4K Blu-ray is 96 times the resolution of VHS

Remember RCA SelectaVision? I remember we had a player on display hooked up to a big screen RPTV. One of the coolest things was the front, slot loading player that automatically removed the disc from the hard shell plastic "caddy" when you slid it in. Then you'd pull the caddy/shell out and flip the lever that closed the slot to start it playing.
 
Run&Gun said:
Remember RCA SelectaVision? I remember we had a player on display hooked up to a big screen RPTV. One of the coolest things was the front, slot loading player that automatically removed the disc from the hard shell plastic "caddy" when you slid it in. Then you'd pull the caddy/shell out and flip the lever that closed the slot to start it playing.
Click to expand...

I don't always spend too much time watching Youtube, but this gentleman does some interesting reviews of older tech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LrPe0rwXOU

I worked retail sales and loved using Laserdiscs back in the mid 90's to demo home theater and managed to score a THX demo LD for myself!

Also, I guess there was an HD version of Laserdisc. He does a deep dive 2 parter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkQEobE2RUk
 
Run&Gun said:
Remember RCA SelectaVision?.
Click to expand...
I remember it advertised on TV with Pete Townshend's image from the live Who videos (where they filmed Baba O'Riley, Won't get fooled Again in a small London theater). Other than that, it disappeared from stores by 1985 or so.

But I do recall a front piece projector in the UWM Gasthaus (a college bar/grill at the student union), where I watched General Hospital in 1981-82. The resolution was pretty bad. It was no 4K LG.

And, for some reason, I recall "Nurse Annie Logan" from that era. With MacGyver. Before he was MacGyver.

865260_1319726641129_full.jpg
 
I played with a lot of camcorders in the 80's but the first one I had the means to buy was an S-VHS model in '89. It was the Canon F1000s, a rebrand of the Panasonic AG450 which meant it leaned into the "industrial" classification. The increased resolution was noticeable for sure, especially after losing a generation via dubbing or editing (when was the last time I thought about "generation loss."..holy cow). I also bought a series of S-VHS decks thereafter to play the tapes from the camcorder plus improve my off-air recordings. And occasionally to make audio recordings of my bands via the VHS-Hifi tech which was remarkably good. I haven't finished digitizing my old tapes yet so I still have a few working SVHS decks! I look forward to the day when I bid those (and those horrendous s-video cables) goodbye...getting there.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I played with a lot of camcorders in the 80's but the first one I had the means to buy was an S-VHS model in '89. It was the Canon F1000s, a rebrand of the Panasonic AG450 which meant it leaned into the "industrial" classification. The increased resolution was noticeable for sure, especially after losing a generation via dubbing or editing (when was the last time I thought about "generation loss."..holy cow). I also bought a series of S-VHS decks thereafter to play the tapes from the camcorder plus improve my off-air recordings. And occasionally to make audio recordings of my bands via the VHS-Hifi tech which was remarkably good. I haven't finished digitizing my old tapes yet so I still have a few working SVHS decks! I look forward to the day when I bid those (and those horrendous s-video cables) goodbye...getting there.
Click to expand...

It’s funny, I did more editing when I couldn’t afford and didn’t have the equipment to edit, than I do now(which is zero) when I have the tools sitting right in front of me that only cost the price of a few nice meals and can do more than we ever dreamed, back then.

I remember being in elementary school or Jr. high and editing tape-to-tape on consumer VHS decks(had nothing to do with school, this was all on my own). No TC, no auto-cuing, no pre-roll, no controller, etc. They had ‘flying erase heads’, so you could actually make clean edits, but it was 100% manual and a lot of luck and just “eye-balling” it.
 
DLD said:
Mitsubishi HSU-80. We had in on the floor at full retail. $3,000. Ended up selling our only floor copy for ~ $1,500, IIRC. You'd think it would be more popular in LA.

https://www.vintageaudioexchange.com/product/mitsubishi-model-hs-u80
Click to expand...

Man, look at the real wood side panels. I still remember when real wood and "wood grain" was popular with electronics. I actually think I would have rather had that than the the God-awful silver and grey cabinets of TV's and other components when HD first started making a big run in the consumer world.
 
One are that is lagging is the increase in Temporal Resolution over the decades for Video. While gamers are pushing for higher and higher FPS as they move towards realism, video / film is still (mostly) still stick in low fps. The best news is the effectively doubling of temporal resolution as we move off interlaced content for broadcast video, but the film world is still clinging to 24fps. I like what Ang Lee has been doing in shooting in up to 120fps. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.
 
There's a magical look to the dreamy slower framerate, but I am surprised how long 24fps has held on without not much more experimentation by others.

120fps still receives mixed reactions, with most recently Gemini Man (or one of the more recent films).

If you would have asked me 5 years ago, I would have thought that about 50% of films will be shot in 60p+ by now.
 
Sometimes more isn't better. Beyond the cinema feel of 24fps I'd imagine the analog cameras they use only shoot 24. Higher frame rate would make more sense for those cgi effects heavy action movies. I don't follow these movies so it's possible they're already doing this. Reminds me I was just watching a review on the Indiana Jones Crystal Skull movie. Never saw it when it came out because of the terrible reviews. Man is that movie awful. Every time I think my opinion of Lucas couldn't sink any lower it does.
 
"Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" (2012), which was shot at 120 fps (battle scenes), and "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" (2012), shot at 48 fps, were widely panned. And that was it.

Sports looks great at 60p though. I wish they could get up to, at least, 1440 though.
 
NorBro said:
There's a magical look to the dreamy slower framerate, but I am surprised how long 24fps has held on without not much more experimentation by others.

120fps still receives mixed reactions, with most recently Gemini Man (or one of the more recent films).

If you would have asked me 5 years ago, I would have thought that about 50% of films will be shot in 60p+ by now.
Click to expand...

I tend to think 60p is just less beautiful. I get used to it looking at my monitor when shooting a lot of 60p (potentially slow-mo) b-roll, and then when I switch to 24p it looks choppy. But otherwise...

I shot a "hyperlapse" high-speed gallery tour recently for IG Reels. There are speed ramps, so much of the video is at about 1000% or so of real-time and then some parts are at 40% (60p in 24p timebase). the client wanted 24p, but I thought "this is something that could really benefit from 60p timebase because you'll get more imagery and smoother movement from the fast sections." So I tried that for myself and still thought it looked shittier and somehow faker for looking more real than the 24p, and I stuck with the original plan. And my feeling is that if 60p won't work in that scenario, which isn't cinema and doesn't even have people, then it just won't work
 
jmone said:
One are that is lagging is the increase in Temporal Resolution over the decades for Video. While gamers are pushing for higher and higher FPS as they move towards realism, video / film is still (mostly) still stick in low fps. The best news is the effectively doubling of temporal resolution as we move off interlaced content for broadcast video, but the film world is still clinging to 24fps. I like what Ang Lee has been doing in shooting in up to 120fps. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.
Click to expand...

I have a broadcast/network background, so I’m not averse to 60P or higher frame rates and actually like it, FOR THE RIGHT CONTENT. But 99.9% of most narrative type content is not it. Interactive video games and passively viewed movies are two completely different things. I’ve shot exponentially more 60P(including 30fps SD which was interlaced and thus 60 images per second) than 24P over my career(even though I shoot a LOT of 24p) and I can say emphatically that I do not want to watch a movie shot and played back for viewing at high frame rates. I don’t even like 30P.
 
Here's a battle scene from "Billy Lynn" in non-slow mo 60p. I like it within this context but this hyperealism may not be for everyone.

 
I remember issues when TV shows started to increase resolution. Wasn't it Star Trek that had to pay better attention to their sets as badly painted cardboard was then apparent in the final product? I guess my point is that without changing your technique just bumping you frame rate is not going to look great. The HFR in Gemini Man to me looks great in some sections, even the opening panning shots in the Train Station. Then it looks poor when Smith is getting read to take the shot at the train. It feels like I'm standing on set watching it live... and the acting is not good. The thing the HFR exposed was not that in itself being the issue, but the design of the scene to take into account the higher temporal resolution.
 
Run&Gun said:
Man, look at the real wood side panels. I still remember when real wood and "wood grain" was popular with electronics. I actually think I would have rather had that than the the God-awful silver and grey cabinets of TV's and other components when HD first started making a big run in the consumer world.
Click to expand...

Seems like the wood thing was around forever. In that example with the darker wood side panels, I think that looks pretty classy. I wouldn't mind some things coming like that today.
As for the silver/grey. I hated that trend, but now I don't mind it. I think some nostalgia kicked in or I'm just not seeing it as much so it's not a big deal to me anymore. Every electronic item was silver/grey for a while there.
 
I'm a big 24p guy for movies, but was surprised that I didn't mind The Hobbit in 48p with 3D. It struck me as some kind of epic stage play with really great sets. I don't know if I'd want to watch it that way all the time, and certainly not most movies that way, but it was a different experience.
 
jmone said:
I remember issues when TV shows started to increase resolution. Wasn't it Star Trek that had to pay better attention to their sets as badly painted cardboard was then apparent in the final product? I guess my point is that without changing your technique just bumping you frame rate is not going to look great. The HFR in Gemini Man to me looks great in some sections, even the opening panning shots in the Train Station. Then it looks poor when Smith is getting read to take the shot at the train. It feels like I'm standing on set watching it live... and the acting is not good. The thing the HFR exposed was not that in itself being the issue, but the design of the scene to take into account the higher temporal resolution.
Click to expand...

So basically bad acting looks bad in HFR? But good acting might look good? Sounds like the action is more important than the frame rate...

I'm not sure I buy the idea that HFR reveals aspects or details of the scene you couldn't see before, unlike higher resolution video vs lower resolution. I think it just gives you a different vibe
 
If we’re being honest there is nothing intrinsically better with 24fps. We have grown up with 24 for cinema and 30 for tv. We might be at the point where kids growing up today will no longer have that association.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top