I wish Indian DVD makers give us the quality that a present DVD format is capable of. I wonder how many Hollywood DVDs utilize the full capability of the format. Judging from Widescreen Review reviews, Indian DVDs LAGAAN and FIZA that they have reviewed, have scored 3 and 3.5 (out of max 5) respectively, not too bad. Average Hollywood DVD, too, scores bet 3 and 4 for picture quality. Only a few big DVD releases do get 5 in picture quality. This implies that even majority of the Hollywood DVDs don’t use the full capability of the DVD format.

What is (or can be) the alternative??
I have always wondered about the 16-mm film and now defunct 8-mm or super 8 film formats. I am sure, 16-mm and perhaps even a Super 8 film gives better picture than the present DVD or even a 1080i HDTV format can deliver on a 5 or 10 ft screen. I wonder how much does it cost to get an 8mm or a 16-mm film print (excluding royalty costs)?? In the old days it used to cost less than $1 per minute for 8mm printing. If 8mm film is better than DVD, and assuming large scale production of 8-mm film, we may be able to get a 140 min movie for under $100 ?? I wonder how much does it cost to print a 140 min film on 16-mm.

Is spending $100 too much for a movie??
Yes and No. In the VHS days, we normally used a 27 inch TV with a VCR. Both costing aprox $1500 total max, where as, a VHS original was aprox $ 30 (VHS cost = 1/50 of the equipment cost).
These days, in the era of Home Theatre, it is not uncommon to have Audio-Video equipment worth $ 5000. Some have spent upwards of $ 30,000 for Home theatre equipment. For a $ 10,000 Home Theatre equipment, spending $100 for a Film on film medium is not too much (Film cost = only 1/100 of the equipment cost).

What do you think ??

Rana

I don't know what's the cost of transfering to 16mm but I'm guessing they are expensive but less than 16 to 35. I think 35mm to 16mm will probably not be as sharp as 35mm plus it is not practical at all to do this. By your fifth presentation your 16mm will be scratched like hell! Also your sound will have to be mono in 16mm. And what about AR, a 2.35:1 movie transferring to 1.33 or 1.66 (for super 16) will be heavily cropped. I am not too sure about 8mm, I have no idea how a 2.35 can even be transferred to 8mm!?

There is probably no DVD that fully uses the format.
The superbit titles and some others are close, but not
there 100%.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb....t=shrek
Read this thread. Scary that Shrek does not even come close
to the resolution of 480p, isn't it?
Have you ever seen 8mm? 16mm? HD 1080i/p?
good 8mm: worse than a good DVD
good 16mm: better than DVD, worse than HD
good 35mm: about as good as HD 1080p, HD 1080i is the same
if you don't go too close
best 35mm you can have (print from original negative):
better than 1080p
Film is no alternative for home cinema. The future is HD.
Good HD beats anything mere mortals have access to. Good
DVD blows 8mm away and is comparable to ok 16mm.
cheers
Michel Hafner

i have to say the AVsforum (including Zulm ) is full of topics that go waaaaay over my head!! but its good to know there is a "tribe" out there that bothers about the nit-picky stuff unlike me!!! Im glad that i can contrast between a shitty eros release and a superbit release



Edited By faddy on Feb. 24 2002 at 06:02