synapse-
after reading your post, i realise that i had indeed been incorrect with a few details-thanks for correcting it. obviously i played fast and lose with some of the details; let me try it this way:
but...i still stick with my basic statement that dvd originally stood for video disc, not versital disc. when i wrote that: "the original 1984 acronym DVD was "digital video disc",...
you wrote: "Considering that CDs were still new tech at that time how does this acronym have anything to do with a media not yet invented?"
well, actually they were, sort of.-but you've got a good point, and the incorrect date is one of my screw ups.
but you have to remember that dvd as such was a development based on the earlier laserdisc format, and those lasers in various forms were around since the mid sixties-and in comercial production since 1981. they were refered to as the "Reflective Optical Videodisc System", hence my position that video disc came before versitile disc.
DVD's themselves, originally used an initialism system carried over from the laserdiscs, also were called "digital video disk", and it was then decided to officially stand for "digital versatile disc" only at the time of the 1995 specification finalization with the manufacturers.
as for the rift between versitile being a noun and/or an adjective, you said: "... you say "they shot it on hi-def video", as if video or versatile is supposed to be a media{?}. Who shoots movies on DVD besides maybe your mom and dad with their handycam? Really bad movies are made this way..."
hmmm...i do believe a few filmakers just might want to disagree with you on that one. in the last few years, several high profile films were shot using hi-def video, to wit: david lynch's inland empire; lucas's star wars I-III; david fincher's the prestige...to name just a few.
so we're both right, it seems, for different reasons.
-b
reply
share
synapse256
17 years ago
"as for the rift between versitile being a noun and/or an adjective, you said: "... you say "they shot it on hi-def video", as if video or versatile is supposed to be a media{?}. Who shoots movies on DVD besides maybe your mom and dad with their handycam? Really bad movies are made this way..."
hmmm...i do believe a few filmakers just might want to disagree with you on that one. in the last few years, several high profile films were shot using hi-def video"
Video is not a media, therefore you can't shoot anything ON video. You can shoot something IN high definition video but that doesn't mean the same thing as on it. Video is a format not a media. DVD is a media.
When they say that something is shot in high definition, that means they used high definition film not a DVD disk or even MPEG2 video which is DVD format. They never say they "shot it on high definition video" because that makes no sense.
Just FYI major film productions are never filmed in a digital format at all. To film something in digital almost always means that you are using compression right at the source so therefore losing quality. The best results are always achieved by using a large "high definition" film and then later doing the transfer to a digital format such as DVD.
So basically shooting something ON something means you are referring to a physical media such as film.
Shooting something IN something means you are referring to a format such as high-def video.
You said ON so you are wrong. All movies are shot on film just like they always have. It's just the size and quality of the film that is different. When they say something is "high-def" they are referring more to the transfer to the media that you end up watching than anything else.
Contrary to what you might think, shooting something directly to a digital format is an inferior way of doing it. That is exactly why many professional photographers refuse to switch to digital cameras.
reply
share
barryrobin
17 years ago
"...Video is not a media, therefore you can't shoot anything ON video..."
damn! you got me on that one! semantics, it gets me in trouble every time; point to to you on that.
but in a verrry lose way, you understand what i was getting at-don't i get brownie points for that? :)
i did note that you didn't address my original historical position of video versus versatile...your thoughts?
sorry to ask, but no matter what your feelings on the matter, one way or the other, it's a pleasure to run into someone who has a brain and isn't afraid to use it; fire away.
regards,
-barry
reply
share
dslacker
17 years ago
Geeze fellows - just pull them out and put them on the table and we'll see who has the bigger one. After that, maybe the thread can revert to 'When will this be on DVD?'
reply
share
dextertrax
17 years ago
"Just FYI major film productions are never filmed in a digital format at all. To film something in digital almost always means that you are using compression right at the source so therefore losing quality. The best results are always achieved by using a large "high definition" film and then later doing the transfer to a digital format such as DVD."
"You said ON so you are wrong. All movies are shot on film just like they always have. It's just the size and quality of the film that is different. When they say something is "high-def" they are referring more to the transfer to the media that you end up watching than anything else. "
Sin City, the Star Wars prequels, etc. were shot in high definition on video. You are right in that the quality is inferior at the source -- but that doesn't mean it isn't being employed in major productions.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CineAlta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacam#HDCAM_.2F_HDCAM_SR
Semantics aside, if it's being recorded to tape (not film), it's being shot on video.
"High-Def" doesn't refer to film. Film can obviously be transferred to a high def format like Bluray, however.
reply
share