View Single Post
Old Nov 17, 2009, 9:30 AM   #250
Senior Member
Wayne12's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,097

Originally Posted by maxhuey View Post
2nd, I generally took video of family, not special situation to emphsize any problem so, I don't see them. With the family members gethering in front of the big screen watching, laughing, talking, eating, drinking and partying, no one really go looking for tiny white lines etc., we just enjoy the video as a whole. When my 90 year old parent sees the chubby great grand son started to walk (and in full glory of HD), that was the most precious moment! At $145, this camera did way better than my second generation RCA video camera - with colored view finder - WoW! & dockable recorder bought in 1983 for $2,600! Yep, I learned how to appriciate things...
Looking to the future. In future they are going to screens that have wide angle of view (like the cinema but smaller, 200 cm high+), wide dynamic range, 8mp SHD (ultra HD is still coming) 3D. You will notice more on these wide angle screens (given the eyesight ). One thing I have concluded also, from my time with cinema camera development projects, is that the joy of human vision extends below our perception of it. Even if we do not notice things in the footage they can still have a profound affect on our enjoyment, subconsciously. The wisdom is not to see what we grasp but what we do not. Many professionals would even fail this.

I saw an example today, if anybody is interested. I saw Michael Jacksons "This is it" today. I do not know which cameras they were using, but they looked nice, big and prosumer at least, if not professional, nicer then the ones around here. But the quality was rather low compared to a good cinema camera on a screen with that big of an angle. Would the film have looked nicer if it was twice as good and visually lossless, yes, would it have looked better if it was twice as good again, yes, would it had been more enjoyable, definitely.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote