66d
Subj : Re: TNG vs TOS - anybody still think Next Generation sucks?
To   : rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.startrek.current,alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From : Atlas Bugged
Date : Sat Oct 01 2005 12:20:51

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos

> Atlas Bugged wrote:
>>> I too don't follow.  TNG was certainly shot on film, just look at it,
>>> which has "automatic" high-resolution or Hi Def from a digital
>>> perspective.  And even the analog film and the glass lenses upon
>>> which TNG was recorded had to exceed TOS.
>>> I remember Michael Jackson loudly touted the recording of "Thriller" on
>>> all-digital.  I thought, "fool!"  Jackson recorded in very limited
>>> resolution, and you can never recover  resolution.
>
<electrictroy@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1128088272.557893.221180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I find that hard to believe.  In an age when computers could barely do
> 320x200x16 colors, did digital video even exist in 1984???  What
> resolution did he use?  When I watch Thriller on VHS, it looks like
> film stock to me.

I'm sorry, my bad, I was talking about the audio recording.
>
> As for today's technology, with Super Audio at 96,000 samples per
> second and 150 decibel range you can outperform the old analog records
> or tapes.  And video, we still have a way to go, but George Lucas'
> all-digital Star Wars came very close to film stock's resolution (1
> million x 1 million pixels).

Right, but back around 1982 the best audio gear available anywhere, which he 
used, had very "hard" upper frequency cutoff, among other problems inherent 
in the digital audio of his day

.

0