Oldest surviving color tape of entertainment show

[Phil]

"so film is finally dead."

Funny, I just shot 6 rolls of 120 Velvia last week.

[DVtyro]

Originally Posted by Phil

"so film is finally dead."

Funny, I just shot 6 rolls of 120 Velvia last week.

Shooting film is fun, but few outliers do not reverse the global trend. I shoot VHS and DV myself, fully realizing that I am a freak.

[Alex KL-1]

I'm believe in general, the original format being showing in the original (high) quality hardware, is superior than ANY conversion to another format, be digital or analog. Case especially in point with games: some older games are made taking into account defects and virtues of CRT, for example.

For sure, bad conversions to new digital format are made everywhere, including some documentaries show in famous streaming platforms (some are good, some are so-so).

But showing a old analog tape converted to a different animal (eg. to a 4k OLED TV), will never be equal to same content displaying into a old CRT TV with all it's very different caracteristics: gamma/linearity differs, motion perceptions differs due to impulsive operation mode of CRT vs the sample-and-hold operation from a OLED, and perceptual object brightness derived from both caracteristics plus video response aberrations or not. And the CRT natively reproduces the interlaced content, without any "strange" conversion for the natively fixed progressive panels. And, the old content *maybe* can produced in equipment taking into account all difficulties from old CRT reproducers, this being different in newer display techs.

Maybe the keyword here will be "natively". In the end, the image ALWAYS will differs.

And, we will need to take into account the various conversions needed to display into a eg. 4k panel: de-interlace, upscale etc. The 4k panel will show all these errors (plus the low original resolution) without any mercy if magic filters are off.

[DVtyro]

Originally Posted by Alex KL-1

Maybe the keyword here will be "natively". In the end, the image ALWAYS will differs.

Thanks for the measured response, Alex. Hence my original question, how they are going to show it? On a largest CRT they could find? On a bunch of small CRTs, mimicking a 1960s living room? Via a projector? There were interlaced projection TVs back then, but I wonder were there ones that could fill a large movie theater screen?

I guess, using a bunch of 17-20 inch TVs would be the best option to replicate how it looked like back then.

[Electronic M]

There were HD-CRT projectors that could work with screens of varying size...ISTR hearing about UHD models.

I watch all my HD content on a Sony native 1080i HDMI equipped HD-CRT set... there's NO difference in picture quality watching 1080 content between it and a 1080 LCD except that the LCD looks worse most of the time and approximately equal the rest.

Anything bigger than 40" is pointless unless you have several dozen people and a stupidly large room. Most people watch stuff alone or in groups under 6. If you're sitting so close you have to pan your eyes to see things in other parts of the screen your sitting WAY to close.

[ChrisW6ATV]

Originally Posted by Electronic M

If you're sitting so close you have to pan your eyes to see things in other parts of the screen your sitting WAY to close.

Not true at all! It is called an "immersive experience", ideally with more activity on the screen than you can take in at one physical position.

I sit about 84 inches from a 77-inch-diagonal display, and I used to have a 92-inch screen and projector viewed at the same distance. The 77 is a reasonable compromise between practicality and ideal viewing size/angle in my home.