Plasma Tv Causes Cancer

[superpanavision70mm]

Ok, the title of this thread is just for kicks. I wanted to see if anyone would be curious or go into panic mode wondering if they are getting cancer from their TV. The way things are these days you never know. One day eggs are good, the next they are bad for you....the story continues. I actually thought it would be cool to have a thread discussing everyones opinions about TV's, Projection, Plasma, Tube, DLP, LCD, etc etc.

I've heard some people say that they like the color going high-def through component versus HDMI. I actually like the way colors look when using component in HD. I suppose it depends on your viewing preference. One thing that is annoying is that many of these new HD formats is that they do not compare with how the 35mm prints looked in the movie theater. DVD is a disaster when it comes to doing HD and I suppose Blu-ray and HD-DVD will help to some extent, but will it have the vibrancy, clarity, and saturation like good ole celluloid? Not likely. The other big problem is that digital work looks even worse when shown in HD...take for example STAR WARS EPISODE III, which had some of the most laughable digital work in recent memory.

Please feel free to express your various views on all these wonderful formats!

[N. Abstentia]

Not sure about cancer, but I'm sure they cause brain damage. Ed Gein has one.

[bobsticks]

[QUOTE=N. Abstentia]Not sure about cancer, but I'm sure they cause brain damage.QUOTE]

I have plenty of brain damage, all of which was incurred before I ever even thought about about buying a plasma.

[edtyct]

Too big a topic for one thread. You'll find lots of discussion about the various TV flavors throughout the site, and now on the relatively new AR Video board.

Film is inherently hi def, far exceeding the resolution capabilities of our nominal HD systems. However, film resolution degrades with age, with generation from the master, and with handling. By the time most people see a film at their local multiplex, it has lost much of its luster.

Sometimes a component video feed does look better than its digital counterpart, especially if the digital side is noisy. Analog can obscure that kind of noise, since it rolls off in the higher frequencies. DVDs are often mastered in hi def but are not a hi def medium. However, a well-executed DVD at 480p can fool a lot of people. You can see how a film looks in hi def, to a degree, on cable and satellite systems. I almost always prefer films in hi def to the DVD or digital ED version. But, to this point, film has it all over digital transmission as an original movie format, though the gap will certainly narrow, and cost, if nothing else, will eventually weigh in digital's favor (not yet). After all, CD trumped vinyl at a time when vinyl was cabable of better sound.

I disagree with you about the latest Star Wars DVD and HDTV showing. I thought that the movie looked spectacular in both formats. It depends on who's showing it on what, at least to some extent.

Ed

[musicman1999]

Where did you see episode 3 in high def?Also high def will never look as good as 35mm.


bill

[edtyct]

Didn't see it in HD, actually. My boo-boo. I saw it only on DVD and thought it looked great. I seem to recall seeing clips in HD somewhere, maybe DiscoveryHD Theater. I don't think that HBO is carrying the film until June. But the DVD version bodes well for it, and is definitely based on the hi def master.

Digital hi def doesn't look as good as 35mm now, but I don't see why the technology can't advance to the point at which the digital glare mollifies. Digital technology is open-ended in that respect. But even film stocks vary initially and over time. Arguably, the look of film noir from the 40s will never be duplicated because film has changed so much. Was it better then? Maybe from the perspective of nostalgia, but film has certainly improved in certain respects. I say so with a complete appreciation of film from the classic days, knowing that the particular ambience that I associate with it will never return.

[musicman1999]

well said

bill

[superpanavision70mm]

As far as Star Wars is concerned my complaint was with the digital work IN the film, not so much as the DVD, but my point was that poor digital setwork looks worse when shown in a digital format. Basically it looks terrible on DVD as compared to in the theater. The movement alone did not have the same 24fps feel that the theater did and little nuances looked really fake when viewing at home. Wouldn't even matter WHAT I saw it on or where.

[superpanavision70mm]

My biggest gripe is why try to go against a format that has worked for over 100 years. Film is one of the few mediums that still exists in such a pure beautiful form.

DVD's are still a standard def. format and will remaind so even if the film is mastered in HD, which lots of time is pathetic anyway. I see that claim on so many DVD's now, but rarely does it look good. Often times there is video red and video black problems all over the place. I review DVD's for fulvuedrive-in.com and have seen thousands of instances over the past 3 years. Sad but true there are still some LaserDisc titles that have better color over certain DVD's. My example: Bram Stokers Dracula Criterion Ed. Laser has the best color for that film, but none of the DVD's issued come close. Also the Blade Runner Uncut has great sound (even if it is 4.0) and can go a few rounds with lots of current DVD's.

[edtyct]

I can't say that I've preferred many laserdiscs over DVDs, for anything, as much as I loved the format at the time, but I do recall that Criterion's Zulu laserdisc looked a lot better than the hatchet job versions of the film that came out on DVD before MGM decided to take the matter into its own hands. The Criterion Blade Runner and 2001 (especially the CAV disks) certainly were standouts in their day, but I'm not sure how the DVDs stack up. On anything close to a level playing field, the extra resolution on DVD usually wins the game for me. All DVDs, however, are not created equal--far from it, whether they come from HD masters or not. A lot can still go wrong in the chain of events that result in a DVD, regardless of the resolution from which a DVD derives. As I said, however, the look of Episode III bodes well for the eventual HD version of that film; particular companies over the years have tended to do a better job than others. The quality control with Lucas' films is usually top notch.

The problems with red, black, and green can come from anywhere, not necessarily the DVD itself; players and displays are often the culprits, although poor transfers are always a possibility. In order to determine where any fault may lie, you need access to different high-quality reference displays, as well as the original film.

Edit: By the way, I love film, too, but it isn't a perfectly good medium. It degrades; it takes up room; and it has its practical inconveniences. Anything that has flaws is subject to "progress." Nothing is sacred. Film may have its undeniable upside, but if someone is able to circumvent its impracticalities and costs and still deliver decent picture and sound, he will.

Ed

[teledynepost]

I have seen side by side component/hdmi (split screen, two of the same model player, same tv.) The color was a little less vibrant on the component. I forget about distortion/noise, I don't think there was any but there may have been a slight amount. Hard to tell.

Edit:
Oh and I am eagerly awaiting David Lynch's new movie which is filmed digitally.

[musicman1999]

I watched episode 3 not long ago and still believe the picture quality to be one of the best i have ever seen.Remember it was shot with digital cameras so the version we see at home is not taken from 35mm film,rather direct from digital.

bill

[tot3ntanZz]

Yes, as awful as it is and as much as we don't want to admit it, anyone can get cancer, whether you lead a healthy lifestyle or not. Even international stars can get cancer. Fortunately, there is such a drug as DCA these days, you should check out dca price. It has the ability to synergize with other cancer drugs to increase the effectiveness of the treatment many times over.