On Tue, 28 May 2002 23:35:34 GMT, "UrbanVoyeur" wrote:

>Besides, there are so many variables in theaters these days, whose to say
>the softness wasn't from a misaligned, dirty, or out of focus projector - or
>even a less than optimal seat.
>It might have even been a lousy print (if not digitally projected)

Yes. In the theater I saw it in, it was barely tolerable - the
picture was fuzzy and so low in contrast and brilliance
that it was a very unpleasant viewing experience (I looked
at the projection-booth window during the titles, and it
was "clearly" VERY dirty!); the sound was too loud, and the
"one-note" subwoofer voice coil former kept bottoming with
loud "snaps" (gosh, those spaceships sure are noisy in
space...!;-). I prefer home-viewing, with VHS tapes played
on a good 27" TV at 6', with a good stereo-only pair of speakers...

>Regarding sharpness, if you ever get a chance, take a look at clips from
>some 35 mm prints under a loupe. You might be shocked at how few frames are
>absolutely in focus, particularly with moving subjects, pulling & tracking
>notwithstanding. Our eyes are able to interpolate and adjust to quite a bit
>with moving images.

I've always been amazed by the desire to emulate the look
of film with video - video does motion SO much better...
If I had the money (and energy) to shoot film, I would do
it for its higher resolution, better tonality, and relative
freedom from artifacts (except with motion...), but video
is good enough to produce some fine imagery, on a smaller
scale. Matching the display to the limitations of the medium
is not a bad idea. A good, sharp, well-set-up 27" 4:3 TV
at 6', viewed straight-on serves better than "empty
magnification" of the limited-resolution video image to
mural-size, I think... And, I've never been a "surround
sound" enthusiast - most of the effects are hokey - and
with an "audiomaniac" background, I prefer well-done,
accurate, simple, and "believable" sound reproduction to
"effects"...