Opinions of AVCHD vs. DV

JP Owens wrote:
Nothing is going to beat film on the basis of image performance for a long long time, but...
f. lasts for centuries

Until the United States' EPA bans refrigeration to combat "climate change" - then try to get film to last more than 20 years...

Although, thinking it through, then the film industry will probably totally and finally move to Canada.

- pi

Zebulun wrote:
And I'll ask again, is "American Idol" so much more compelling in HD vs. SD?

You bet.

That 16:9 screen fills our visual range much more easily.

Isn't that the motivation for the push to 3d? Gotta compete with those HD home theaters.

BTW - I don't think anyone replying to this thread had a shot with Ginger. Or Mary Ann.

- pi

AND-- that old nitrate stock, even in the best of storage conditions, is VERY dangerous to work with.

I remember going into the Fox movietone library years ago and pulling some stock footage. Even then in the 70's they only had one lab in NYC that would even consider working with it. We used to make little flash bombs with a couple of frames of leader. POOF! gone in a flash, literally.

I fail to see how Jackie Gleason's or anyone's performances would have been better simply because of a technicality. Same with "The Carol Burnett Show," would that have been better in hd?

It would be better simply because you can see the actor's face and expressions more clearly in HD than in SD. When you can see their acting more easily, the nuances of their performances come through when they would otherwise be lost in the signal.

It's the same reason why the loge level is a more desirable place to see a play than the balcony nosebleeds.

Andy

I guess you've answered it, Patrick. All the pretty colors and flashing lights of "American Idol" enhanced by hd do hide what is actually happening on stage so yes, I can see how hd would make that show more compelling.

I guess you're also right about Mary Ann; it is hard to compete against a guy who can create a radio out of coconuts.