New BBC HD channels coming soon.
- Thread starter Nic Robinson
- Start date
Time Audio
Trade: Time Audio
Yeah 1080 on my 50 inch Pioneer at 11 feet viewing distance....perfick
Actually you'd be just as well off with 720 at that distance. You're simply too far away to be able to resolve 1080 from 11ft. The visual acuity of the human eye is settled science.
Check this out:
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
I'd have to broadly agree the conclusion. I've seen 4k demo TV in John Lewis. A 65" Sony IIRC. I had a good look to see if I could see any increased resolution. It was difficult to tell given that no other TV was showing the same content at 1080, but I'd say it did look marginally more detailed than any of the HD on the other TVs. But then I was standing a maximum of approx 4ft. Whilst 4ft isn't an entirely impossible viewing distance in many a UK living room, (which averages approx 10x12ft IME), I think only the most lonely of single men would ever have such a sized TV in such a room.
Having said that, 4k in the cinema is a definite improvement over standard cinema technology, (when the film is actually in 4k that is).
As an aside. The 4k name is a bit of a misnomer. Measured in the same way the current HD standard would be called 2k. It's not, as the name would suggest, 4x the vertical and horizontal resolution of current HD, it's only twice. It should really be called 2160.
There is actually a true 4k standard in existence. But it's actually known as 8k.
Depends on how you measure it. You're right, it's only 2x the vertical and horizontal resolution of a standard HD picture, but it is 4x the overall resolution as you could fit 4x 2K images into a 4K screen space.
I think the arguments in higher resolution for video are much the same as they are for audio, i.e. it's all in the mastering and the original source material. Since the BBC started shooting so much in HD and doing simultaneous broadcasts in HD and SD, SD picture quality skyrocketed because the source material was just so much better. Conversely, the only 4K cinema I have seen so far that *REALLY* impressed me was a 4K transfer of The Sound of Music, which of course was originally shot onto 70mm film. All of the stuff I've seen that has been shot in 4K/8K digial so far to my eyes is not really worth worrying about. It certainly hasn't improved my enjoyment of any movies over the 2K digital versions.
I think the arguments in higher resolution for video are much the same as they are for audio, i.e. it's all in the mastering and the original source material. Since the BBC started shooting so much in HD and doing simultaneous broadcasts in HD and SD, SD picture quality skyrocketed because the source material was just so much better. Conversely, the only 4K cinema I have seen so far that *REALLY* impressed me was a 4K transfer of The Sound of Music, which of course was originally shot onto 70mm film. All of the stuff I've seen that has been shot in 4K/8K digial so far to my eyes is not really worth worrying about. It certainly hasn't improved my enjoyment of any movies over the 2K digital versions.
Some of the BBC4 friday night music archive stuff has been great - I would like to see some of it re-scanned in HD, that would be good.
Incidently I have seen one or two older films that Channel 4 have converted I believe to HD, which have been superb - a credit to the original crew + technicolor (or even B+W)
Incidently I have seen one or two older films that Channel 4 have converted I believe to HD, which have been superb - a credit to the original crew + technicolor (or even B+W)
MJS
Technical Tinkerer
Anything that was fairly well shot on 35mm film over the last century can look good in HD. And the tools available to the graders and restorers can make even the scratchiest and most worn out media look brand new. And any [US] TV that was shot on film for worldwide distribution (think original Star Trek for example) can have the same treatment. Sadly we went down the video and wipe/lose route.
I remember an old Dr. Who episode lovingly shot on video in maximum studio conditions, then a cut to an explosive effects shot (on film) in the same location that was lit completely differently and didn't at all match the previous and subsequent cuts. Does anyone know if this was down to the unions or simply protecting the video cameras from bright sources?
I remember an old Dr. Who episode lovingly shot on video in maximum studio conditions, then a cut to an explosive effects shot (on film) in the same location that was lit completely differently and didn't at all match the previous and subsequent cuts. Does anyone know if this was down to the unions or simply protecting the video cameras from bright sources?
Nic Robinson
Moderator
Fascinating question - never heard of film being used in lieu of video in the studio - possibly as you suggest to protect the old EMI/Link tube cameras or maybe it was a slomo so shot on higher frame rate on film. Prior to the introduction of 1" c.1980 we couldn't even do a slo-mo or freeze frame on video without recourse to an optical disc recorder (I think these could manage a minute or so). Long time ago...
MJS
Technical Tinkerer
It was a log time ago and I have fond memories of watching them press the button on the 1" machines on occasional techie bits on swap shop when I was a kid. I got to see the tail end of the last working days of these machines at facilities around 13 years ago for archiving and retrieval including one of the last working quadruplex machines in Soho.
Derek Wright
pfm Member
I had a trip in the BBC TV Centre in about 1968 or 69 and went into the Dixon of Dock Green studio and control room and saw the film insert ready to run as part of the recording. When watching the programs it was relatively easy to spot the film insert in a video recorded program.
Time Audio
Trade: Time Audio
Were The Goodies done like that..?
Derek Wright
pfm Member
I think I can remember a program about the Goodies which showed film cameras being used for the outdoor stunts, eg the train and road crossing stunt.