[Tig] 2 perf 35mm as replacement for Super 16

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Robert Houllahan wrote:

> exceptions to this rule and S-16 being used all the time..... I personally 
> think anybody who says S-16 is not "HD" quality is a crackpot. All these

S-16 is not "HD" quality.  So there.

> networks try to slam the hell out of the compression for revenue purpose and 
> the end result is a very bad overly compressed picture 8 out of 10 times. I 
> know allot of people who prefer the look of SD to HD anyway just for the ugly 
> factor...

Sorry, this junk on a channel with "HD" in the title is not actually 
"HD".  Quite a lot of it is worse than DVD.

In spite of all the hoopla about "100 HD channels by the end of the 
year" that I am now receiving from 5 different providers, the quality 
of "HD" has nosedived dramatically this year.  For example, DISH 
Network recently got rid of its wonderful (true HD) Voom channels and 
replaced them with advertisment sponsored up-converts (Bravo, USA 
Channel, etc.).  Some of the images are stretched in strange 
dimensions.  This is a wakeup call for me that it will be necessary to 
send considerably less money to DISH Network and more money to some 
other sort of provider (Blu-Ray?).

Other than local broadcasters, there are only a few channels of true 
HD left.  It is a pretty sorry state.  In my area, ABC's 720P content 
looks stellar, CBS usually looks excellent, and NBC usually looks 
pretty good as well.

Regardless, once the bandwidth problem is solved, the material shot on 
16mm is not going to be very valuable at all unless it is "once in a 
lifetime" nature material.  16mm will already be totally unacceptable 
for big-three primetime programming.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/