SCREEN-L Archives

April 1991


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mark Ritchie <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 8 Apr 91 10:12:54 EDT
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (26 lines)
Despite all the hype about HDTV being "Almost as good as 35mm" in
reality HDTV only carries about 1/10 of the image information that a
35mm film print can.  The maximum resolution for an existing HDTV signal
is about 1250x1250 lines. 35mm release print stock has about 10000x10000
resolution.  Video still has a long way to go.  This does not mean that
video hasn't come a long way or that I don't think HDTV is a good idea.
The other problem is that, due to the limitations of the small screen,
(anything under 2 metres wide) the composition of the image needs to
be different than on the big screen.  I have seen numerous examples
of short items shot by crews who are primarily trained for video that
have been projected onto a large screen with disasterous results.  I
don't really want to see someone's front teeth blown up to 4 metres
high.  Think about the composition of a film like LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
where there are numerous shots designed to show the vast emptiness of
the desert.  Video just can't compete with that type of image due to its
low resolution.
Mark Ritchie                      | Tel: (519) 888-4070
Media Librarian                   | Fax: (519) 888-6197
Audio-Visual Centre               |
University of Waterloo            | NetNorth: [log in to unmask]