Sorry to be a crank, but here goes: I have yet to see or hear the word "methodology" used where the person didn't mean "method". Methodology would mean something like "a study of methods". Adding three syllables to a perfectly good word doesn't make it a better one. Thanks for letting me vent!

Any information about TMH certification with Tom's Newest venture? AS well as 10.2 surround? Also contrast is an issue of uniformity as well as black levels so a manufacture can make a display that varies with the ANSI method ( I have measured up to 200cd/m2 difference) and gets a good number with the averaging method, but still looks terrible. A better number for the actual contrast would be brightest black to darkest white, as that is what the eye would see.

Dave, I'm happy to let you vent, but I used the word in a different context than you mention. According to Wikipedia, the definition of "methodology" is

1. the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline;

2. the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline; or

3. a particular procedure or set of procedures.

I used the word as in definition 3, not as in definition 2.

Flap, no word on anything audio; this is strictly a video-calibration course. I agree completely that uniformity and black level affects contrast, which is why peak contrast measurements should be taken in the center of the screen, where most of the viewer's attention will be focused. I don't know what you mean by "actual contrast" being "brightest black to darkest white." Can you elaborate?

Scott, I'll let this go after this, but let's please not use Wikipedia as our guide to the use of the English language. Try replacing "methodology" with "method" and see if it doesn't read more elegantly, and with the full meaning of your idea. We may just have to agree to disagree.

Okay, let's take a look at Webster's Dictionary, which, I hope you'll agree, is a definitive source:

Methodology:

1. a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline; a particular procedure or set of procedures

2. the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field

Of course, I was using the word in the sense of the first definition here, not the second. With respect to measuring ANSI contrast, there are various controversial methods used for that purpose, which comprise a methodology. Also, each of these methods is a "particular procedure or set of procedures," and thus can be rightly called a methodology.

(continued)

Here's Webster's definition of "method":

1: a procedure or process for attaining an object: as a (1): a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art (2): a systematic plan followed in presenting material for instruction b (1): a way, technique, or process of or for doing something (2): a body of skills or techniques

Clearly, "a procedure or process for attaining an object" and "a particular procedure or set of procedures" are essentially identical, especially if you accept that a "process" can be a "set of procedures." So in this sense, the two words are synonymous.

I maintain that my usage of the word is correct. I chose to use "methodology" because I like the "sound" of the word, and I think it worked better rhythmically in the sentence. Of course, you are certainly entitled to not like my artistic choices, but you haven't convinced me that this p

...but you haven't convinced me that this particular choice was technically incorrect.

Sure can: If you use the ANSI method (I use methodology BTW!) with 16 points of measurement you want to ratio the black measurement with the highest illuminance. I.e. if you get a range of 18-32 cd/m2 for black levels you should use 32 cd/m2 for your calculation. Conversely if you get for white levels a range of 750-850 cd/m2 you should use the 750 cd/m2 for calculation giving us a better measurement. We tricromats are dependant on uniform illumination (not color shifted or gamuted illumination) for our vision to distinguish between colors and contrast these (see Kries Ives) but a non uniform illuminance can shift our color gamut effectively compressing the colors that we can see. Manufacturers know this and make sure to get good levels in the center to counteract this (I don't buy into center levels as the image is usually so much brighter than surroundings that it washes that factor out). Given the relation ship for uniformity relates directly to color I feel this would be more descriptive.

Dave Anderson will not receive an invitation to my birthday party. Anyhoo... Scott, I just wanted to say that information on film resolution is one of the most useful and interesting pieces of technological trivia I have learned in quite some time. I was always curious how digital cinema projection could look sharper than film even though the resolution of the former is technically lower. Now I'm even more excited for 4K. Speaking of which--do you know if there are any 4K digital video cameras available for use in the film industry?

Javan: Can't say I blame you. Who wants a crank at his party? Now if the store will only take back that present I bought...

While I support whole-heartedly the move from film to D-Cinema, resolution is not the first concern. I'd be curious to find out where the THX folks came up with the 2600 x 1400 pixel resolving power of film. It might be that they are concluding that after taking a camera negative, running it through the inter-positive process, to the printing negative and onto the release print, the effect of all these steps to to reduce the effective resolution of the original negative to the 2600 x 1400. Practical film resolution depends on the grain of the film as well as the shooting and projection lenses. The original camera negative should be able to support between 6000 lines of resolution. Kodak R&D shows capture limits of line widths per picture height of 1800 for sharpened film, 1520 for native film, 770 for sharpened HD, and 764 for uns-harpened HD: Reference: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/dCinema.shtml

Also to be considered in D-Cinema is the regular size of the pixels as opposed to the variable grain of film, and the problem of interpixel spacing which can be visible to some at large magnifications. D-Cinema has a brilliant future in quality and consistency, but at this moment resolution isn't it's primary strength when compared to film.

Funny Paul but every time I watch a movie on both screens I ALWAYS LIKE THE QUALITY OF THE DIGITIAL SCREEN BETTER. However the right movie should be watched after the film is a little worn out as well (almost like transistor vs. tubes debate). How can you explain my un techy date and My experience??