Widescreen
megabite
return comes back (Yummy). Am I correct based on what I've learned lurking
this group that, I'll still get black bars above and below the screen? I
mean what's the point? Why buy widescreen?
min
oh god
JoeS
> Let me get this straight. I plan on getting a widescreen HD tv when the tax
> return comes back (Yummy). Am I correct based on what I've learned lurking
> this group that, I'll still get black bars above and below the screen?
Only on material wider than 1.85:1, but they will be fairly small. Material
narrower than 1.78:1 (or so), such as 4:3 TV shows, will have side bars, unless
you choose one of the odious horizontal fill-screen modes.
> I mean what's the point? Why buy widescreen?
If you are asking this, I don't really think you're going to be buying anything
with your tax refund.
Joe
Scott Moran
"megabite" <mega...@tir.com>:
Movies that are wider than 16:9 (i.e. 2.35:1 such as "Gladiator") will
still require letterboxing (black bars) on a 16:9 widescreen TV.
However, the vast numbers of 1.85:1 films will almost completely fill
the screen.
Despite the fact that widescreen televisions cannot always deliver you
from the black bars, their advantages are that the size of the bars
(particularly for 2.35:1 films) is minimized, and anamorphic DVDs can
be displayed with 33% more resolution, making the picture quality
unparalleled.
Go forth, and partake in 16:9 goodness.
-STM
___________________ __________
| /\ O /\| |/\ O |
|_/\/ \_______/\/ | | \_______| Widescreen. Get
|/ \ _\ /_/ | | _\ /| the big picture.
|____\_________/____| |\_________|
W I D E S C R E E N PAN & SCAN
- http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~sm6/widescreen -
damnfine
Why indeed.
Buy yourself some geometry lessons instead.
--
Damnfine,
"Did it talk? The little fetus, did it talk?"
Sammy
<mega...@tir.com> wrote:
Please. How can you ask that if you've been lurking in this group? One
way or the other, there will be black bars on any 4:3 or 16:9 set in
certain situations. So maybe a black bar hater shouldn't get any set.
Perhaps you should review the posts in this group. That will answer your
question.
Randy Shackelford
Cripes, this is hardly rocket science. Here's the deal:
Watch TV shows, you'll get bars on the sides.
Watch Wizard of Oz, you'll get bars on the sides.
Watch Bridge on the River Kwai, you'll get bars top and bottom.
Watch Jurassic Park, you'll get no discernible bars.
The rub? Not everything is in the same ratio as a WS TV.
--
Offsite mail to this host gets nuked.
Richard C..©...
Conventional TV = 1.33:1
HDTV = 1.78:1
Old movies = 1.33:1
Modern flat movies (US) = 1.85:1
Modern flat movies (EU) = 1.66:1
Modern "scope" movies = 2.35:1
Ben Hur = 2.70:1
Does that explain it?
==============================
"megabite" <mega...@tir.com> wrote in message news:fyv96.1120$ed.3...@nntp2.onemain.com...
: Let me get this straight. I plan on getting a widescreen HD tv when the tax
:
:
David Mullen
The amount of letterboxing will be reduced dramatically.
David Mullen
the_new_...@my-deja.com
but has anyone made any pictures that show different size movies on a
16x9 TV?
--
I had a pithy comment here about George Lucas, but
people have no sense of humor.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
David Mullen
>but has anyone made any pictures that show different size movies on a
>16x9 TV?
You could draw it with a pencil and a ruler... Or go into a DVD store with
16:9 monitors and ask them to show you 1.37, 1.85, and 2.35 movies on it for
you.
David Mullen
Scott Moran
>I know widescreen.org shows the effects of letterboxing and pan&scan,
>but has anyone made any pictures that show different size movies on a
>16x9 TV?
http://www.clapro.com/widescreen/
...in the "Widescreen TVs" section. This is a very useful and
informative widescreen site, short on examples of butchery but long on
everything else.
John Savard
wrote, in part:
Well, the black bars will be *really tiny* for 1:85 movies. And for
2:35 they'll also be smaller.
*Plus*, for the small number of *anamorphic* DVDs, you will get more
vertical detail in your pictures.
So there is *some* point in getting such a TV.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
R Kahn
be to describe a particular scene in the film "Usual Suspects". During the
line up sequence at the beginning of the film you will notice that when
Fenster does his schtick that all 5 of the charactors are in plain view-in
the frame. With pan and scan at that very point in the film only 4
charactors are visible in the frame. You simply see more information in each
frame than you would with Pan and Scan. P&S discs are also usually not
mastered as well as the widescreen. Try looking at a DVD that comes in
Standard format only (label on one side, standard dvd screening on the
other). A good example is the film "Arthur". The studio obv didn't give a
flying Fenster about that one.
the_new_...@my-deja.com
is one of my few strong points. I meant for people who don't get why
they still have black bars with a 2.35 image on a 16x9 screen. Which
gives me another idea, a DVD with every new player titled, "Play Me
First". It would have an onscreen narrator explaining letterboxing and
pan and scan and other things. Even have a VCR run thru test by
activating the Macrovision for a second. Anyone else think it's a good
idea?
Sydney Assbasket
Even with 2.35:1 films, which, I gather from your question, is probably the
widest film you'll ever watch, only have really small bars. OTOH, anything
less than 1.78:1 will have black bars on the sides.
________________________________________________________________
The Indian DVD Resource: http://www.fly.to/indiadvd
I'm trying to quit chewing gum so I started smoking.
"Gay" is not a synonym for "bad."
Remove "bination" to reply.
bess
drag...@aol.combination (Sydney Assbasket ) wrote:
> >
> >
> >Let me get this straight. I plan on getting a widescreen HD tv when the tax
> >return comes back (Yummy). Am I correct based on what I've learned lurking
> >this group that, I'll still get black bars above and below the screen? I
> >mean what's the point? Why buy widescreen?
>
> Even with 2.35:1 films, which, I gather from your question, is probably the
> widest film you'll ever watch, only have really small bars. OTOH, anything
> less than 1.78:1 will have black bars on the sides.
>
Why don't the studios convert the movies(the dvd's) that are
released 2.35:1 to 16:9? if 16:9 widescreen is really the future.
Personally if they are gonna release most movies at 2.35:1 I wish
the TV makers would just make TV's that wide.
I know it would be a compromise from the almighty original aspect
ratio but even with a great home theatre system watching movies at
home is all about compromise. Aren't there ways for them
to shoot movies now where not too much would be lost if they did this?
As it has been said before in this newsgroup the only times I
hear legit complaints about black bars is when a 2.35:1
movie are being shown on a 4:3 TV then almost 40% of the a 4:3
tv can be lost. It's probally also why all those ads and video's
that use letterbox almost never have it at 2.35:1 where
alot would be lost on the vast majority of tv sets in usa.
damnfine
> Why don't the studios convert the movies(the dvd's) that are
> released 2.35:1 to 16:9?
TROLLLLLLLLLLL...
(I hope...)
Richard C..©...
"bess" <gil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gillyuk-1901...@ip47.garden-city6.ny.pub-ip.psi.net...
:
: Why don't the studios convert the movies(the dvd's) that are
: released 2.35:1 to 16:9?
=====
Because most people do not want butchered movies...the point is to have an accurate presentation of the picture.
I would surely never buy one that they did that with........
======
: if 16:9 widescreen is really the future.
: Personally if they are gonna release most movies at 2.35:1 I wish
: the TV makers would just make TV's that wide.
========
Are you prepared to pay $50,000 for a TV?
Making a tube that wide would present real problems.
========
:
: I know it would be a compromise from the almighty original aspect
: ratio but even with a great home theatre system watching movies at
: home is all about compromise.
==================
Damn..you sound just like max.
Seriously, compromising the aspect ratio would be insane.
The picture is what motion PICTURES are mostly about.
Lose that, and all you have is a damned TV show.
==================
: Aren't there ways for them
: to shoot movies now where not too much would be lost if they did this?
=======
Of course they can shoot and matte to 1.78:1.......but why do this for ALL movies?
=======
:
: As it has been said before in this newsgroup the only times I
: hear legit complaints about black bars is when a 2.35:1
: movie are being shown on a 4:3 TV then almost 40% of the a 4:3
: tv can be lost. It's probally also why all those ads and video's
: that use letterbox almost never have it at 2.35:1 where
: alot would be lost on the vast majority of tv sets in usa.
==========
Are YOU the one complaining, or are you worrying about the complaints you hear?
VHS should suit you ro years to come.
==========
Wade Noble
"bess" <gil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gillyuk-1901...@ip47.garden-city6.ny.pub-ip.psi.net...
>
> released 2.35:1 to 16:9? if 16:9 widescreen is really the future.
> Personally if they are gonna release most movies at 2.35:1 I wish
> the TV makers would just make TV's that wide.
>
> I know it would be a compromise from the almighty original aspect
> ratio but even with a great home theatre system watching movies at
> home is all about compromise. Aren't there ways for them
> to shoot movies now where not too much would be lost if they did this?
You're right it's all about compromise... and the compromise that the
industry has chosen is to display the picture in it's original aspect ratio
and have black bars on the sides or top rather than the compromise that you
obviously prefer. As for shooting the original, I believe the standard is
16:9 (or very close to it)... however, if a movie is shot in 2.35:1, that is
the director's choice, so we as the consumer don't have much other choice
but to respect the director's artistic judgement.
Cheers,
Wade
David Mullen
>Why don't the studios convert the movies(the dvd's) that are
>released 2.35:1 to 16:9? if 16:9 widescreen is really the future.
>Personally if they are gonna release most movies at 2.35:1 I wish
>the TV makers would just make TV's that wide.
You're not saying that IF TV's were 2.35, you'd then want it filled with
picture, thus cropping all 4:3 and 1.85 movies to 2.35? If not, then you're
talking about using black borders anyway.
Because 1.85 is so close to 16:9 (1.78), if filmmakers were so concerned
about 16:9 TV presentation, they'd only choose the 1.85 format, which adapts
easily to 16:9.
2.35 is chosen because of its spectacular and immersive qualities on the big
theaterical screen -- therefore almost by definition, the primary reason to
choose 2.35 is because of the theatrical experience, not the home video
version. Some people choose to shoot in the Super-35 format for the
flexibility in generating different TV versions later, but even those people
usually prefer that the theatrical compositions are maintained if it's an
option for them. There are a few cases of 2.35 films being reduced in width
(or opened up vertically) to 2 : 1 (like for the "Austin Powers" movies, and
some of the anamorphic films that Storaro has photographed) which of course
will need less letterboxing than 2.35.
However, if you've ever watched a 2.35 letterboxed movie on a 16:9 monitor,
it's not that bad in terms of the amount of letterboxing, yet it retains the
theatrical compositions. If, as you say, more people complain about 2.35
letterboxed on 4:3 and not so much about 1.85 letterboxed on 4:3, then they
should be fine with 2.35 letterboxed on 16:9!
Look, even if all TV's become 16:9, you're still going to have old 4:3
movies requiring side borders to retain their aspect ratio -- so you have to
just get used to the idea that a TV is a display device for showing a
variety of shapes by using black borders. And that a 16:9 monitor is better
suited for the variety of shapes that exist than a 4:3 monitor.
I ALSO wish that widescreen TV's were 2.35, so at least less-wide formats
would be smaller horizontally, like in a movie theater. But 16:9 beats 4:3
anyday for showing widescreen in general, and one TV shape is never going to
fit all the different movie shapes anyway without using black borders.
David Mullen
Brian
>informative widescreen site, short on examples of butchery but long on
>everything else.
>
>-STM
Yes, I saw a National Geographic special about butchery one time. Those poor
cows.
====================================================
If you're reading this, you're probably as bored as I was when I wrote it.
Brian
>: Why don't the studios convert the movies(the dvd's) that are
>: released 2.35:1 to 16:9?
>
>=====
>Because most people do not want butchered movies...the point is to have an
>accurate presentation of the picture.
Ummm....accurate representation? At best, a movie that you watch at home is a
miniature scale model of the original film. I feel the need to remind you that
you can't buy the original film. Therefore, what you see on your TV SCREEN when
you pop that little disc into your player is a COPY of the movie, and not a
very good one at that.
>I would surely never buy one that they did that with........
>======
>: if 16:9 widescreen is really the future.
>: Personally if they are gonna release most movies at 2.35:1 I wish
>: the TV makers would just make TV's that wide.
>
>========
>Are you prepared to pay $50,000 for a TV?
>Making a tube that wide would present real problems.
>========
They'll find solutions if they have to. They're creative people. Making a dvd
player once presented real problems too. Now you can buy one for the same price
as a vcr.
>: I know it would be a compromise from the almighty original aspect
>: ratio but even with a great home theatre system watching movies at
>: home is all about compromise.
>
>==================
>Damn..you sound just like max.
>Seriously, compromising the aspect ratio would be insane.
>The picture is what motion PICTURES are mostly about.
>Lose that, and all you have is a damned TV show.
>==================
Who is Max? Life is all about compromises. Sure, I'd love to be driving around
in a Benz right now but, Instead, I COMPROMISED and am driving a $15,000 Dodge.
As previously noted, you already have a damned tv show since it is on your TV.
>: Aren't there ways for them
>: to shoot movies now where not too much would be lost if they did this?
>
>=======
>Of course they can shoot and matte to 1.78:1.......but why do this for ALL
>movies?
>=======
Why not?
>: As it has been said before in this newsgroup the only times I
>: hear legit complaints about black bars is when a 2.35:1
>: movie are being shown on a 4:3 TV then almost 40% of the a 4:3
>: tv can be lost. It's probally also why all those ads and video's
>: that use letterbox almost never have it at 2.35:1 where
>: alot would be lost on the vast majority of tv sets in usa.
>
>==========
>Are YOU the one complaining, or are you worrying about the complaints you
>hear?
>
>VHS should suit you ro years to come.
>==========
Perhaps he/she is merely suggesting that full/widescreen folks find common
ground until widescreen sets become affordable enough for everyone to be able
to buy one instead of having to put up with watching movies for years in a
format they hate.
Brian
>16:9 (or very close to it)... however, if a movie is shot in 2.35:1, that is
>the director's choice, so we as the consumer don't have much other choice
>but to respect the director's artistic judgement.
>
If they choose 2.35:1, their artistic judgement may be fine on the big screen,
but it just plain sucks on a tv. If 16:9 is the standard, then the movies
should all be in this AR. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. It's
like having someone offer to give you $100,000 and running it through a
shredder before they give it to you. You are making a big enough compromise
already to have the movie, which is meant to be large on a tiny tv screen.
Then, they aggrivate this problem by making it even smaller.
>Cheers,
>Wade
Brian
>letterboxed on 4:3 and not so much about 1.85 letterboxed on 4:3, then they
>should be fine with 2.35 letterboxed on 16:9!
Great! Where's my $700 16:9 tv?
Rev. Owen Allaway
<20010119135559...@ng-cp1.aol.com>:
Europe. ;-)
I do wish widescreen sets were cheaper over here. I had a 32" 16:9 TV when
I lived in England and it was great. Sigh.
Hamlet
> vertical detail in your pictures.
You are just too dumb to believe...........
Wade Noble
course (grin)... please ignore the inherent errors in my statements about
standards & director's choice... I realize that is to a degree misstating
the facts. My apologies.... however, the intent is still as is.
Cheers,
Wade
"Wade Noble" <wade...@home.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:zy_96.37075$ED.13...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
John Savard
<lpm...@XXpost-age-collectibles.XXcom> wrote, in part:
>Are you prepared to pay $50,000 for a TV?
>Making a tube that wide would present real problems.
Well, when the price of flat-panel sets comes down, that might be
possible.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
John Savard
in part:
>The best analogy I can think of to describe the benefits of widescreen would
>be to describe a particular scene in the film "Usual Suspects".
I was not talking about the advantages of the widescreen versions of
movies, but why a 16:9 set is better for viewing widescreen movies,
even though it doesn't exactly match the aspect ratios of those
movies. (It's a closer fit than a 4:3 set.)
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>> *Plus*, for the small number of *anamorphic* DVDs, you will get more
>> vertical detail in your pictures.
>You are just too dumb to believe...........
No, I am telling the truth. On a 16:9 TV set, anamorphic widescreen
DVDs are shown with all 480 lines of the picture on the DVD, and the
picture is stretched to fill the screen.
On a 4:3 TV, one-quarter of the lines on the DVD are omitted, to make
the black bars larger, because otherwise the picture would be
stretched vertically, and therefore distorted.
Most widescreen DVDs, however, are not anamorphic.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Richard C..©...
"Brian" <bian...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message news:20010119134153...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
:
: Perhaps he/she is merely suggesting that full/widescreen folks find common
: ground until widescreen sets become affordable enough for everyone to be able
: to buy one instead of having to put up with watching movies for years in a
: format they hate.
===================
The ignorati will STILL complain about bars with 2.35 movies on a 1.78 set..........
They will STILL have to "put up with watching movies for years in a format they hate".
So.....WHAT common ground?
Either live with the true aspect ratio of the movie or tough shit..........
===================
Richard C..©...
"Brian" <bian...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message news:20010119134153...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
:
: miniature scale model of the original film. I feel the need to remind you that
: you can't buy the original film. Therefore, what you see on your TV SCREEN when
: you pop that little disc into your player is a COPY of the movie, and not a
: very good one at that.
==============
An accurate scale model is better than a non-accurate one.....
Keeping the aspect ratio keeps it accurate.
Besides..you ARE aware that not all movie theater screens are the same size, aren't you?
Some are 70' across and some are only 25' across. Your point becomes invalid.
===============
Richard C..©...
"Brian" <bian...@aol.comspamenot> wrote in message news:20010119135041...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
:
: If they choose 2.35:1, their artistic judgement may be fine on the big screen,
: but it just plain sucks on a tv.
In YOUR opinion. I find it looks just fine.
==========
: If 16:9 is the standard, then the movies
: should all be in this AR.
==============
16:9 has never been a standard for movies....never..........
===============
:Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. It's
: like having someone offer to give you $100,000 and running it through a
: shredder before they give it to you.
===================
That sounds like a description of Pan-andScan.
=======================
:You are making a big enough compromise
: already to have the movie, which is meant to be large on a tiny tv screen.
: Then, they aggrivate this problem by making it even smaller.
===========================
Why compromise even FURTHER by changing the entire appearance of the move (aspect ratio) ?
You seem to defeat your own arguments..........
=======================
:
: >Cheers,
:
:
:
:
:
Richard C..©...
"John Savard" <jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere> wrote in message news:3a68a132...@news.powersurfr.com...
: On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:14:59 -0500, "Hamlet" <Ham...@shakespeare.com>
: wrote, in part:
:
: >> *Plus*, for the small number of *anamorphic* DVDs, you will get more
: >> vertical detail in your pictures.
:
: >You are just too dumb to believe...........
:
: No, I am telling the truth. On a 16:9 TV set, anamorphic widescreen
: DVDs are shown with all 480 lines of the picture on the DVD, and the
: picture is stretched to fill the screen.
The entire picture is shown with all of its lines. No stretching takes place.
====================
:
: On a 4:3 TV, one-quarter of the lines on the DVD are omitted, to make
: the black bars larger, because otherwise the picture would be
: stretched vertically, and therefore distorted.
:
: Most widescreen DVDs, however, are not anamorphic.
Are you really sure about that?????
=======================
Hamlet
> DVDs are shown with all 480 lines of the picture on the DVD, and the
> picture is stretched to fill the screen.
The picture is not stretched to fill the screen.
>
> On a 4:3 TV, one-quarter of the lines on the DVD are omitted, to make
> the black bars larger, because otherwise the picture would be
> stretched vertically, and therefore distorted.
>
> Most widescreen DVDs, however, are not anamorphic.
I have a whole lot of anamorhpic widescreen DVDs. why are you saying there
are so
few anamorphic widescreen DVDs? Where are your numbers?
>
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
David Mullen
screen,
>but it just plain sucks on a tv. If 16:9 is the standard, then the movies
>should all be in this AR.
So make movie less impressive in the theaters so they look better on your TV
at home???
Sorry, I actually LIKE seeing movies in theaters still -- I don't want them
to be watered down to look good for home video later. Make them look great
on the big screen and let home video deal with it later.
David Mullen
Scott Moran
gil...@hotmail.com (bess):
>Why don't the studios convert the movies(the dvd's) that are
>released 2.35:1 to 16:9? if 16:9 widescreen is really the future.
Because this would alter the intended aspect ratio. That's why. 16:9
widescreen is the future for television, not for films.
>Personally if they are gonna release most movies at 2.35:1 I wish
>the TV makers would just make TV's that wide.
That would be cool...unfortunately most movies are not 2.35:1. It's
more like half-and-half (2.35:1 and 1.85:1) from what I've heard.
>I know it would be a compromise from the almighty original aspect
>ratio but even with a great home theatre system watching movies at
>home is all about compromise.
No need to compromise further by changing aspect ratio.
>Aren't there ways for them
>to shoot movies now where not too much would be lost if they did this?
Sure. That doesn't mean they have to.
>As it has been said before in this newsgroup the only times I
>hear legit complaints about black bars is when a 2.35:1
>movie are being shown on a 4:3 TV then almost 40% of the a 4:3
>tv can be lost. It's probally also why all those ads and video's
>that use letterbox almost never have it at 2.35:1 where
>alot would be lost on the vast majority of tv sets in usa.
Those complaints are from people who care about how much of their
television is used, not about the movie they're watching.
-STM
___________________ __________
| /\ O /\| |/\ O |
|_/\/ \_______/\/ | | \_______| Widescreen. Get
|/ \ _\ /_/ | | _\ /| the big picture.
|____\_________/____| |\_________|
W I D E S C R E E N PAN & SCAN
- http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~sm6/widescreen -
Scott Moran
bian...@aol.comspamenot (Brian):
> Ummm....accurate representation? At best, a movie that you watch at home is a
>miniature scale model of the original film. I feel the need to remind you that
>you can't buy the original film. Therefore, what you see on your TV SCREEN when
>you pop that little disc into your player is a COPY of the movie, and not a
>very good one at that.
Home video IS a compromise. But that is no excuse to further
compromise the film by altering its composition.
> Who is Max?
A newsgroup regular whom Richard frequently butts heads with.
>As previously noted, you already have a damned tv show since it is on your TV.
Only if it is formatted for that TV.
>>Of course they can shoot and matte to 1.78:1.......but why do this for ALL
>>movies?
>
> Why not?
Variety is the spice of life!
> Perhaps he/she is merely suggesting that full/widescreen folks find common
>ground until widescreen sets become affordable enough for everyone to be able
>to buy one instead of having to put up with watching movies for years in a
>format they hate.
Many people (including me, who never had the luxury of LD) have had to
put up with crappy Pan & Scan VHS tapes for years. I have no sympathy
now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Widescreen IS the common ground. It's just that some people don't
know it yet. :)
Scott Moran
bian...@aol.comspamenot (Brian):
> If they choose 2.35:1, their artistic judgement may be fine on the big screen,
>but it just plain sucks on a tv.
Looks fine to me...
>If 16:9 is the standard, then the movies
>should all be in this AR.
Absurd. 16:9 is a television standard, not a film standard.
>You are making a big enough compromise
>already to have the movie, which is meant to be large on a tiny tv screen.
>Then, they aggrivate this problem by making it even smaller.
Better than aggravating the compromise by altering the composition.
One (small size) can be alleviated by sitting closer. The other (Pan
& Scan) can never be alleviated.
Anamophic Widescreen Rules
and to dissatisfy the rest of us.....
YOU should press the "ZOOM" button on your DVD player’s
remote if you want your screen filled.
If your player does not have a ZOOM button, Toshiba and
some others do make players with this feature.
Now we can all be happy…
Somebody wrote:
>Why don't the studios convert the movies(the dvd's) that are
>released 2.35:1 to 16:9? if 16:9 widescreen is really the future.
>Personally if they are gonna release most movies at 2.35:1 I wish
>the TV makers would just make TV's that wide.
>
>I know it would be a compromise from the almighty original aspect
>ratio but even with a great home theatre system watching movies at
>home is all about compromise. Aren't there ways for them
>to shoot movies now where not too much would be lost if they did this?
>
>As it has been said before in this newsgroup the only times I
>hear legit complaints about black bars is when a 2.35:1
>movie are being shown on a 4:3 TV then almost 40% of the a 4:3
>tv can be lost. It's probally also why all those ads and video's
>that use letterbox almost never have it at 2.35:1 where
>alot would be lost on the vast majority of tv sets in usa.
SPAM MAGNET: jqu...@fcc.gov rch...@fcc.gov sn...@fcc.gov
cust...@email.usps.gov cust...@email.usps.gov ga...@crushnet.com
que...@fcc.gov ma...@idci.com postmaster@localhost postm...@uunet.uu.net
ho...@fcc.gov rhu...@fcc.gov sn...@fcc.gov n...@fcc.gov
Brian
>
>Besides..you ARE aware that not all movie theater screens are the same size,
>aren't you?
>Some are 70' across and some are only 25' across. Your point becomes
>invalid.
>===============
25' is STILL a very large screen compared to a 27, 32 or even a 40 inch
diagonal screen. AND the original is on film, which is far superior to any
current video format in almost every way. My point was that you are not even
watching a film any longer once the FILM to VIDEO transfer has been done. Your
point was again?
Brian
>they hate".
>
>So.....WHAT common ground?
>
>Either live with the true aspect ratio of the movie or tough shit..........
It appears that the only common ground we are going to find is the one we're
on now. This is the part where I spit in your face and call you a stupid
bastard and we BOTH go away mad. Happy?
Brian
>: should all be in this AR.
>==============
>16:9 has never been a standard for movies....never..........
>===============
I didn't say it was. The other guy did. BTW, just what was the original
standard? I have this need to remind you of it
>Why compromise even FURTHER by changing the entire appearance of the move
>(aspect ratio) ?
Why not?
>
>You seem to defeat your own arguments..........
On the contrary. A bunch of fools arguing that a video is a film have already
made the most obvious blunder of them all. Confusing one media with the other.
>:Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. It's
>: like having someone offer to give you $100,000 and running it through a
>: shredder before they give it to you.
>===================
>That sounds like a description of Pan-andScan.
No. It's a description of being forced to buy something you really want in
only one style.
>: If they choose 2.35:1, their artistic judgement may be fine on the big
>screen,
>: but it just plain sucks on a tv.
>=========
>In YOUR opinion. I find it looks just fine.
>==========
I have a friend who thinks a big set of rabbit ears looks great on the back of
his tv. Point being....opinions are like assholes.....you know the rest. Or do
you?
Brian
>>should all be in this AR.
>
>Absurd. 16:9 is a television standard, not a film standard.
>
AGAIN. I didn't say it. I took the 16:9 thing form the other guy's post. I
think the point was, that there's a film standard that's pretty close to 16:9.
>One (small size) can be alleviated by sitting closer. The other (Pan
>& Scan) can never be alleviated.
>
Sure it can. Just watch your preference...widescreen.
Brian
>compromise the film by altering its composition.
I'm not sure what film is composed of but it sure isn't capacitors and scan
lines. <GGGGG>
Jeff Rife
> I have a whole lot of anamorhpic widescreen DVDs. why are you saying there
> are so few anamorphic widescreen DVDs? Where are your numbers?
From my outdated copy of Doug MacLean's excellent region-1 DVD list, there
appear to be about 2600 DVDs that have a widescreen picture on them. About
1200 of those DVDs are 16x9 enhanced. More DVDs are being released with 16x9
enhancement as time goes one, so it's fair to say that 1/2 of all widescreen
discs are anamorphic.
Now, since there are damn near 9000 total region-1 releases, it can be said
that most DVDs are *not* anamorphic widescreen, but that just glosses over
the fact that most DVDs (which includes all those older movies, TV shows, music
videos, etc.) are not widescreen at all, because many aren't supposed to be.
--
Jeff Rife | "Don't try this at home, kids. This should
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | be done only by trained professional idiots."
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Home: 301-916-8131 | -- Plucky Duck, "Hollywood Plucky"
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Craig Russell
"Jeff Rife" <we...@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.14d31469d...@news.nabs.net...
Scott Moran
bian...@aol.comspamenot (Brian):
>>>If 16:9 is the standard, then the movies
>>>should all be in this AR.
>>
>>Absurd. 16:9 is a television standard, not a film standard.
>
> AGAIN. I didn't say it. I took the 16:9 thing form the other guy's post. I
>think the point was, that there's a film standard that's pretty close to 16:9.
Okay...forward my answer to the other fellow. :P
>>One (small size) can be alleviated by sitting closer. The other (Pan
>>& Scan) can never be alleviated.
>
> Sure it can. Just watch your preference...widescreen.
Well of course widescreen alleviates it...that's why I watch it! :)
Hamlet
> >
> >Besides..you ARE aware that not all movie theater screens are the same
size,
> >aren't you?
> >Some are 70' across and some are only 25' across. Your point becomes
> >invalid.
> >===============
>
> 25' is STILL a very large screen compared to a 27, 32 or even a 40 inch
> diagonal screen. AND the original is on film, which is far superior to any
> current video format in almost every way. My point was that you are not
even
> watching a film any longer once the FILM to VIDEO transfer has been done.
Your
> point was again?
Your point is bullshit......
Hamlet
format
> >they hate".
> >
> >So.....WHAT common ground?
> >
> >Either live with the true aspect ratio of the movie or tough
shit..........
>
> It appears that the only common ground we are going to find is the one
we're
> on now. This is the part where I spit in your face and call you a stupid
> bastard and we BOTH go away mad. Happy?
But you're a not too smart........
Hamlet
> >: should all be in this AR.
> >==============
> >16:9 has never been a standard for movies....never..........
> >===============
>
> I didn't say it was. The other guy did. BTW, just what was the original
> standard? I have this need to remind you of it
>
> >Why compromise even FURTHER by changing the entire appearance of the move
> >(aspect ratio) ?
>
> Why not?
When I buy a movie on DVD, I want it to look like the movie as shown in
theaters.
If they sell me something that has been altered in some way, then it is not
what was shown and hence not what I was expecting. It is something else.
That is false advertizing.
How would you like it someone showed you a nice new shiny new car that you
like, but then sold you one with the hood removed and the front and rear
bumpers missing?
>
> >
> >You seem to defeat your own arguments..........
>
> On the contrary. A bunch of fools arguing that a video is a film have
already
> made the most obvious blunder of them all. Confusing one media with the
other.
What a dumb stupid statement. Media has nothing to do with the movie,
dumbass.
>
> >:Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. It's
> >: like having someone offer to give you $100,000 and running it through a
> >: shredder before they give it to you.
> >===================
> >That sounds like a description of Pan-andScan.
>
> No. It's a description of being forced to buy something you really want
in
> only one style.
Who forced you to buy anything, dumbass?
Hamlet
are lots and lots of anamorphic widescreen dvds. Most in my collection of
over 200 are anamorphic.
Peter Briggs
> If they choose 2.35:1, their artistic judgement may be fine on the big
> screen, but it just plain sucks on a tv.
That's about one of the top stupid things I've read, here.
"Suuuuue-ey!" Off you go. Your pigs need feeding.
buck
<1enj9mz.zhv5811g8ap03N%pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk>,
pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk says...
Having once been a pig farmer, I take offence (and so do
the pigs).
Even when we had pigs on the farm, we STILL didnt want
our movies Squished, Slashed, panned, or butchered (all
pigs please excuse the word) in ANY way.
I never took a pol, but since pigs are widely considered
amongst the smartest of barnyard animals, Im SURE they
preffered thier movies in OAR!
<GGG>
buck
Peter Briggs
> > That's about one of the top stupid things I've read, here.
> >
> > "Suuuuue-ey!" Off you go. Your pigs need feeding.
> >
>
> Having once been a pig farmer, I take offence (and so do
> the pigs).
My best friend at school was a pig farmer's son. Don't feel too bad!
buck
<1enjce4.1c9rpxi1op9pkN%pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk>,
pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk says...
managed to be where we wanted them....
On another subject, I saw a Biography (on A&E of course)
on Benny Hill.. What an odd duck he was. I always LOVED
the look of devilment in his eyes.
I regret that he is no longer with us. The world needs
more witty and generous souls. I was saddened by his
passing at the time because my wife was TOTALLY under his
spell, and watched him every time she could. He could
make her laugh in a way that NOTHING else has ever done.
buck
Sammy
bian...@aol.comspamenot (Brian) wrote:
> 25' is STILL a very large screen compared to a 27, 32 or even a 40 inch
> diagonal screen. AND the original is on film, which is far superior to any
> current video format in almost every way. My point was that you are not even
> watching a film any longer once the FILM to VIDEO transfer has been done. Your
> point was again?
The only explanation for making a statement this absurd is that your
real name is Max C.
Peter Briggs
> I regret that he is no longer with us. The world needs
> more witty and generous souls. I was saddened by his
> passing at the time because my wife was TOTALLY under his
> spell, and watched him every time she could. He could
> make her laugh in a way that NOTHING else has ever done.
Well, if they ever get around to releasing "The Italian Job" on DVD,
you've got an excuse to buy it! (Wasn't he the fireman in "Magnificent
Men In Their Flying Machines", also?)
buck
<1enjfxw.1tymh821dw1xioN%pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk>,
pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk says...
I believe he was, tho I have not seen that film in
(mumble mumble) years.
Do you suppose they will ever release his tv shows to DVD
(or have they already?)
buck
David Mullen
>appear to be about 2600 DVDs that have a widescreen picture on them. About
>1200 of those DVDs are 16x9 enhanced. More DVDs are being released with
16x9
>enhancement as time goes one, so it's fair to say that 1/2 of all
widescreen
>discs are anamorphic.
>
>Now, since there are damn near 9000 total region-1 releases, it can be said
>that most DVDs are *not* anamorphic widescreen, but that just glosses over
>the fact that most DVDs (which includes all those older movies, TV shows,
music
>videos, etc.) are not widescreen at all, because many aren't supposed to
be.
Yes, I think when talking about whether most DVD's are 16:9 or not, you
should really limit the discussion to post-1953 widescreen theatrical films.
4:3 material, like Academy Aperture films before 1953, and TV shows, etc.
would not need to be 16:9 and counting those would cause the percentage of
16:9 DVD's to be lower.
Someone collecting mostly theatrical movies made in the past forty years
would probably notice a higher percentage of them being 16:9.
David Mullen
Sydney Assbasket
magic TV that expands and contracts according to the aspect ratio of what you
are watching.
On a 16:9 TV:
4:3 material will have bars on the sides
Material wider than 1.85:1 will have bars (I assume that overscan will make
letterboxing on 1.85:1 material trivial)
There's always the choice of watching just 1.85:1 films if you get that pissed
off about black bars.
________________________________________________________________
The Indian DVD Resource: http://www.fly.to/indiadvd
I'm trying to quit chewing gum so I started smoking.
"Gay" is not a synonym for "bad."
Remove "bination" to reply.
Sydney Assbasket
>
I don't know about MOST. Sure, there are alot of non-16:9 enhanced WS DVDs,
but now that the major holdouts (Fox and Disney) have jumped on the bandwagon,
the number of 16:9 discs is increasing.
Sydney Assbasket
>released 2.35:1 to 16:9? if 16:9 widescreen is really the future.
>Personally if they are gonna release most movies at 2.35:1 I wish
>the TV makers would just make TV's that wide.
Because 2.35:1 on a 16:9 TV just doesn't cause very big bars to appear on the
screen. It's not even worth the trouble. It would be like saying, "Why don't
they make that 1.5:1 film 1.33:1 so there aren't a few pixels of black on the
screen?"
Sydney Assbasket
>Making a tube that wide would present real problems.
What exactly are the problems associated with making a tube wider than 1.78:1?
Sydney Assbasket
Even regular people would protest it. But nobody has a problem if "Bridge on
the River Kwai" is cropped to fit a TV screen. Why is this?
I think the early 1900s mindset that film is not art still lingers on to some
extent today. Which is sad when you think about it.
Sydney Assbasket
>diagonal screen. AND the original is on film, which is far superior to any
>current video format in almost every way. My point was that you are not even
>watching a film any longer once the FILM to VIDEO transfer has been done.
>Your
>point was again?
"Let's make a compromised format already worse." Is that what you are saying?
Sydney Assbasket
>>(aspect ratio) ?
>
> Why not?
Because film is ART. This isn't like choosing the typeface for a book or
something. A film simply would look like shit if 40% of the picture is missing
or if there's excessive headroom in Super 35 and open matte films.
Sydney Assbasket
> AGAIN. I didn't say it. I took the 16:9 thing form the other guy's post. I
>think the point was, that there's a film standard that's pretty close to
>16:9.
That's 1.85:1, and the aspect ratio doesn't fit all films. I wouldn't want the
next Bond film to be made in that AR, since it doesn't really have a sense of
grandeur. I have a 35" TV, and even on my old 32"TV, 2.35:1 looked fine. Even
2.55:1 looked fine. I, for one, don't want my TV to dictate how much of the
picture I see.
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
> I, for one, don't want my TV to dictate how much of the
>picture I see.
>
The only people making that decision should be the filmmakers.
Aaron B.
--
"This is DVD, not 'VHS: The Next Generation.'"
Jeff Rife
> I have 70 dvds and 5 of them are not anamorphic! that is not half!
Your personal collection is not the issue here.
In any case, half of *all* widescreen DVDs are anamorphically enhanced, which
means that the original statement of "most widescreen DVDs are not anamorphic"
is wrong.
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | "He chose...poorly."
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Home: 301-916-8131 | -- Grail Knight, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Jeff Rife
> It is still incorrect to say that few widescreen DVDs are anamorphic.
Um, isn't that what I just said, only with numbers to back me up?
> There
> are lots and lots of anamorphic widescreen dvds.
Right. About 1300 or so, which is about half of all the total widescreen
DVDs.
> Most in my collection of
> over 200 are anamorphic.
Your personal collection is not the issue here. The statement was: "most
widescreen DVDs, however, are not anamorphic". This is not true. However,
it is also untrue to say that most widescreen DVDs *are* anamorphic, as
it is split about 50/50.
--
Jeff Rife | Coach: Yeah, Norm, how come you and Vera never
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | had any kids?
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 | Norm: I can't, Coach.
Home: 301-916-8131 | Coach: Gee, I'm sorry, Norm.
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 | Norm: I look at Vera...and I just can't.
Hamlet
DVDs.'
There is well more than a few.....You corrected me, but his statement, which
I responded to, was incorrect.
Hamlet
----------------------------------------------
>> *Plus*, for the small number of *anamorphic* DVDs, you will get more
>> vertical detail in your pictures.
---------------------------------------------
then he said this:
>No, I am telling the truth. On a 16:9 TV set, anamorphic widescreen
>DVDs are shown with all 480 lines of the picture on the DVD, and the
>picture is stretched to fill the screen.
>On a 4:3 TV, one-quarter of the lines on the DVD are omitted, to make
>the black bars larger, because otherwise the picture would be
>stretched vertically, and therefore distorted.
>Most widescreen DVDs, however, are not anamorphic.
>John Savard
>http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
So first he says that the number of anamorphic DVDs is small. Then he says
that most widescreen DVDs are not anamorphic.
I object to his claim that the number of anamorhpic DVDs is small. You can
say that the number of anamorhpic DVDs is smaller than nonanamorhpic,
perhaps, but if you say the number is small then I disagree. That is why
the number of anaomorhpics DVDs in my collection is relevent....because of
the number were truely small, then I believe the my ratio of anamorhpic to
nonanamorhpic would be much different.
"Hamlet" <Ham...@shakesphere.com> wrote in message
news:t6k4lcq...@corp.supernews.com...
Andrew Venor
He was also the toy maker in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
ALV
Brian
>pissed
>off about black bars.
Like Saving Private Ryan? Agreed. 1.85:1 is much less distracting and annoying
than 2.35:1 but how many big budget films are in that AR?
====================================================
If you're reading this, you're probably as bored as I was when I wrote it.
Brian
>the
>next Bond film to be made in that AR, since it doesn't really have a sense of
>grandeur.
Well, that "sense of grandeur is pretty much lost when you have a tiny picture
wouldn't you say?
Brian
>>picture I see.
>>
>
>The only people making that decision should be the filmmakers.
So why don't they buy into the tv making business and make tvs that actually
fit their films?
Brian
>when
>>you pop that little disc into your player is a COPY of the movie, and not a
>>very good one at that.
>
>Cutting off 43% of the image is going to make it BETTER? Not!
Shrinking it doesn't help a whole lot either asswipe.
>> They'll find solutions if they have to. They're creative people. Making a
>dvd
>>player once presented real problems too.
>
>How about the creative solution of sitting closer? Wow!
>
How about the annoying problem of having obsticles between you and the tv so
you CAN'T sit closer? WHOA!
>> Now you can buy one for the same price as a vcr.
>
>Thanks to those that enjoy what DVD offers, not asses that whine about
>it.
>
Don't you mean...Thanks to those idiots who paid the outrageous prices of the
first players?
>> Life is all about compromises.
>
>Great! Now you will sit closer, or buy a bigger TV, and LOVE the
>compromise of widescreen. Welcome.
The issue at hand is the UTTER AND COMPLETE WASTE of screen space that a
widescreen movie represents. Sitting closer will not return my $300 worth of
unused screen. Buying a larger tv which costs $500 more than the one I have
will only compound that problem. Maybe you enjoy wasting your money on $1,500
tvs that will never be used to their full potential, but some people are just a
little bit smarter than that.
One other thing. I have been sitting at the same distance from the set all of
my life. I have been doing that for a reason. I don't want the tv right in my
face. I enjoy sitting back a little where I can relax and be comfortable. YOU
sit closer. Maybe the freaking radiation will give your sorry ass cancer and I
won't have to deal with you anymore.
Brian
>in
>> only one style.
>
>Who forced you to buy anything, dumbass?
>
Well....you ignorant piece of cow shit, since it's only available in
widescreen format...you are being forced to accept the widescreen version. I
couldn't help but notice your fascination with the word dumbass. I'm sure it
came from having your parents call you a dumbass every day of your useless
existence.
Brian
>>>(aspect ratio) ?
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because film is ART. This isn't like choosing the typeface for a book or
>something. A film simply would look like shit if 40% of the picture is
>missing
>or if there's excessive headroom in Super 35 and open matte films.
I say it's ENTERTAINMENT. Eye of the beholder again. I don't buy, rent or
watch a movie because I wan't to sit there and nitpick every little nuance of
the film making process. When I watch a movie, I want to be entertained. If I
want to see art, I'll go to a museum.
Brian
>even
>> watching a film any longer once the FILM to VIDEO transfer has been done.
>Your
>> point was again?
>
>
Your points are starting to give me indigestion and GAS. SCRAM!
Jeff Rife
> DVDs.'
> There is well more than a few.....You corrected me, but his statement, which
> I responded to, was incorrect.
Oh, absolutely, he's totally wrong if he said "so few...". I didn't catch
that one.
I was only responding to the "most..." one, which is wrong *either* way you
put it...today. By the end of this year, I'll bet you can safely say "most
widescreen DVDs are anamorphic".
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/LoveRanking.jpg
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Home: 301-916-8131 |
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Hamlet
want
> >in
> >> only one style.
> >
> >Who forced you to buy anything, dumbass?
> >
>
> Well....you ignorant piece of cow shit, since it's only available in
> widescreen format...you are being forced to accept the widescreen version.
I
> couldn't help but notice your fascination with the word dumbass. I'm sure
it
> came from having your parents call you a dumbass every day of your useless
> existence.
Dumbass, you don't have to buy anything....just get directv and be happy
with your 4:3 tv with P&S version of the movie....or, if you can't afford
that because you're too stupid, then just rent the tape.......dumbass.......
Stan
> Like Saving Private Ryan? Agreed. 1.85:1 is much less distracting and annoying
>than 2.35:1 but how many big budget films are in that AR?
two-thirds?
David Mullen
>
> Shrinking it doesn't help a whole lot either asswipe.
It's a choice between two compromises, one in picture size and one in
picture content.
I vote that the actual visual content of the movie is more important than
simply filling a TV screen up with picture to make it look bigger. Chopping
an image in half and enlarging what's left is a just a form of mutilation.
A letterboxed image that is smaller is a compromise that is acceptable
because the alternatives are worse.
David Mullen
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>>> I, for one, don't want my TV to dictate how much of the
>>>picture I see.
>>>
>>
>>The only people making that decision should be the filmmakers.
>
> So why don't they buy into the tv making business and make tvs that actually
>fit their films?
Perhaps because they believe a film has value beyond what percentage of the
screen it fills?
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>>pissed
>>off about black bars.
>
> Like Saving Private Ryan? Agreed. 1.85:1 is much less distracting and annoying
>than 2.35:1 but how many big budget films are in that AR?
There was some movie with dinosaurs in it like that. A lot of them funny
movies are too... yep.
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>>That's 1.85:1, and the aspect ratio doesn't fit all films. I wouldn't want
>>the
>>next Bond film to be made in that AR, since it doesn't really have a sense of
>>grandeur.
>
> Well, that "sense of grandeur is pretty much lost when you have a tiny picture
>wouldn't you say?
No.
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>>Thanks to those that enjoy what DVD offers, not asses that whine about
>>it.
>>
>
> Don't you mean...Thanks to those idiots who paid the outrageous prices of the
>first players?
Without them, you and I would not have been able to cop a player for under
$300. Be glad there were people wiling to take the risk.
> The issue at hand is the UTTER AND COMPLETE WASTE of screen space that a
>widescreen movie represents. Sitting closer will not return my $300 worth of
>unused screen
And you arrived at this figure how???
Buying a larger tv which costs $500 more than the one I have
>will only compound that problem. Maybe you enjoy wasting your money on $1,500
>tvs that will never be used to their full potential, but some people are just a
>little bit smarter than that.
Ah, yes, smart enough to want to see a movie chopped and fluffed in order to
avoid seeing the color black.
> One other thing. I have been sitting at the same distance from the set all of
>my life. I have been doing that for a reason. I don't want the tv right in my
>face. I enjoy sitting back a little where I can relax and be comfortable.
Then stop bitching. Perhaps if it's that much trouble, you shouldn't have
bought a DVD player in the first place. It seems you have much bigger
problems in life.
YOU
>sit closer. Maybe the freaking radiation will give your sorry ass cancer and I
>won't have to deal with you anymore.
>
Yeah, you definately have bigger problems.
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
>>> No. It's a description of being forced to buy something you really want
>>in
>>> only one style.
>>
>>Who forced you to buy anything, dumbass?
>>
>
> Well....you ignorant piece of cow shit, since it's only available in
>widescreen format...you are being forced to accept the widescreen version.
Just like I was forced to accept the P&S versions for so many years?
Tit for tat.
link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net
> I say it's ENTERTAINMENT. Eye of the beholder again. I don't buy, rent or
>watch a movie because I wan't to sit there and nitpick every little nuance of
>the film making process. When I watch a movie, I want to be entertained. If I
>want to see art, I'll go to a museum.
Then perhaps DVD is not for you. VHS is marketed toward the "it's
entertainment" crowd.
Brian
>with your 4:3 tv with P&S version of the movie....or, if you can't afford
>that because you're too stupid, then just rent the tape.......dumbass.....
SHITFORBRAINS, I live in an apartment...facing the NORTH.
Brian
>actually
>>fit their films?
>
>Perhaps because they believe a film has value beyond what percentage of the
Or, perhaps they just don't give a shit. what ever your format preferences
are, what's the point of watching the movie if you don't enjoy it?
Scott Moran
bian...@aol.comspamenot (Brian):
>>Cutting off 43% of the image is going to make it BETTER? Not!
>
> Shrinking it doesn't help a whole lot either asswipe.
Sure as hell beats the alternative. "Asswipe"...how clever.
> How about the annoying problem of having obsticles between you and the tv so
>you CAN'T sit closer? WHOA!
I doubt every inch from your couch to your TV is occupied.
> Don't you mean...Thanks to those idiots who paid the outrageous prices of the
>first players?
Without the support of the early adopters, DVD would be dead.
> The issue at hand is the UTTER AND COMPLETE WASTE of screen space that a
>widescreen movie represents. Sitting closer will not return my $300 worth of
>unused screen.
So, you value screen space used more than composition or filmmaker
intent. Duly noted. If your enjoyment of your television rests on
how many of the little phosphors are lit up, I pity you.
>Buying a larger tv which costs $500 more than the one I have
>will only compound that problem. Maybe you enjoy wasting your money on $1,500
>tvs that will never be used to their full potential, but some people are just a
>little bit smarter than that.
The very idea that letterboxing somehow denies a TV its "full
potential" is ridiculous. So much for being smarter.
> One other thing. I have been sitting at the same distance from the set all of
>my life. I have been doing that for a reason. I don't want the tv right in my
>face. I enjoy sitting back a little where I can relax and be comfortable. YOU
>sit closer.
You could sit at the same distance with a larger TV and get a bigger
picture, if only buying a bigger TV didn't "compound the problem" of
unused phosphors. Damn!
>Maybe the freaking radiation will give your sorry ass cancer and I
>won't have to deal with you anymore.
Is there any wonder why we like you so much? It's your sunny
disposition.
-STM
___________________ __________
| /\ O /\| |/\ O |
|_/\/ \_______/\/ | | \_______| Widescreen. Get
|/ \ _\ /_/ | | _\ /| the big picture.
|____\_________/____| |\_________|
W I D E S C R E E N PAN & SCAN
- http://students.cec.wustl.edu/~sm6/widescreen -
Scott Moran
bian...@aol.comspamenot (Brian):
> I say it's ENTERTAINMENT. Eye of the beholder again. I don't buy, rent or
>watch a movie because I wan't to sit there and nitpick every little nuance of
>the film making process. When I watch a movie, I want to be entertained. If I
>want to see art, I'll go to a museum.
Ah, the old "Film isn't art, it's entertainment" argument. With a
shred of open-mindedness it can easily be both. Besides, why can't
widescreen films be entertaining?
I'm sure you'd love to see art at a museum where the paintings are
folded up to fit in frames of the wrong shape.
Scott Moran
bian...@aol.comspamenot (Brian):
>>> So why don't they buy into the tv making business and make tvs that
>>actually
>>>fit their films?
>>
>>Perhaps because they believe a film has value beyond what percentage of the
>
> Or, perhaps they just don't give a shit.
Perhaps they make films for theaters and TV is secondary.
>what ever your format preferences
>are, what's the point of watching the movie if you don't enjoy it?
I feel this way every time a movie shows up on TV in pan & scan. It's
not really the movie; what's the point of watching it?
Hamlet
> >with your 4:3 tv with P&S version of the movie....or, if you can't afford
> >that because you're too stupid, then just rent the
tape.......dumbass.....
>
> SHITFORBRAINS, I live in an apartment...facing the NORTH.
What, you can't get a vcr and rent a tape? Now who is shitforbrains?
Hamlet
or
> >watch a movie because I wan't to sit there and nitpick every little
nuance of
> >the film making process. When I watch a movie, I want to be entertained.
If I
> >want to see art, I'll go to a museum.
If you weren't such a dumbass, you're realize that going to a museum to see
art is entertainment, too.
Hamlet
> because the alternatives are worse.
Not only that, but one can see the letterboxed image just fine on a 27-inch
tv from a reasonable distance.