe that anything positive about what the format provides (and that is questionable) are not diminished by the physical toll the apparatus has to take and distortion it causes in the process.

But hey, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

And yes, I still listen to and buy CDs. I don't buy digital content online. I'm old school . . . and don't want my music "owned" virtually (even though you don't own it). And, I certainly don't download anything I don't pay for. I'm an artist, make my living that way. For some reason kids don't understand that downloading music isn't just exchanging a file, it's stealing and costs people their livelihoods. But that's another topic.

Are cds better sound quality? I think so, but my opinion is not just based on sound but on theoretical aspects too (which I hypocritically said not to consider when talking about TVs . . . but I'm hypocritical sometimes, so there!)

I've got great equipment, audio and video, and I see you appreciate those kind of toys. But, if there's any wisdom I can impart to you about getting into that kind of stuff, after many years of doing it myself it's this:

A: Don't be an early adotper. I did that for years. It's a bad way to be and it never pays off, especially now that things in the marketplace change so quickly. It's neat seeing all the newest and coolest toys that have just arrived, but getting them is a bad investment. (Actually, none of this stuff is an investment. If anyone tells you it is, they don't know what they're talking about).

B: Don't be swayed by brand names, and in the same breath, the most expensive is not always the best, in fact it often isn't, it's just the most expensive. The amp, yeah McIntosh is an impressive brand name, expensive too, but that isn't what makes it great. In fact, in the uber-high-end audiophile world it is considered sort of bourgeois as there are more expensive and eclectic brands out there. I don't care, for me it sounded best for my set up. My speakers, most people never heard of them (Magnapan), and there are speakers costing thousands of dollars more. Don't care, to my ear these were the best. And the same for all the rest of the equipment.

C: Specs are a nice starting point, but for the most part they're useless.

D: Buy something you know is quality and is going to last. It's ends up being cheaper that way in the long run (relates also to not being an early adopter). Before I got my McIntosh I had a Nakamichi setup (back when Nakamichi meant something). Had it for almost 20 years. Didn't care that the latest and greatest blew it away on specs. didn't care that it did not have some mumbo-jumbo signal processing BS. It sounded great when I got it, it sounded great all those years when I had it until it finally gave up the ghost about three years ago. It's also why I'm still a fan of 2 channel stereo. You get yourself a God-awesome two channel set-up and you won't care about 5.1 or 7.1 or 15.8 blah blah blah.

E: Some day you're gonna reach the point where you're going to drop some serious coin, and when you do remember "D" above, and to get to that point, research, research, research, and then do more research. Did I mention research? And research means listening, looking at, and listening some more. And listen to (and in the case of video - watch) all different kinds of material, compare and contrast, and then listen some more. Any reputable high end audio store - and video store - will accommodate you. If not, go somewhere else. When I bought the amp the dealer I got it from bent over backwards for me, rearranged equipment in their rooms so we could try various combinations of amps and speakers that were not set up thru their switchers. A really good place will do that. (Hint, buying really high end stuff . . . you won't be doing it at Best Buy. You're going to come across brands you've never heard of. (Some with prices that will make your head spin). Don't panic. And also, don't be afraid to say you don't understand something. A good representative will explain what things are and their advantages and disadvantages. If anyone mocks your asking, go somewhere else.

F: There's a lot of good stuff out there. Not all of it is expensive, (a lot of it is though . . . like most things you get what you pay for). After all your research and trials, get what sounds - and looks, in the case of picture - best to you. If that's the Gold Star receiver with the Kenmore speakers, then that's what it is and don't let anyone else tell you why it's bad. Everyone has an opinion, and you know what that's worth.

Enjoy!

 

I still have laserdiscs. Better picture than DVD but damned inconvenient to use. Both of my players have transport issues but were modded for digital and ac-3 rf (Dolby Digital) outputs. One of them does not want to play both sides and the other one says there is no disc when there is one. I found I can fool that one by pressing play instead of close and it will do both.
May have to retire them. Any one wanna buy some discs?

 

Uh . . . negative. I've got a ton of those too up in the attic. I don't need any more.

 

I have a 50 inch Samsung plasma, and I'd kill you if you tried to take it, especially on Monday night. If you took anything else, just wait until I'm watching tv and you could probably just get it without me noticing, lol.

 

XTreme I think many people are fooled by their TVs upconversion of the standard def source image. Most if not all HDTVs will upconvert to their native resolution, which in 2010 is likely going to be 720P or 1080P. Most videophiles will agree that an upconverted image is never the quality of a native HD image. Generally there is some type of artifact induced when you start manipulating the image. Some processors are better than others. There is also very crappy HD source in the market. Nothing chaps my hide worse when watching a program than when they switch to godawful source video, which is typically just the SD video kobi mentioned. Some of this stuff looks like bad VHS...

You can get pretty decent audio/video for not that much money. I got a Marantz SR7200 and Paradigm Atoms when we built the house. Since we blew our wad on the house we didn't have much for anything else, but we've got a respectable 'starter' setup. Kobi's setup is more where I'd like to be, McIntosh & Magnepan are high speed, low drag! Those little Atoms ROCK about 1000 sqft of my open floor plan house!

Another thing to watch out for is 'THX certified.' Doesn't mean a thing really. The important stuff is whether or not the receiver/amp is current with the latest Dolby technology. 5.1 is still the mainstay for movies. Not all that many mastered in 6.1 or 7.1, yet.

And audiophiles agree, music should be enjoyed as God intended, in stereo!