Blah Blah Cafe, the Jean-Michel Jarre forum

[Jon]

Plus I would like to make a sidenote that the recording of his concerts in HD is probably a horrible idea, it's good for now, but what happens when the TV resolutions become's 7,680 × 4,320 (Ultra High Definition)..? Then your stuck on your 1920*1080 resolution with no possible way to get any more detail and clarity out of it... I would rather hear him brag that the entire concert was recorded on 70mm film (Imax ofcourse not 70mm conventional), now then he would have something to say that there is no possible higher quality

Well, we've "only" got 1080p so that is ok for now. The new concerts could be recorded in 4K as a master, but I don't see any point in telling that "live in you livingroom" is recorded in HD, when it's still only on DVD?

I too don't see the point in filming or transferring something into HD then releasing the format on DVD. To me it would be like buying an entry level Porche Boxster. It's a Porche, but not fully.

[thhedk]

I too don't see the point in filming or transferring something into HD then releasing the format on DVD. To me it would be like buying an entry level Porche Boxster. It's a Porche, but not fully.

You can get some more sharpness and details when resizing from a large format into smaller, instead of using the native 720x576 from a camera, but not so much that he can keep on bragging about it

[GeeJee]

There's a limit, too. I mean, for private use, the current HD is more than enough. Larger dimensions are only useful on really large screens. I don't see the point of this resolutionbattle. Meh.

[Pat Gleeson]

There's a limit, too. I mean, for private use, the current HD is more than enough. Larger dimensions are only useful on really large screens. I don't see the point of this resolutionbattle. Meh.

Absolutely. The proposed Super Hi-Vision TV resolution is really for enabling HD equivalent quality on large screens such as in stadia etc. The BBC / NHK Japan are trialling Super Hi-Vision TV for the Olympics next year. Unless you have a huge screen - 60" upwards, I'd struggle to see how you wouuld discern any appreciable difference in quality. It would like scanning a copy of the Mona Lisa at ultra high quality, and then printing it on a card the size of a postage stamp.

[thhedk]

There's a limit, too. I mean, for private use, the current HD is more than enough. Larger dimensions are only useful on really large screens. I don't see the point of this resolutionbattle. Meh.

I agree, 1080p is ok for tv screens. But many things today is filmed in 4K so the master is large format, so is it prepared for near future.

[shadow]

There's a limit, too. I mean, for private use, the current HD is more than enough. Larger dimensions are only useful on really large screens. I don't see the point of this resolutionbattle. Meh.

But for the argument itself that it's enough for now, yes I agree about that. But don't think about just now, also think 20 years in the future, something alot of people twenty years ago did not do... VHS/Betamax were good enough 25 years ago when they filmed the: Houston, Lyon, London, Paris La Defense concerts. Now go back and watch those VHS tapes on a High Definition TV, it was enough back then, but now more then twenty years later those tapes are lacking in quality. The resolution that these concerts were recorded is stuck on that small resolution, and they can never be scanned into a PC and gain more quality (especially considering those tapes are in Interlaced format).
Same goes for 1080P Recording, it's great for now, but in 20 years don't think that 1080P is still a high standerd. The resolutions of televisions by then has most likely reached 4K and maybe even 8K who know, but the resolution and quality of those concerts is stuck and is impossbile to upscale without sacrivising the quality even more.

That's the entire problem with High Definition recording's, it not High Def anymore in so many years... It's not a thing about resolution battle, it's a battle between formats. Just go and see: Metropolis (1927), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), The Wizard of Oz (1939), Fantasia (1940), or even Citizen Kane (1941 Pre-re-release screenshots). Look at the quality these movies are being re-released in, it's amazing that these movie's look like that. They even look better then some material that's being shot on 1080P natively, and they are all more then 70 year's old. That's really the only reason why I want those concerts being shots on Film rather then digital, you can, if the filmroll is perserved well, get a release in 50 years and still make it look as if it was shot yesterday

[thhedk]

But for the argument itself that it's enough for now, yes I agree about that. But don't think about just now, also think 20 years in the future, something alot of people twenty years ago did not do... VHS/Betamax were good enough 25 years ago when they filmed the: Houston, Lyon, London, Paris La Defense concerts. Now go back and watch those VHS tapes on a High Definition TV, it was enough back then, but now more then twenty years later those tapes are lacking in quality. The resolution that these concerts were recorded is stuck on that small resolution, and they can never be scanned into a PC and gain more quality (especially considering those tapes are in Interlaced format).
Same goes for 1080P Recording, it's great for now, but in 20 years don't think that 1080P is still a high standerd. The resolutions of televisions by then has most likely reached 4K and maybe even 8K who know, but the resolution and quality of those concerts is stuck and is impossbile to upscale without sacrivising the quality even more.

That's the entire problem with High Definition recording's, it not High Def anymore in so many years... It's not a thing about resolution battle, it's a battle between formats. Just go and see: Metropolis (1927), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), The Wizard of Oz (1939), Fantasia (1940), or even Citizen Kane (1941 Pre-re-release screenshots). Look at the quality these movies are being re-released in, it's amazing that these movie's look like that. They even look better then some material that's being shot on 1080P natively, and they are all more then 70 year's old. That's really the only reason why I want those concerts being shots on Film rather then digital, you can, if the filmroll is perserved well, get a release in 50 years and still make it look as if it was shot yesterday

You are right, we cannot predict things in 20 years. 4K should be enough for normal tv, in 20 years big OLED screens may be a part of the walls, so 8K might look cool.
I think the most future true thing to do, is to record it with two cameras, 3D, because this can be used in the future where you need no glasses and everything is 3D

You are right about film, but I dont think this will keep on existing, and there is a limit in the film resolution also. 4K might be the 35mm limit, in 70mm is higher.
In normal photography, it has all gone digital the last 4-5 years. Canon are planning a 30+ mpix camera taking 10 fps. So a 24 fps 8-10K master is maybe not so far future.

I also think that the digital film is much more sensitive to light, so lower ISO/ASA is possible. And the CMOS sensors are developed all the time, the film arent.

[GeeJee]

There's a limit, too. I mean, for private use, the current HD is more than enough. Larger dimensions are only useful on really large screens. I don't see the point of this resolutionbattle. Meh.

But for the argument itself ...

But personally I don't care. I still use an analog connection between my PS3 and TV - simply because I don't have HDMI and I don't care. I know it looks superb. But I have other priorities. I can't predict the future, but I have never cared that much about that sort of thing. Perhaps when I have loads of spare money.

As for the VHS vs. Blu-Ray thing, I don't agree. VHS back then, was all they could develop for private use, but science knew improvement was possible. I doubt people ever claimed it looked incredible (yes, compared to what they had before VHS, basically nothing). Also they had only small TVs, so for the time being, they could probably not imagine it being better. But today, a lot of people have big screens and hi def is becoming more and more standard. I simply cannot imagine the current quality being insufficient in the next decades. What more detail do you want/need? What's the point of a 185 inch screen? I don't give a ratts ass about that, really.

[Velodynamic]

Plus I would like to make a sidenote that the recording of his concerts in HD is probably a horrible idea, it's good for now, but what happens when the TV resolutions become's 7,680 × 4,320 (Ultra High Definition)..? Then your stuck on your 1920*1080 resolution with no possible way to get any more detail and clarity out of it... I would rather hear him brag that the entire concert was recorded on 70mm film (Imax ofcourse not 70mm conventional), now then he would have something to say that there is no possible higher quality

A standard IMAX screen is 22 m wide and 16 m high (72.6 x 52.8 ft) now with the already overpopulated sociaty in mind exactly how many people in the future, practical-wise will have such a screen at home in their living rooms? I think it's a question of costs and demand. Also the recordings of JMJ's shows is hardly going to be shown at the cinemas over @ Hollywood.
The experienced resolution is limited by the distance and size of the image you're watching.
With a 75" screen it probably wouldn't matter much weither it's 1080p or 75000p as far as you haven't got some "super eye vision" or doesn't want to make nose marks on your screen.
I totally agree though that it's pretty stupid braging about high definition resolution over a concert dvd like Jarre In China when infact it is no more sensational about it then watching an ordinary concert dvd like i.e. Oxygene-Moscow. The real resolution is set by the medium the recording is produced on in this case the DVD.
JMJ has been in the frontline releasing hi-tech stuffs before but these days he's helplessly a notch behind.
At the very least a Blu-Ray disc or full HD streaming over broadband could've been a good start. But nope. It's just the way it is. Let's face it, accept it and move on with a smile.

[GeeJee]

I totally agree though that it's pretty stupid braging about high definition resolution over a concert dvd like Jarre In China when infact it is no more sensational about it then watching an ordinary concert dvd like i.e. Oxygene-Moscow.

There's a huge difference in quality between those two, though....

[shadow]

A standard IMAX screen is 22 m wide and 16 m high (72.6 x 52.8 ft) now with the already overpopulated sociaty in mind exactly how many people in the future, practical-wise will have such a screen at home in their living rooms? I think it's a question of costs and demand. Also the recordings of JMJ's shows is hardly going to be shown at the cinemas over @ Hollywood.
The experienced resolution is limited by the distance and size of the image you're watching.
With a 75" screen it probably wouldn't matter much weither it's 1080p or 75000p as far as you haven't got some "super eye vision" or doesn't want to make nose marks on your screen.
I totally agree though that it's pretty stupid braging about high definition resolution over a concert dvd like Jarre In China when infact it is no more sensational about it then watching an ordinary concert dvd like i.e. Oxygene-Moscow. The real resolution is set by the medium the recording is produced on in this case the DVD.
JMJ has been in the frontline releasing hi-tech stuffs before but these days he's helplessly a notch behind.
At the very least a Blu-Ray disc or full HD streaming over broadband could've been a good start. But nope. It's just the way it is. Let's face it, accept it and move on with a smile.

Well actually about the Imax film format, you do clearly see a difference in quality, The Dark Knight blu-ray was incredible actually, and that was the 35mm film sections, the Imax portions are a sight to behold. The Resolution is the same on the disc, but the clarity that the film format itself adds helps alot when transfering a film to a digital format.
And ofcourse we won't be seeing a Imax presentation of Jarre in Hollywood, but I was more saying that because if it happend, then he really had a reason to brag by going with the high performance and highest possible resolution that he always says when something is recorded in 24Bit/96Khz or recording something in 1080 (Not to forgot it has to be 1080P, as 1080I is a format that's lower quality then 720P)
But there is a limit to what the human eye can see ofcourse, but that not the resolution but the PPI (pixel density). The higher the amount of pixels for each Inch the sharper it will look, the avarage Pixel Density for the human eye is 300 PPI (according to Aplle though, but I for example can seen somewhat more sharp and I can infact notice the pixels on the Iphone 4 while my sis can't).
And about the size and distance, it's somewhat the same like seeing a DVD on a SDTV, and a Blu-ray on a HDTV. Even at the same distance you win alot of quality and that just for the screensize. But don't forgot that these Blu-ray discs also support uncompressed audioformat's at very high resolution, which from my POV is the most important reason Jarre should step up

There's a huge difference in quality between those two, though....

Now and that's the difference between a VHS recording and a HD recording and the same format (DVD)

[ralf]

CD Rarities leaked to net in mp3 format 320kbit/sec.

[shadow]

Gotta resist... Must be atleast FLAC to convice me to download

[JeromeTV]

Gotta resist... Must be atleast FLAC to convice me to download

Well we can convert them to FLAC for you if it makes you happy

[Pat Gleeson]

The fact that an official release is imminent, I would never download this. I'm getting the Studio Master from qobus.com, to burn to a DVD-Audio (Home Theatre playback) - and the boxset (for the car)