Even better when it pans over to the scenes from the Stadium Of Light eh Del ? Ha ha.
I'm still not a fan of footie, we once played the office staff in the local sports centre, they turned up in proper gear, I played
in jeans & tee shirt, barefoot, for grip. We cleaned the buggers up to some cricket score, luckily I was doing martial arts at the time and was jumping out of my skin, attacking and defence, my speciality was bringing the buggers down, never scored any goals, but ruined a lot of their chances, my little 'oppo, Dick Morgan, he played rugby for his country, had a face off with a big bugger who'd tripped a young apprentice ( I was doing this all the time ) but all ended well, we kicked the livin' shit out of 'em, as it should be.
Ha ha ha Hugh, I wouldn't expect anything less buddy!
When I was a kid, I used to read a football comic called Roy Of The Rovers. One of the characters in that comic was called Barefoot Bill. From this day forward an image of Hugh instead of Bill there, will be etched in my memory after reading this tale here.
Maybe the editors of the comic came up with idea of the character Barefoot Bill based on watching your game there from the side lines Hugh?
Bills feet were always kept out of the bath to toughen his skin on his feet like leather. He had the skill of Pele!
"C'Mon Baggy, Get With The Beat"
Andrew, my skills in football are nil, the only thing I did was get in the oppositions way, tripping etc, but I had a lot of stamina then,
Yes I remember "Roy", one of his exploits seared in memory, was one where he kept the crowd focused while a bomb was disposed of
in the stadium. Yes I played barefoot, I played barefoot in rugby at school, I didn't have any boots.
Reminds me of when we used to play football on Sundays in the 70's on our local school field often playing for around 3/4 hours and at least 20/30 per side, no one had proper gear on and some played in pit boots (steel toe caps) I stayed well clear of them. There was one guy, just reminds me of Hugh, he was a bruiser but you couldn't get past him by fair means or foul, either way you went tits over arse
Not true there guys about screensize making no difference.
Yes it does. The fact you are magnifying a film image onto a larger screen
shows up ALL the faults to a greater degree on any gauge.
I have tried this for myself and yes a smaller image does indeed look brighter
and more contrasty than a larger one that is self evident.
However a smaller projected one does mask inherent faults in film to varying degrees.
The faults are more visible and pronounced on a larger image and that includes
colour fringing blemishes colour convergence faults and film grain and of course scratching , cinching , abrasions
and all the other shit that comes with the turf of our beloved films.
In all my years as a Cinema Projectionist all the team would notice how any copy of a film
with printing faults that was shown on our BIG SCREEN ... Screen 1 looked a bit more
acceptable when transferred downstairs to one of our smaller MINI screens 2 or 3.
Of course nothing could be done about scratches if any were there but normal wear and tear
was indeed less noticeable due to the smaller screensize images.
thanks David there for your excellent professional assessment there. Obviously in my case, the difference is only ever between say 18 inches and 8ft diagonal image on a full screen ratio film. It clearly won't show up the degree of the flaws when present to the extent you've clearly seen as a professional on huge screen sizes.
I have noticed slight artifacts that would otherwise be missed on tiny viewing sizes, but on the whole, if i can see a fault on the "Big Screen", I can see it even when small.
As said though, aside from during the decorating seasons, any screenshots I will ever take here, will always come from actual large screen. Also i was in the habit of placing the extra technical details alongside the images and would continue to do so if I think this is of any benefit to our readers here?
I am the sort of person who likes as much detail as possible surrounding these things whenever I view other peoples screenshots etc, but i suppose as Robert points out here earlier, perhaps some, or even most, may not be bothered at all to know any of this. Who knows?
"C'Mon Baggy, Get With The Beat"
I think any one taking screenshots off of a 6inch - 18inch screen width is just plain stupid in order
to give a fair representation of print quality.
Unless of course that is the normal way they watch their prints
In which case I ask why bother with film at all and not just stick to the TV or your
Computer Monitor or Laptop or Film Editor or one of those daft Projectors with a built in TV type screen.
Film is meant to be projected as large as the limitations of your room size , lens and light output
If you are going contrary to this I worry about you. Hahahahahahaha !!!!
Even the late and sadly missed Derek Simmonds would encourage home film collectors
to project as large a picture as possible in his Sales Lists and Newsletters.
If you don't or cant do this then a significant part of the MAGIC is totally lost
and defeats the purpose.
It doesn't make any difference David, when you used your example of different screen size, if you had taken pictures from both screens
and looked at them on your computer, they would look exactly the same, and scratches etc would be visible on both pictures, if I filled a whole
wall with a picture and photographed it,then took a smaller picture, it is still the same picture on screen, size is irrelevant, you are only seeing what the camera sees. and viewing it through a small monitor or laptop. The size of picture only becomes relevant if you had a computer screen 6 feet wide, like for like. Don't forget viewing distances when projecting in a modest size room, if one had
to follow the proper guide lines, there wouldn't be much above a four foot screen being used in domestic conditions.
I got fed up of taking screenshots because of getting very few good pictures; it was probably due to the lens I used at the time. It was preventing me from enjoying watching the film. I think everyone here watches film on as large a screen as they can fill, in my case 50". I think it would be too much hassle to supply technical details. You would have to include the following:
1/ Size of Screen
2/ Distance from Screen
3/ Subdued light or total darkness
4/ F number of projector lens.
5/ Type of projector lamp (Quartz, giving a white light, or the older lamp giving a yellow light)
6/ Auto or Manual exposure, if manual, state F number and shutter speed.
and finally 7/ How many megapixels does your camera have?
True Robert, but like I've said, any marks or defects etc, will show up on a smaller picture as a big one, the lens records all that if its focused correctly, the logic isn't there, in fact you can use close up on your computer to study "closer", but then we're in the realm of pixels I'm viewing on a screen 40cms diagonal, its like our TV sets, a nominal screen isn't going to have anymore information than a larger
one, if I were to take pictures of a 15'' screen and a 50'' screen, there would be no difference in picture quality when viewed on my laptop, it can't differentiate difference in size, can't make it simpler than that really.
What you observe here Hugh, pretty much ties in with I was saying i've found from doing these things, as I was saying earlier here to David.
I accept that grain, contrast, brightness will change, and that minor imperfections are not too visible from a tiny picture, but the image is the same when blown up, however the exploded view of the image comes about, be it digitally or optically with our projector lenses.
David has been used to viewing these things on the professional circuit on huge screen sizes though, so I am repectfully compelled to accept his word on this I feel.
"C'Mon Baggy, Get With The Beat"
No they don't David, because you are viewing from a computer, screen sizes don't figure, its a different thing to viewing on a huge
cinema screen, you relate to the size of it by being there, any defects are magnified a thousand times, but by taking a picture of
that cinema screen, and viewing on a computer screen, it would look identical to the same picture photographed from a smaller one.
The bug bear in this equation is your computer screen, it relates as true a picture as it can, but it can't differentiate size.
Hugh cheers for clarifying that one then.
So its the limitations of those bloody pixels and computer screens that are not giving
a true representation of the actual image via the Screenshots.
So I can only conclude that I will only be ever to get a "rough" estimate as to what the actual
print may or may not look like in real life.
So can never really get a true copy as to its REAL quality the sender is seeing
on his screen .
So much for DIGITAL being perfect eh ?
I mean things like screen grain and slight abrasions are all to obvious to the viewer on
actual projection and any variance in screen size will either magnify or diminish these things.
So from now on I will have to take Screenshots as a "mere pinch of salt" if image size does not matter in these cases.
That's about it David, any defects will show whatever size picture is taken, assuming the focus is true, it doesn't really matter
as its just a rough guide as to picture quality regarding colour/contrast. The other factor of course is the cameraman, I often
let the side down with somehow getting below par pictures from a decent print!
Hmmmm !!!! I don't think I shall bother doing screenshots in future.
I was going to but am now having second thoughts as for me it seems a bit pointless now
due to the intrinsic and inherent artifacts in the nature of pixels and digital images.
I am glad I asked about this though.
The only thing screenshots seem good for are showing film fade and the amount of scratches and film damage
or a very rough guide as to the image sharpness.
Though it may okay for ebay purposes I suppose.
If you view a scope print on a film editor, it appears to show any tramlines present, accentuated very odd indeed. I remember purchasing a bugs bunny cartoon and was disapointed to see so many lines and imperfections on the print when viewed this way, however on the projector a different story, very odd effect, which i cannot explain for the life of me.
Its down to light refraction Paul, you're viewing with direct light beaming at you which will show up any imperfections, whereas
when screened normally, the light beam is bounced back to you, if you put a low voltage lamp in your projector and viewed it
through the lens, you'd see the scratches clearly again.