Re: "Star Trek - Season 2" on HD DVD has been canceled

FDR wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <47ba303c$0$6133$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>  FDR <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Kweeg wrote:
>>>> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:ANIM8Rfsk-B14034.18074818022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Whooo-hoooo!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.TVShowsOnDVD.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=9018
>>>>
>>>> ...you must have bought a BluRay player...
>>>> {{;-/>
>>>>
>>> There's a certain absurdity that you would get much of a quality 
>>> improvement versus regular DVD with source material that is 40 years 
>>> old.  What's next, transferring Edison records to SACD?
>>
>> No absurdity at all.  35mm film is still superior to what HD or 
>> Blu-ray can hold, and vastly superior to what SD DVD can hold.
> 
> Processes have changed and improved over the years with film. If you 
> think that 1960's film was the be all end all of things I think you're 
> fooling yourself.
> 
> 
>>
>> You aren't dumping the SD sources up to HD, which would be the 
>> equivelant of transferring Edison records; you're tranferring the 
>> original source, which is the equivelant of going back in time and 
>> recording the orchestra live.
>>
When they reused old 'Tribbles' footage for DS9 (from the old vault-kept 
masters), the resolution was so good they had to CGI away some of the 
visible defects that didn't show up in the Nth generation broadcast 
prints, like the famous coffee stain on Nimoy's uniform.

Yeah, old 35mm, if well kept, can hold its head up high with modern 
technology. Don't judge it by the shopworn prints you saw in theaters or 
at school- those are usually badly worn, scratched and faded. Ever see 
any restored movies, made from the original separate-color negatives?

aem sends...