[TOMMY]

HELLO TO ALL,
Would appreciate any help. Does anyone use or know about using a High
DeF. T.V. for monitoring?
I need to
get a new P.C.;and on the Home shopping net. they say their HDTV'S has a
computer

hookup. Now would this work with say GT PRO or Tracktion etc... recording
software or does it req. certain adapters or just too good to be true? Any
issues with P.C brands, or if you have a DVD from a cable hook up, present
any problems known off? I'm not just meaning viewing the computer on T.V.
but interacting with the software, [editing, etc..] on your P.C. keyboard or
controller? I realize now that I'm asking if their is hardware practicality
too.
Also I asked about Tracktion 2 a MO. or so ago, but now I see they have
Traction 3. Again, does anyone here use it or know about it, as eg.. the
claim of simple learning curve and pro. features and outcome?
Sorry, for I know this alot, but it seems everytime I think of getting
this or that-by the next week it's becomes upgraded or a new CO. comes up
with something that makes the older obsolete!
I'm still on WIN 98SE because of this and badly need a more powerful P.C,
but just a few Yrs. ago this setup I use was more than enough, and now you
can't even get support anymore.
Again, I would really appreciate any help and/or Info.
I would also like to thank you pro's for helping alot of us newbies, or
like me-just a plain ol' dummy at times though. Save me a lil'...
Take Care,
TOMMY.........................

[Scott Dorsey]

TOMMY wrote:
HELLO TO ALL,
Would appreciate any help. Does anyone use or know about using a High
DeF. T.V. for monitoring?
I need to
get a new P.C.;and on the Home shopping net. they say their HDTV'S has a
computer
hookup. Now would this work with say GT PRO or Tracktion etc... recording
software or does it req. certain adapters or just too good to be true?

They mean that it has a VGA input. You can plug any computer with a VGA
output on it.

That's the good part. The bad part is that the resolution is comparatively
poor... although the display is large, the individual pixels are very large
too. But if you want to work with the monitor very far away, that is fine.

Any
issues with P.C brands, or if you have a DVD from a cable hook up, present
any problems known off? I'm not just meaning viewing the computer on T.V.
but interacting with the software, [editing, etc..] on your P.C. keyboard or
controller? I realize now that I'm asking if their is hardware practicality
too.

Why would there be? You are using the same keyboard and the same controller
that you were using with any other monitor. Using an HDTV set as a monitor
IS just viewing the comptuer on TV. Nothing is different.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[TOMMY]

THANX, SCOTT......
Take Care,
TOMMY

[Roger Norman]

That's the good part. The bad part is that the resolution is
comparatively
poor... although the display is large, the individual pixels are very
large
too. But if you want to work with the monitor very far away, that is
fine.

Excuse me, Scott, but what the hell are you talking about? Certainly with
my (now 5) HDTVs hooked up to computers (one is upstairs and not hooked up
to anything yet), I don't see any problems with either the 1080i input from
the HD cable boxes or the DVI or HDMI connection supplied resolutions from
the computers. In fact, Bev was not only surprised at an actual 1080
recorded image being so clear, but dismayed that if we were, in fact,
supposed to see the pores in people's faces during interviews, it might
distract from what the people were saying. With the exception of your wife,
I don't expect most women to be technically proficient, but I will say that
they can cut through the bull**** and get to the heart of the problem
without the technical know how.

Plasma pixels are larger than LCD or DLP in general (hence 720P plasma and
1080P LCD and DLP), but one cannot say that the pixels change. One can say
that the respresentation of a pixel on a plasma is larger because of the way
plasma works (somewhat similar to old core memory in IBM 360 computers), but
it has nothing to do with either VGA or DVI or HDMI inputs. It has to do
with the native resolution of the screen or projector, and the ability of a
computer card to fill that resolution and the software driving the video
card to utilize all the pixels. I had brought this up here about a year ago
when I was talking about HD TV and simply lost interest again when I got
shouted down for my "inadequate knowledge of monitors".

I currently run my smaller HD monitors off cable's 1080I input at 720P (via
component cables) because I like football games and other sports, but even
at 1280X1024 there's virtually enough resolution to support 1080I on a
smaller HDTV screen. In fact, 720P (720 progressive lines as one field)
requires more horsepower than 1080I (540 lines per field, two fields per
frame).

There is a difference between putting VGA into an HD Monitor and putting HD
signal via the component input, which usually supports 1080I. I can run my
current 1920 X 1080 37 inch LCD monitor at a greater resolution via DVI and
have the system slow down because of the card processing on video games,
however not on movies from the DVD. But the S-VHS/Component output can run
1080I without slowing down the computer/video at all.

Next time you're in town come over and take a look at the new Theater room.
It's got an Athlon 3400+ 64 bit processor running most of the show. With
line doubling enabled on movies and the GTX 6800/512 MB NVidia based card it
kicks butt. Much better than a standard progressive DVD player. And
playing Quake 3 (an old game now) on a the 37" screen is amazing, so I'm
interested in seeing just how much better it is on the 47" screen.

--

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
TOMMY wrote:
HELLO TO ALL,
Would appreciate any help. Does anyone use or know about using a High
DeF. T.V. for monitoring?
I need to
get a new P.C.;and on the Home shopping net. they say their HDTV'S has a
computer
hookup. Now would this work with say GT PRO or Tracktion etc... recording
software or does it req. certain adapters or just too good to be true?

They mean that it has a VGA input. You can plug any computer with a VGA
output on it.


Any
issues with P.C brands, or if you have a DVD from a cable hook up, present
any problems known off? I'm not just meaning viewing the computer on T.V.
but interacting with the software, [editing, etc..] on your P.C. keyboard
or
controller? I realize now that I'm asking if their is hardware
practicality
too.

Why would there be? You are using the same keyboard and the same
controller
that you were using with any other monitor. Using an HDTV set as a
monitor
IS just viewing the comptuer on TV. Nothing is different.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Roger Norman wrote:
That's the good part. The bad part is that the resolution is
comparatively
poor... although the display is large, the individual pixels are very
large
too. But if you want to work with the monitor very far away, that is
fine.

Excuse me, Scott, but what the hell are you talking about? Certainly with
my (now 5) HDTVs hooked up to computers (one is upstairs and not hooked up
to anything yet), I don't see any problems with either the 1080i input from
the HD cable boxes or the DVI or HDMI connection supplied resolutions from
the computers. In fact, Bev was not only surprised at an actual 1080
recorded image being so clear, but dismayed that if we were, in fact,
supposed to see the pores in people's faces during interviews, it might
distract from what the people were saying. With the exception of your wife,
I don't expect most women to be technically proficient, but I will say that
they can cut through the bull**** and get to the heart of the problem
without the technical know how.

Stick your face up three inches from the screen and you'll see a difference.
The issue is that if you have a 15" monitor with, say, 1280x1024 resolution,
versus a 36" TV set with 1280x1024 resolution, the TV set will have much
larger pixels to get that resolution.

It's not a matter of the technology... comparing a TV set with a video
monitor, you'll tend to see that the video monitor has a configuration
designed to be viewed up close, while the TV set has a configuration
more appropriate for distant viewing.

It's got an Athlon 3400+ 64 bit processor running most of the show. With
line doubling enabled on movies and the GTX 6800/512 MB NVidia based card it
kicks butt. Much better than a standard progressive DVD player. And
playing Quake 3 (an old game now) on a the 37" screen is amazing, so I'm
interested in seeing just how much better it is on the 47" screen.

Does the 47" screen have the same format as the 37" one? If the scan
lines don't change but the screen size does, it's just bigger pixels.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roger Norman]

Well, I'll try inverting one of my camera lenses if you don't mind. At 3"
my eyes don't see squat even with my glasses. But a 50 mm lens does just
fine inverted on seeing the pixels. I'll let you know.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Roger Norman wrote:
That's the good part. The bad part is that the resolution is
comparatively
poor... although the display is large, the individual pixels are very
large
too. But if you want to work with the monitor very far away, that is
fine.

Excuse me, Scott, but what the hell are you talking about? Certainly with
my (now 5) HDTVs hooked up to computers (one is upstairs and not hooked up
to anything yet), I don't see any problems with either the 1080i input
from
the HD cable boxes or the DVI or HDMI connection supplied resolutions from
the computers. In fact, Bev was not only surprised at an actual 1080
recorded image being so clear, but dismayed that if we were, in fact,
supposed to see the pores in people's faces during interviews, it might
distract from what the people were saying. With the exception of your
wife,
I don't expect most women to be technically proficient, but I will say
that
they can cut through the bull**** and get to the heart of the problem
without the technical know how.

Stick your face up three inches from the screen and you'll see a
difference.
The issue is that if you have a 15" monitor with, say, 1280x1024
resolution,
versus a 36" TV set with 1280x1024 resolution, the TV set will have much
larger pixels to get that resolution.

It's not a matter of the technology... comparing a TV set with a video
monitor, you'll tend to see that the video monitor has a configuration
designed to be viewed up close, while the TV set has a configuration
more appropriate for distant viewing.

It's got an Athlon 3400+ 64 bit processor running most of the show. With
line doubling enabled on movies and the GTX 6800/512 MB NVidia based card
it
kicks butt. Much better than a standard progressive DVD player. And
playing Quake 3 (an old game now) on a the 37" screen is amazing, so I'm
interested in seeing just how much better it is on the 47" screen.

Does the 47" screen have the same format as the 37" one? If the scan
lines don't change but the screen size does, it's just bigger pixels.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Romeo Rondeau]

Does the 47" screen have the same format as the 37" one? If the scan
lines don't change but the screen size does, it's just bigger pixels.
--scott

For some of us that don't see too well any more, bigger pixels are just
fine :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
t
Does the 47" screen have the same format as the 37" one?
If the scan lines don't change but the screen size does,
it's just bigger pixels. --scott

For some of us that don't see too well any more, bigger
pixels are just fine :-)

Also, if you have to sit some distance away.

I've see some digital projectors in high end theaters up front and personal.
They are based on computers running OSs like Win2k, and running application
software that looks a lot like Windows Media Player. The screen display
quality is as good if not better than regular 35 mm. The screen format is
1024 x 768.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:

I've see some digital projectors in high end theaters up front and personal.
They are based on computers running OSs like Win2k, and running application
software that looks a lot like Windows Media Player. The screen display
quality is as good if not better than regular 35 mm. The screen format is
1024 x 768.

None of this is correct.

Theatre digital systems like the Christie run at 2k resolution, and use
some serious dedicated hardware for decoding. There may be a Windows box
as a front end to some of them, but the hard stuff is being done in dedicated
hardware.

2k resolution is noticeably poorer than regular 35mm, but more
significantly the greyscale is a whole lot worse.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

I've see some digital projectors in high end theaters up
front and personal. They are based on computers running
OSs like Win2k, and running application software that
looks a lot like Windows Media Player. The screen
display quality is as good if not better than regular 35
mm. The screen format is 1024 x 768.

None of this is correct.

Then my eyes and ears were lying to me.

Theatre digital systems like the Christie run at 2k resolution,

Yeah, Christie was the name on the side of the boxes that I saw in service.
This was a couple of years ago. Maybe they upped the technical ante since
then.

and use some serious dedicated hardware for decoding.

Mostly to do with the fact that the movies are distributed heavily
enciphered, and its the deciphering that provides the point of control over
their use. The deciphering pretty much has to be done in hardware for
administrative reasons, because software decoders would be even harder to
control. Look what happened to DVDs.

There may be a Windows box as a front end to some of them,

Why use anything else?

but the hard stuff is being done in dedicated hardware.

No reason it couldn't be done in software with modern processors.

2k resolution is noticeably poorer than regular 35mm, but more
significantly the greyscale is a whole lot worse.

That 1024 x 768 I saw did a great job of portraying the grain in the
releases that were transcribed from 35 mm. I suspect that a lot of 35 mm
film in theatrical releases doesn't fully exploit the medium.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Yeah, Christie was the name on the side of the boxes that I saw in service.
This was a couple of years ago. Maybe they upped the technical ante since
then.

Christie is probably the biggest player in the market these days (which is
interesting... their 35mm projectors are unreliable trash but they make great
lamphouses, so they seemed to be in the right place for the transition).
There are a few other outfits... Barco is in that market a little bit.

and use some serious dedicated hardware for decoding.

Mostly to do with the fact that the movies are distributed heavily
enciphered, and its the deciphering that provides the point of control over
their use. The deciphering pretty much has to be done in hardware for
administrative reasons, because software decoders would be even harder to
control. Look what happened to DVDs.

The current distribution system doesn't use serious encryption, but it
does use some lossy compression. There is probably some propaganda
from Christie on http://www.film-tech.com. Remember the datasets here are
a little bit larger than you're used to seeing with NTSC video or even
HDTV.

2k resolution is noticeably poorer than regular 35mm, but more
significantly the greyscale is a whole lot worse.

That 1024 x 768 I saw did a great job of portraying the grain in the
releases that were transcribed from 35 mm. I suspect that a lot of 35 mm
film in theatrical releases doesn't fully exploit the medium.

It's true that a lot of 35mm releases are pretty awful. It's also interesting
that the digitization process can actually emphasize artifacts like grain
in the original negative too. But then, so can conventional release
printing.

The real big issue is the greyscale, though, far more than the resolution.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
t

Does the 47" screen have the same format as the 37" one?
If the scan lines don't change but the screen size does,
it's just bigger pixels. --scott

For some of us that don't see too well any more, bigger
pixels are just fine :-)


Also, if you have to sit some distance away.

I've see some digital projectors in high end theaters up front and personal.
They are based on computers running OSs like Win2k, and running application
software that looks a lot like Windows Media Player. The screen display
quality is as good if not better than regular 35 mm. The screen format is
1024 x 768.



That may be, but the potential for 35 mm is way beyond 1024X768 - it's
on the order of 2000X3000 or better.

--
Les Cargill

[Daniel Mandic]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

It's true that a lot of 35mm releases are pretty awful. It's also
interesting that the digitization process can actually emphasize
artifacts like grain in the original negative too. But then, so can
conventional release printing.

'Jerry Lewis' Movies does not count into. Colours are splendid,
deep-field is unique (probably also due to good optics) and sharp as a
ball ;-)

The real big issue is the greyscale, though, far more than the
resolution. --scott

hmmm. I think a semi-pro Video Machine and an analog RGB-Beamer with a
convoluted screen would do better. I remember such a mini Cinema in a
Discotheque, with VHS and a nice (big) RGB-Beamer, somewhere 1985....



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Daniel Mandic]

Les Cargill wrote:

That may be, but the potential for 35 mm is way beyond 1024X768 -
it's on the order of 2000X3000 or better.


5000x3750 IMHO, but just for the sharpness, not to mention animation
and deep-field :-).

70mm is 20000x15000, though.



Good Night (keep the machines ON.... for rendering... :-))))




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Scott Dorsey]

Daniel Mandic wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

That may be, but the potential for 35 mm is way beyond 1024X768 -
it's on the order of 2000X3000 or better.


5000x3750 IMHO, but just for the sharpness, not to mention animation
and deep-field :-).

70mm is 20000x15000, though.

All of these numbers are basically random, because you can't describe film
resolution with just a single number pair.

The actual resolution of film increases with contrast, so the film data
sheet has a "modulation transfer function" which is basically a plot of
contrast vs. resolution.

In addition, the final print often has far less resolution than the original
camera negative, mostly because of the current practice of premiering a film
in thousands of theatres across the country. This requires thousands of
prints to be struck, which requires several generations of intermediate to
be used.

The difference between an EK print made right off the original camera
negative and the usual n-generations-down print that your local multiplex
gets of a major release is pretty substantial, as a result.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Daniel Mandic" wrote ...
'Jerry Lewis' Movies does not count into. Colours are splendid,
deep-field is unique (probably also due to good optics) and sharp as a
ball ;-)

Probably good lighting (permitting smaller apetures which
enables better depth-of-field). That is typically the biggest
difference between high-budget Hollywood productions
and "home movies".

hmmm. I think a semi-pro Video Machine and an analog RGB-Beamer with a
convoluted screen would do better. I remember such a mini Cinema in a
Discotheque, with VHS and a nice (big) RGB-Beamer, somewhere 1985....

Video projection has come a LONG way since 1985

[Daniel Mandic]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

70mm is 20000x15000, though.

All of these numbers are basically random, because you can't describe
film resolution with just a single number pair.

Hi Scott!


Of course, Film Cameras do not even have lines, like the electric
version (e.g. PAL).

I tried just to point, that 70mm is a four times bigger picture than
35mm.
640x480 and 1280x960 (4x) for example, in digital data describing.



Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Scott Dorsey]

In article lekom.at,
Daniel Mandic wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

70mm is 20000x15000, though.

All of these numbers are basically random, because you can't describe
film resolution with just a single number pair.

Of course, Film Cameras do not even have lines, like the electric
version (e.g. PAL).

No, but you talk about "lines of resolution" with a given film, just
the way video guys talk about "line pairs."

For example, Kodak Tri-X Reversal 7266 has a resolution of 30 lines
per millimeter with a subject contrast of 1:1000. This is the equivalent
of 60 scan lines.. so an 8mm tall image would have about the same resolution
as a 480 line NTSC video image.

The PROBLEM is that when the subject contrast is 1:4, the resolution
drops down to about half that.

I tried just to point, that 70mm is a four times bigger picture than
35mm.

Sort of. The 4 perf 70mm image isn't any taller than 35mm Academy,
but it's a lot wider. It's a little bit taller than modern 1:1.85 flat
35mm, which is masked down a little to make the image wider in comparison
with the height. It's a LOT wider, though, without any anamorphic trickery.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roger Norman]

Which brings up the point that I suggested. Line doubling via the computer
with a nice video card ultimately produces 2048 X 1536. Not as good as 2000
X 3000, but much closer. The reason I employ a computer in my new theater
room is that with the Nvidea 6800 GTX 512 MB video card all I have to do is
select line doubling over the 480P that I already get from my DVD player.
At 2.35 to 1 the 16:9 representation is great. My system already does 480P
from standard broadcast, so even the Sci-Fi channel looks acceptable.

My next step is to pick up a new DVD burner that runs HD and Blu-Ray.

Now if I could just come up with some justification for upgrading my audio
computer I'd be in heaven.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
t

Does the 47" screen have the same format as the 37" one?
If the scan lines don't change but the screen size does,
it's just bigger pixels. --scott

For some of us that don't see too well any more, bigger
pixels are just fine :-)


Also, if you have to sit some distance away.

I've see some digital projectors in high end theaters up front and
personal. They are based on computers running OSs like Win2k, and running
application software that looks a lot like Windows Media Player. The
screen display quality is as good if not better than regular 35 mm. The
screen format is 1024 x 768.

That may be, but the potential for 35 mm is way beyond 1024X768 - it's on
the order of 2000X3000 or better.

--
Les Cargill