Who here is sick of the damn letterbox format?
the fucking goblin guy
> There's a new petition at www. petitiononline.com/noletter It just takes a
> few seconds to read and sign. I know it can't do much, but it's vital the
> fanbase speaks its mind.
>
>
>
why would you want to stop letterbox?
movies have been filmed in letterbox for
decades; the sopranos was shot in letterbox.
to take out the widescreen formatting simply
to enlarge the picture to fit your screen
will cost up to 20% of the of the original image.
those that I have spoken to that do not like
letterbox/widescreen simply do not understand
the process and believe that they are losing
a portion of the original picture when the
opposite is true. If anything, there should
be a petition to stop nitwits who do not have
the mental capabilities to understand the widescreen
format.
--
BFG
goblin at iglou dot com
The Magnificent Bastard
world with this nugget of wisdom...
> In alt.tv.sopranos, John Singleton said:
> > There's a new petition at www. petitiononline.com/noletter It just takes a
> > few seconds to read and sign. I know it can't do much, but it's vital the
> > fanbase speaks its mind.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> why would you want to stop letterbox?
> movies have been filmed in letterbox for
> decades; the sopranos was shot in letterbox.
> to take out the widescreen formatting simply
> to enlarge the picture to fit your screen
> will cost up to 20% of the of the original image.
>
> those that I have spoken to that do not like
> letterbox/widescreen simply do not understand
> the process and believe that they are losing
> a portion of the original picture when the
> opposite is true.
That's the crux of it right there. Most people don't understand that
letterbox is superior. They view letterbox as "different", and to them,
"different" is bad, even if it's better.
> If anything, there should
> be a petition to stop nitwits who do not have
> the mental capabilities to understand the widescreen
> format.
>
>
>
>
--
______________________________________
________| |_______
\ | MAGNIFICENT BASTARD PRODUCTIONS | /
\ | 2002 © | /
/ |______________________________________| \
/__________) (_________\
TheShredder
> letterbox is superior. They view letterbox as "different", and to them,
> "different" is bad, even if it's better.
Sad to say, I was one of those people untill I saw Ghostbusters in
Widescreen. Viewed the pan and scan once after that, and never went back
again. You can tell I was an early adopter of widescreen :)
Now, if only I can afford an HDTV Widescreen TV..
.
the fucking goblin guy
I was checking out the plasma flat panel TVs
yesterday - now that they're below $10k.
They're much more impressive now than
that first one I saw, a Phillips,
on display (not for sale) at Sears
years ago.
hdtv's are below $4k now too.
Tom
the sopranos made lots of mistakes with their letterbox format. one
that stands out was when tony came outside to complain about the pulp
in the orange juice and carm was on the mobile and she threw it at
him. the phone broke into pieces on screen and then aj drove up and
got out of the car and picked up the unbroken phone asking 'how did
this get here?'
i agree. people who dont like letterbox dont understand the process.
Go-ta Maga-nus
average human ever noticed anything missing from movies that go from
widescreen to "pan and scan" (anyone even noticed any panning _or_
scanning?). I can practically watch the Seven DVD on 2x zoom.
--
"the fucking goblin guy"
<poot.s...@goats.of.the.hootin.nanny.persuasion.and.friends.part.3>
wrote in message news:MPG.174898d8a...@news.iglou.com...
snip
> to take out the widescreen formatting simply
> to enlarge the picture to fit your screen
> will cost up to 20% of the of the original image.
snip
Go-ta Maga-nus
time) notice any difference. Films should be shown in whatever aspect most
people will be viewing it in. TV shows should be kept at 4:3, and movies
should be widescreen. Change TV shows to widescreen _after_ everyone has a
widescreen television. Go ahead and film in widescreen so it'll look good
on widescreen televisions. Just don't broadcast it like that, becuase
there is never anything worth the black bars in that extra space you get
from widescreen.
--
"TheShredder" <TheShr...@Prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:vxAD8.4185$Fv1.10...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Sad to say, I was one of those people untill I saw Ghostbusters in
> Widescreen. Viewed the pan and scan once after that, and never went
back
snip
Joe Freezetag
> letterbox/widescreen simply do not understand
> the process and believe that they are losing
> a portion of the original picture when the
> opposite is true.
I've tried to explain this to my mother, who hates letterbox and
complains about it at least once a week, but she simply will not
understand. I think she's just old and dosen't like anything
resembling change.
--Joe Freezetag
Andy Walton
<morethanmeets@theye> wrote:
> Zoom out. You can fit everything in without the black bars.
Only a really boring director keeps everything relevant in the middle
third of the screen.
> Not that the
> average human ever noticed anything missing from movies that go from
> widescreen to "pan and scan" (anyone even noticed any panning _or_
> scanning?).
A profound yes. It's easy to spot if you know what you're looking for.
The best example I can think of is the scene in "Wall Street" where
Martin and Charlie Sheen are arguing in an elevator. As shot, there was
a tight two-shot of their faces at either end of the wide screen. In
the pan-and-scan version, there's a noticeable, very fast pan from one
face to the other as each Sheen speaks. The pan on the video is
noticeable because the frame rates of film and NTSC video don't match,
so there's an appreciable stutter -- anyone sensitive enough to be
bothered by flicker in a computer monitor with a low scan rate will
notice it. String together a dozen quick pans in a row, and the effect
is quite noticeable indeed.
That's the most egregious example I can think of, but there are
innumerable others.
My general preference is that works be presented the way the artists
created them. If the movie was shot in widescreen, that's how I want to
see it. But I'm not offended by the existence of pan-and-scan if other
people want to see that; the same way I don't mind if other people want
to listen to dubbed tracks instead of read subtitles. As long as I can
see it the way I want, I could give a rat's ass if other peple want to
watch it differently. I might have a different view if I'd created the
works in question.
Rick
news:abnj7f$lqu$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net:
> Zoom out. You can fit everything in without the black bars. Not that the
> average human ever noticed anything missing from movies that go from
> widescreen to "pan and scan" (anyone even noticed any panning _or_
> scanning?). I can practically watch the Seven DVD on 2x zoom.
First of all, I think you mean "zoom in." Secondly, as to whether the
"average human" has ever noticed pan and scan, the answer is yes, all the
time. You can notice it most often in action scenes when the camera pans
and the image blurs excessively. It can also be clearly noticed in scenes
where there is a converstation between two people who are, in the wide
screen version, at oppisite sides of the screen, and the image keeps
cutting back and forth between the two people.
But hey, if you want to miss 40% of a movie, I guess that's your business.
Rick
Andy Walton
<morethanmeets@theye> wrote:
> I've seen many moves in both widescreen and 4:3, and rarely (5% of the
> time) notice any difference.
The fact that you're oblivious isn't much of an argument. If an editor
cut one word out of every three that I wrote, I wouldn't find much
consolation in the fact that you didn't notice.
> Films should be shown in whatever aspect most people will be viewing it in.
I disagree. Films should be shown in the aspect ratio in which they
were shot. The directors made specific decisions based on the tools
they used. They worked with the canvas available to them. Showing them
any other way is like slicing off most of a Dali because a narrower
version fits the wall above your couch better.
If you want to argue that films should be *shot* in the aspect ratio in
which most people will view them, you've got a stronger argument.
Directors have made wonderful decisions on how to shoot 4:3, 16:9, and
even ridiculously wide formats like Panavision ("How the West was Won"
is a great example of a movie that is killed by pan and scan). A good
director will make different decisions based on the tools at his
disposal. In all cases, I'd rather see the director's product than the
product of the engineer who supervised the video transfer.
> Go ahead and film in widescreen so it'll look good
> on widescreen televisions. Just don't broadcast it like that, becuase
> there is never anything worth the black bars in that extra space you get
> from widescreen.
That's a recipe for mediocrity If I've ever seen one. You'd tell
filmmakers to go ahead and shoot 16:9, but not to put anything
important in the edges of the screen.
Cambie
Tom wrote:
> the sopranos made lots of mistakes with their letterbox format. one
> that stands out was when tony came outside to complain about the pulp
> in the orange juice and carm was on the mobile and she threw it at
> him. the phone broke into pieces on screen and then aj drove up and
> got out of the car and picked up the unbroken phone asking 'how did
> this get here?'
i don't think it broke, i think the battery cover just came off the
back. then aj got out of the car, and picked up the battery cover and
phone, placed them back together and said his line very quickly.
Go-ta Maga-nus
:P
--
"Andy Walton" <att...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:130520020420283682%att...@mindspring.com...
> A profound yes. It's easy to spot if you know what you're looking for.
snip
Go-ta Maga-nus
--
"Andy Walton" <att...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:130520020436402011%att...@mindspring.com...
snip
Go-ta Maga-nus
news:130520020436402011%att...@mindspring.com...
> <morethanmeets@theye> wrote:
>
> > I've seen many moves in both widescreen and 4:3, and rarely (5% of the
> > time) notice any difference.
>
> The fact that you're oblivious isn't much of an argument. If an editor
> cut one word out of every three that I wrote, I wouldn't find much
> consolation in the fact that you didn't notice.
I don't know anyone offline who notices. Only movie freaks notice. You
guys complain about all those clueless people out there (who seem to be
the majority) who don't like it. Ever think that maybe most of us watch
movies for _entertainment_ (shock!) and find black bars throughout the
_entire thing_ more annoying than a few scenes with some weird panning?
Could that be possible?
A distriction throughout the entire movie or distraction in a few parts?
Which would you choose? By choosing letterbox, you choose the entire
movie. Us lowly regular folks would rather have it in just a few parts.
Gabby
"Go-ta Maga-nus" <morethanmeets@theye> wrote in message
news:abo45b$tj9$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> And if you're just watching the movie for fun? As some people actually do
> :P
I love musicals and watch them for fun. But watching a pan and scan musical
is anything but fun. Watching "West Side Story" in p&s makes me want to
scream. For a great comparison go to this URL
http://www.widescreen.org/examples/musicman/index.shtml
Give me a movie in the format in which it was made please!
Gabby
Gabby
"Go-ta Maga-nus" <morethanmeets@theye> wrote in message
> They never do.
>
Oh yeah? Ever watch any of the Naked Gun movies? All the fun stuff that's
happening in the background is cut out in the Pan & Scan versions of the
movies. A lot of comedies have a lot of stuff going on at the edges of the
scenes and you miss it all in P&S versions.
Gabby
Tom
hmmm, well, no, not exactly. the phone broke into pieces after it hit
the brick flower boxes and then the car pulled up, in FRONT of the
flower boxes, and aj picked up an unbroken telephone, on the wrong
side of where the broken phone was laying. trust me on this.
JD (John) Mansfield
"Go-ta Maga-nus" <morethanmeets@theye> wrote in message
I'm a newbie to this group and have lurked for awhile, however, I just have
to add my
two cents worth into this controversial issue. The widescreen or 16x9 format
digital broadcast
standard is coming, make no mistake about it. In the coming months and years
all major retail
outlets will be displaying increasing inventories of the rectangular or
widescreen TV's for sale. As
Star Trek has always been on the cutting edge of broadcast technology thru
the past decades, Enterprise is no
different. TOS was broadcast in colour right from the start, at a time when
over half the programming was
broadcast in black & white. Why, because the producers had the foresight to
see that several years down the
road, everything including commercials would be in colour. It sounds funny
now, but back then, a colour TV was
something only the rich and the "techies" had. When TNG premiered back in
1987, it was broadcast with a full
stereo surround soundtrack. Not too many people had the necessary decoder in
their TV's or vcr's and several
broadcasters hadn't the capability to send that signal either. Yet now years
later, we can enjoy that landmark series
in 5.1 digital sound (if you've snagged the boxsets just released).
Now along comes Enterpise in a widescreen 16x9 format (1.77:1 aspect ratio)
and a full digital dolby soundtrack to
boot. Why? Because in a few years, widescreen broadcasts and TV's will be
the norm. If the producers didn't have the
foresight to film the entire series in this format, then it would be less
than marketable in syndication and video releases
down the road. Everyone who is complaining about the letterbox format of the
show as seen on their outdated square box
or 4:3 full frame TV's now, would be treated to a "square box format" on the
next generation widescreen TV's. Instead of
black bars on the top and bottom of the square screen TV's now, there would
be black bars down both sides of the
widescreen TV's.
The sad part is, those same people who are bitching now about the letterbox
format, will be the same people bitching about
the squarebox format in a couple of years. I get the feeling that no matter
how simple and easy it is to explain the existance and necessity of the
black bars for the letterbox (16x9) format, some people will always continue
to "choose" not
to understand simply because the picture on their TV screen is not
completely filled. No one can convince these people that
a full screen movie or TV program has been "modified and/or reformated" by
either a pan and scan or matte technique from
its original size (aspect ratio). To see the full picture on a square
screen, it has to be shrunk, hence the term letterbox.
I just tell these people that they are seeing only part of the whole picture
because it just won't fit their small square screens. Unfortunately, several
major studios are listening and have begun releasing only full frame DVD
titles for what they consider to be family fare. Widescreen versions will
not be made available, which is a shame.
--
Raven -- The Winged Warrior
Cambie
Tom wrote:
> trust me on this.
ok, i trust ya. i'm too lazy to go watch it on HBO on demand just right
now, so i'll take your word for it.
Cambie
all very true, however there is one point i'd like to throw in. people
don't dislike widescreen because of what they can and/or cannot see,
they don't like it because there are black lines on their screen that
makes it feel like your tv is not being used to its full potential. that
would happen in both widescreen on a 4:3 tv, and vice versa.
John Iwaniszek
> all very true, however there is one point i'd like to throw in. people
> don't dislike widescreen because of what they can and/or cannot see,
> they don't like it because there are black lines on their screen that
> makes it feel like your tv is not being used to its full potential.
> that would happen in both widescreen on a 4:3 tv, and vice versa.
>
>
(It would seem that part of that "potential" is seeing programs in
different aspect ratios, and realizing that aspect ratio is an important
part of the composition of the cinematography.)
TheShredder
> Martin and Charlie Sheen are arguing in an elevator. As shot, there was
> a tight two-shot of their faces at either end of the wide screen. In
> the pan-and-scan version, there's a noticeable, very fast pan from one
> face to the other as each Sheen speaks. The pan on the video is
> noticeable because the frame rates of film and NTSC video don't match,
> so there's an appreciable stutter -- anyone sensitive enough to be
> bothered by flicker in a computer monitor with a low scan rate will
> notice it. String together a dozen quick pans in a row, and the effect
> is quite noticeable indeed.
There is also a very decent demonstration given by Leonard Nimoy on the ST4
DVD. Once watching that, it should be very clear to Anti-Widescreen people
what they are missing..
Bob Rudolph
>
> all very true, however there is one point i'd like to throw in. people
> don't dislike widescreen because of what they can and/or cannot see,
> they don't like it because there are black lines on their screen that
> makes it feel like your tv is not being used to its full potential. that
> would happen in both widescreen on a 4:3 tv, and vice versa.
>
SOME folks will bitch that they cannot go 125 miles per hour on the street
where the live, because their car has that capability.
The Magnificent Bastard
this nugget of wisdom...
>
I've never gotten up to 125 mph in my neighborhood. I think 90 or 95 mph is
the fastest I've gone. Still, that's pretty fast...
Jarrod Harmier
I watched "Multiplicity in the pan-and-scan format and I wanted to
scream. Of course, I also wanted to scream because that movie sucked!
Blatant science errorsd, bad writing...
Jarrod Harmier
Does Groo like to wander?
Burger Loa: The only burger that could eat you.
Caffeine fuels my body, B/X fuels my soul.
ne...@nulli.us
I have a strong suspicion that this will become a BIG explanation
problem when the U.S. goes completely to digital TV in 2006. I
still meet people who did not hear the FCC announcement in 1996
that the country would have 10 years to prepare for DTV. Since
the FCC made such a big deal about it at the time and all the news
services discussed it for several days afterwards, I just marvel
that seemingly the vast majority out there never heard a word
about it.
Then, there are some of us who actually have 16x9 digital TVs and
I can tell you that format is really great to watch "The Sopranos"
or whatever. I especially like watching the many 16x9 programs
now available on PBS. I don't have a DTV tuner, yet, however and
don't plan to buy one for a while. Our local TV stations here in
Missoula MT won't even be on the air until late summer. I do need
to call DirecTV, however, to find out what I need to receive sat
DTV broadcasts.
I discovered recently that my Sony digital camcorder has a 16x9
recording mode. I take it to university every day and record the
professors' lectures (with their permission, of course), then
watch the lectures again at a later time. It think it doubles my
comprehension (I could do with some doubling of comprehension at
my age of 65). If anyone is curious, I'm considering Latin as my
major. After two semesters, I have a 4.0 average in the subject,
so it seems like a good bet.
--
Nobody wants to be a nobody Nemo esse vult nemo
and since I am nobody, et quoniam nemo sum ego,
I am exactly what I want to be! is ipse sum qui esse volo!
--Terry Groff --Nemo Nullius
Note: all email to my posting address goes directly to /dev/null.
SFU-Fan
"The Magnificent Bastard" <magnif_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1749ef19e...@news.megapathdsl.net...
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 16:18:21 -0400, Bob Rudolph enlightened the world with
> this nugget of wisdom...
>
> >
> > "Cambie" <camb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CDFF78D...@yahoo.com...
> > >
> > > all very true, however there is one point i'd like to throw in. people
> > > don't dislike widescreen because of what they can and/or cannot see,
> > > they don't like it because there are black lines on their screen that
> > > makes it feel like your tv is not being used to its full potential.
that
> > > would happen in both widescreen on a 4:3 tv, and vice versa.
> > >
> >
> > SOME folks will bitch that they cannot go 125 miles per hour on the
street
> > where the live, because their car has that capability.
>
> I've never gotten up to 125 mph in my neighborhood. I think 90 or 95 mph
is
> the fastest I've gone. Still, that's pretty fast...
>
getting in the way.
WickeddollŽ
"TheShredder" <TheShr...@Prodigy.net> wrote in message
night. Weird coincidence, since I haven't watched it in about 2 years.
Natalie
>
>
>
Andy Walton
<morethanmeets@theye> wrote:
> And if you're just watching the movie for fun? As some people actually do
Watching movies for fun doesn't precluding noticing when something's
wrong.
Andy Walton
<morethanmeets@theye> wrote:
> They never do.
Sure they do. You just don't see it.
SFU-Fan
"WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll195...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:V0_D8.4568$X%5.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> >
> > There is also a very decent demonstration given by Leonard Nimoy on the
> ST4
> > DVD. Once watching that, it should be very clear to Anti-Widescreen
> people
> > what they are missing..
> >
> >
> >
> I can't believe you mentioned that movie - I just watched it again last
> night. Weird coincidence, since I haven't watched it in about 2 years.
>
> Natalie
> >
> >
Rich Brown
(in message <130520020436402011%att...@mindspring.com>):
>
> If you want to argue that films should be *shot* in the aspect ratio in
> which most people will view them, you've got a stronger argument.
> Directors have made wonderful decisions on how to shoot 4:3, 16:9, and
> even ridiculously wide formats like Panavision ("How the West was Won"
> is a great example of a movie that is killed by pan and scan)
There's a world of difference between Panavision and 3-camera/projector
Cinerama, which is what How The West Was Won was shot in. Panavision is
about 2.35:1 which is pretty wide though. Some of the films of the 60s were
shot in Ultra Panavision (I think that works out to 2.85:1) which is *really*
wide. Ben-Hur on laser was this ration... 2/3 of the TV was black bands.
A Adams
"SFU-Fan" <SFU-Fa...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:k1YD8.123599$zN.54...@twister.socal.rr.com...
the kids really slow you down if you hit them.....
WickeddollŽ
:-)
Natalie
SFU-Fan
> > > >
> > Hey, is this the Wickeddoll who used to be in the La Femme Nikita
> newsgroup?
> >
> > >
> The same - and I'm STILL there - where are YOU?
>
> :-)
>
> Natalie
>
I used to post there under "Expletive." No, my dear, sadly, when my
favorite show of all shows went off the air, I hung around for a little bit.
As time went on, though, there just didn't seem much of a point. What's
gone is gone, and thinking about the fun parts and the good old days just
makes me sad. :-(
Are a lot of the old gang (Colin, CaptAnne, Laresnick, etc.) still there?
I'll have to drop in for a visit.
Raven
"TheShredder" <TheShr...@Prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:nYUD8.1242$VJ2.29...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> There is also a very decent demonstration given by Leonard Nimoy on the
ST4
> DVD. Once watching that, it should be very clear to Anti-Widescreen
people
> what they are missing..
As I pointed out in an earlier post, these people do not want to know this
information because they don't care. All they know is that part of their
square TV screen is blacked out and they feel cheated that they are not
getting a "full screen" picture. As digital TV broadcasts increase in
numbers and HDTV (or the lower quality SDTV) approaches, more and more
programming is going to be broadcast this way. It has to because of the
newer 16x9 TV's that are poised to flood the market in the next year or two.
Once people embrace these new widescreen sets the way they have DVD players,
programming in the full screen standard of 4:3 (roughly 1.33:1 aspect ratio)
will be outdated and annoying.
I'm afraid that we're stuck with the anti-widescreen folks for several years
to come. These will be the same people who will refuse to step up to the
plate and purchase the new 16x9 TVs because they're too expensive. Already
their voice is being heard loudly by broadcasters and movie studios who are
delaying the introduction of HDTV and widescreen DVD releases of family
fare. Now FOX executives are considering offering a dumbed down version of
HDTV called SDTV (standard definition) which would allow analogue TV's to
continue to receive the newer digital picture with the aid of a set top box.
Now Warners, Universal and Disney have started releasing "full screen" only
releases on DVD for movies they consider family fare and have some with only
2.0 Dolby digital stereo soundtracks. This is to pacify the crowd who use
the DVD player as a vcr. Home theatre owners are screwed if they want to add
such titles to their collections
The majority has always ruled in the market place and until the masses are
brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century, those of us who are
enlightened and have been able to embrace the new digital technology at
home, this transition period from analog to digital is going to take a long
time.
So save your breath on the widescreen issue, because the anti lobby just
doesn't care.
--
Raven -- The Winged Warrior
Knowing the future before it happens.
Andy Walton
Brown <ol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 4:36:40 -0400, Andy Walton wrote
> (in message <130520020436402011%att...@mindspring.com>):
>
> >
> > If you want to argue that films should be *shot* in the aspect ratio in
> > which most people will view them, you've got a stronger argument.
> > Directors have made wonderful decisions on how to shoot 4:3, 16:9, and
> > even ridiculously wide formats like Panavision ("How the West was Won"
> > is a great example of a movie that is killed by pan and scan)
>
> There's a world of difference between Panavision and 3-camera/projector
> Cinerama, which is what How The West Was Won was shot in.
I stand corrected. I'm not an expert on old widescreen formats. HTWWW
is a particularly strong example of the weakness of pan & scan -- the
bright seams where the projectors overlap really highlights how little
of the picture you're seeing. And I don't care who supervised the video
transfer, I'll take John Ford's decision over his a hundred times out
of a hundred.
TheShredder
years
> to come. These will be the same people who will refuse to step up to the
> plate and purchase the new 16x9 TVs because they're too expensive. Already
> their voice is being heard loudly by broadcasters and movie studios who
are
> delaying the introduction of HDTV and widescreen DVD releases of family
> fare. Now FOX executives are considering offering a dumbed down version of
> HDTV called SDTV (standard definition) which would allow analogue TV's to
> continue to receive the newer digital picture with the aid of a set top
box.
> Now Warners, Universal and Disney have started releasing "full screen"
only
> releases on DVD for movies they consider family fare and have some with
only
> 2.0 Dolby digital stereo soundtracks. This is to pacify the crowd who use
> the DVD player as a vcr. Home theatre owners are screwed if they want to
add
> such titles to their collections
Hmm...Maby we can find out these numbers and complain equally as loud for
the other side :)..
zycki
"Raven" <ana...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:O4nE8.10852$w04.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> Now Warners, Universal and Disney have started releasing "full screen"
only
> releases on DVD for movies they consider family fare and have some with
only
> 2.0 Dolby digital stereo soundtracks. This is to pacify the crowd who use
> the DVD player as a vcr. Home theatre owners are screwed if they want to
add
My feeling is that they are releasing these DVD like this (full screen, 2.0
Dolby, etc...) in order to re-issue a collectors edition with all the bells
& whistles down the road. This allows them to get our money twice.
John R. Rybock
<poot.s...@goats.of.the.hootin.nanny.persuasion.and.friends.part.3>
wrote:
>In alt.tv.sopranos, John Singleton said:
>> There's a new petition at www. petitiononline.com/noletter It just takes a
>> few seconds to read and sign. I know it can't do much, but it's vital the
>> fanbase speaks its mind.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> why would you want to stop letterbox?
> movies have been filmed in letterbox for
> decades; the sopranos was shot in letterbox.
> to take out the widescreen formatting simply
> to enlarge the picture to fit your screen
> will cost up to 20% of the of the original image.
>
> those that I have spoken to that do not like
> letterbox/widescreen simply do not understand
> the process and believe that they are losing
> a portion of the original picture when the
> opposite is true. If anything, there should
> be a petition to stop nitwits who do not have
> the mental capabilities to understand the widescreen
> format.
>
Well, I'm a widescreen fan, but I need to correct somethings here.
35 mm film is taller than as projected at your theater. They are, in
fact, cutting off the top and bottom of each frame in order to show at
that aspect ratio. However, this is how the director composed his
shots - if you have a projectionist doing a porr job lining it up,
you'll see boom mikes over actors heads - they are actually on the
print, but supposed to be cropped out. Technically, you are losing
some of the filmed image.
When showing a movie on a TV, with it's format, Letterboxing preserves
the picture as conceived by the director (though one notable exeption
was Cameron's TiTanic, which he composed for both formats - he said
you wouldn't get "pan and scan", just more "shoes and hats". If you
fir the picture to the height of a current TV, you need to crop some
of the side images the director put in the shot.
However, with stuff made for TV, it isn't neccessary. We aren't
getting "more information" with letterboxing. However, they are
formatted for HDTV, with a wider aspect ratio. The alternative is to
film in normal TV ratio, and have the black bars on the side of HDTVs.
But as it is believed to be the future, and the picture quality is
better on HDTV, some shows are starting to format the ratio for HDTV
as well.
It is a choice, one with an asthetic I like, but is not neccessary for
made-for-TV programming.
TheShredder
2.0
> Dolby, etc...) in order to re-issue a collectors edition with all the
bells
> & whistles down the road. This allows them to get our money twice.
One of the truly evil things about DVD. They know the movie is so good in
quality, that unless something happens to the DVD, we'll have no reason to
buy another copy, unlike VHS...
The Magnificent Bastard
nugget of wisdom...
> On 18 May 2002 18:58:09 -0700, Roj said the following:
> > I like the letterbox format. Just get a bigger TV. Like I did.
>
> You don't even need a bigger TV. I watch ER on my under 55 inch TV all
> the time (probably somewhere around 32 inches, but I'm not sure), and I
> don't mind letterbox at all. IT'S JUST A COUPLE OF BARS, FOLKS. THAT'S
> ALL. NO BIG DEAL.
No, they are much more than just a couple of bars. Doesn't anyone realize
the insidious nature of these seemingly harmless black bars?
The Government is using these bars to block out parts of the film....it's
CENSORSHIP! What are they trying to hide? What are they afraid of? Call
your congressman and ask him. I bet he'll pretend that he doesn't even know
what you're talking about.
But there is an even bigger problem than censorship, people. I'm talking
about blatant attempts at mind control. It's happening right this minute and
hardly anyone knows about it.
I have a friend that knows someone who has a cousin in Hollywood. He said
that the Hollywood studios are under the control of the government and that
they are using these black bars for other reasons, too. He said that they
are putting subliminal messages in the bars. The messages tell you to love
your government and to eat more junk food and smoke more cigarettes and buy
lottery tickets. The government is trying to control your mind!! You think
I'm wrong? Just go to a convenience store or to Walmart and you'll see lots
of fat people with stupid, mindless grins on there faces, stumbling around
buying lots of junk food, cigarettes and lottery tickets. Just go and look
around, you'll see.
Everyone needs to sign the petition to get rid of the letter box. Our lives
and our freedom depends on it. Sign it now!!
>
> --- Cory
vocalize
> Subject: Re: Who here is sick of the damn letterbox format?
- - -
Yeah, and while we're at it . .what about this ' stereo ' thing???!!
Personally, I think it's an annoying, passing fad. If God had wanted us to
listen to television in stereo, He would have given us two ears. . .oh. . .
. .nevermind.
David Hughes
TV; otherwise I hate it. And for those who say, "Buy a widescreen TV
and shut up," then I say this: I also would hate having to watch the
local newscast in 4x3 on my expensive widescreen TV, with annoying
black columns on each side of the picture!!!
Bob
> There's a new petition at www. petitiononline.com/noletter It just takes a
> few seconds to read and sign. I know it can't do much, but it's vital the
> fanbase speaks its mind.
>
Just looked at the petition. Only 6 signatures, and 4 of them have
comments indicating that they *support* the widescreen format.
Nothing is quite so pleasing as the failure of idiots....
Ol' BattleMonkey
Isn't anyone at all who thinks doing something via petitiononline.com
automatically qualified as an idiot?
--Keith
Larry Wilson
> In article <abnjnl$hbt$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>, Go-ta Maga-nus
> <morethanmeets@theye> wrote:
>
> > I've seen many moves in both widescreen and 4:3, and rarely (5% of the
> > time) notice any difference.
>
> The fact that you're oblivious isn't much of an argument. If an editor
> cut one word out of every three that I wrote, I wouldn't find much
> consolation in the fact that you didn't notice.
>
> > Films should be shown in whatever aspect most people will be viewing it in.
>
> I disagree. Films should be shown in the aspect ratio in which they
> were shot. The directors made specific decisions based on the tools
> they used. They worked with the canvas available to them. Showing them
> any other way is like slicing off most of a Dali because a narrower
> version fits the wall above your couch better.
> If you want to argue that films should be *shot* in the aspect ratio in
> which most people will view them, you've got a stronger argument.
> Directors have made wonderful decisions on how to shoot 4:3, 16:9, and
> even ridiculously wide formats like Panavision ("How the West was Won"
> director will make different decisions based on the tools at his
> disposal. In all cases, I'd rather see the director's product than the
> product of the engineer who supervised the video transfer.
>
> > Go ahead and film in widescreen so it'll look good
> > on widescreen televisions. Just don't broadcast it like that, becuase
> > there is never anything worth the black bars in that extra space you get
> > from widescreen.
>
> That's a recipe for mediocrity If I've ever seen one. You'd tell
> filmmakers to go ahead and shoot 16:9, but not to put anything
> important in the edges of the screen.
The fact of the matter is, that like it or not, widescreen is here to
stay, and will become the standard, so railing about it will do very
little to no good at all.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <3CEAB58E...@teleport-city.com>):
The first clue should be that three of the "top 10 most popular petitions" on
their main page have to do with saving cancelled TV shows:
Roswell - 5,893 signatures (please, it's on UPN)
Dark Angel - 13,569 signatures (please, Jessica Alba can't act her way out of
a non-existent paper bag, and the writing sucks)
Futurama - 128,744 signatures (this one I might actually sign if I thought it
was anything more than a waste of effort, Futurama is a great show)
One of the others is in opposition to returning the OHV areas in California
to wilderness (6,381 signatures).
--
Daniel Seriff
Bears are crazy. They'll bite your head if you're wearing steak on it.
- SG
the fucking goblin guy
> Futurama - 128,744 signatures (this one I might actually sign if I thought it
> was anything more than a waste of effort, Futurama is a great show)
>
but it has been renewed for the fall.
--
BFG
goblin at iglou dot com
Ol' BattleMonkey
> In alt.punk, Daniel Seriff said:
> > Futurama - 128,744 signatures (this one I might actually sign if I thought it
> > was anything more than a waste of effort, Futurama is a great show)
> >
>
> but it has been renewed for the fall.
>
> --
> BFG
Sorta. They have 16 unaired episodes which will make upt he next season, but
they've already "decommissioned" the show, so there are no new ones after the
current batch. To make matters worse, they are not giving the show a regular
timeslot (which is sort of what killed it to begin with), so the episodes will air
whenever.
The good news, I guess, is that unlike The Simpsons, Matt Groening retained the
rights to Futurama (Fox owns the Simpsons). Some folks think this is part of the
reason Fox was so happy to kill the series off with inconsistent air times, same as
they did with Dark Angel when they moved it to Friday night and then complained
that less people were watching it (Cameron has the DA rights, coincidentally). What
this means is that theoritcally, if he wanted to, Matt Groening could take Futurama
to another channel.
--Keith
the fucking goblin guy
I could see sci-fi picking it up
as they do every sci-fi show
showtime cancels.
I never got to see the entire
first season until I bought
the region 2 dvd release because
it was always being interrupted here.
Andy Walton
<battle...@teleport-city.com> wrote:
> Isn't anyone at all who thinks doing something via petitiononline.com
> automatically qualified as an idiot?
"Signing" an online petition is like pissing your pants in a warm suit;
it gives you a warm feeling, but no one else notices.
At least Web-based petitions are a less intrusive pointless exercise
than chain-letter petitions.
WickeddollŽ
of things, such as getting the first shuttle named "Enterprise"
Natalie
ed rhodes
> If you mean email chainletters, I agree - but snail mail ones have done lots
> of things, such as getting the first shuttle named "Enterprise"
>
> Natalie
Which then never actually went into space... that's always bugged me.
Pelerin Galimatias
wickeddoll195...@yahoo.com says...
>
>If you mean email chainletters, I agree - but snail mail ones have done lots
>of things, such as getting the first shuttle named "Enterprise"
>
Nikita. (The extention made things worst in my opinion,however.)
--
0000001000000100000110001000011010001111110010111011101000010000
Jack
"ed rhodes" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b42fddaf.02052...@posting.google.com...
Ugh, totally!! They definitely ought to name one of the new Venture Star
shuttles (the artist rendering is seen in the Enterprise intro undocking
from something, just before they show Dr. Cochrane's warp ship)
"Enterprise".
-Jack
djmd
and white.
On Sun, 19 May 2002 18:12:35 GMT, vocalize <voca...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Ol' BattleMonkey
Never went into space? It never even had an engine!
--Keith
Darius
grampa
MrSmoothDude
> Tom wrote:
> > trust me on this.
>
> ok, i trust ya. i'm too lazy to go watch it on HBO on demand just right
> now, so i'll take your word for it.
NONETHELESS, that was a pretty funny scene you all must admit. The
captain of industry, powerful, murdering mob boss of Jersey gets
assaulted with a phone from his hot, angry wife Carmela. I wasn't
expecting it. There's one person Tony's definitely afraid of. How is
it that women can inspire such fear?
Linda
Go-ta Maga-nus
be distracted during the entire show.
--
"Darius" <the...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ueu1mj4...@corp.supernews.com...
Mr. Pibb
>Yeah, letterbox rocks. Instead of a few scenes being messed up, you get to
>be distracted during the entire show.
>
thing they're using it. Oh well, to each his own.
---------------------------
Star Trek storywriting site, U.S.S. Kamchatka
http://www.geocities.com/siranalrage/kamchatka
Dwayne Conyers
watch it on...
¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤¤º°`°º¤
Remember When We Were Normal?
http://www.dwacon.com
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤ø
Jeff Barnes
So let the movie buffs have their widescreen or letterbox for it is
"Good TELE" to them
And let the regular TV Watchers (rednecks, couch potatoes, yuppies,
etc) have their Pan and Scan for IT is "Good TELE" to them.
Video On Demand. Let this be the future, where you can choose what
format you'd like to watch your show in, what channel, etc. even to
the point of CUSTOMIZING your OWN LINEUP INDIVIDUALLY. For instance, a
Sports Buff might want these Channels:
ESPN
ESPN 2
ESPN Classic
ESPN News
Golf Channel
Soccer Channel
Jai Lai Channel
Tennis Channel
ETC.
Amen.
But TPTB (The Powers That Be) control the bandwidth, the feeds, and
new/innovative ideas such as this don't fly in the Biz. The TV Biz
that is. But I'll say this under the Anoiting:
One day (maybe in Eternity) we shall have Total Choice on our TV
Viewing; maybe in heaven or Earth, and I mean EVERY FACET of our
viewing Mes Amigoes. This'll prevent these numerous threads on
"Letterbox Sucks or P&S Sucks", "Big TV Bug or TNN Black Bar; which do
the Masses Prefer", "Who's better ESPN or CNN?", stuff like that from
piling up to the Usenet, etc.
That Hypothetical Land of 500 Channels is getting closer and closer as
we speak. Ever so let it come quickly Lord Jesus.
And the people said:
Amen.
Amen.
Now as for myself, I think Pan and Scan is of the Lord and is Greatly
to Be Praised. For I like to have my TV Filled w/the Picture-Picture
(For IMMERSION) and not have to look at "The Black Bars" of Letterbox;
I get enough of that w/TNN. And the marginal benefits of widescreen
for me (seeing the background or secondary image; primary image is in
the middle of the TV) are not worth having the Black Bars. And my
favorite show:
Brady Bunch in Pan and Scan Film (take away the bad cars, haircuts,
clothes, etc and it looks like it was just shot a guy on
www.jumptheshark.com said) which indeed is:
Righteous.
Brady Grid In Letterbox:
THE BLACK BAR COVERS UP THIS PART IN WIDESCREEN
----------Marcia------------Carol----------Greg-----
AND THIS PART THUS OBSCURES PART OF THE TOP SCREEN
-----------Jan--------------Alice----------Peter----
THE BLACK BAR COVERS *THIS* PART OF THE SCREEN BELOW
----------Cindy--------- ----Mike----------Bobby----
AND OF COURSE THE BOTTOM HERE IS A BLACK BAR AS WELL
An extreme example, but you get the point. To get a Wider View of the
Brady Grid, letterbox would cut off the top & bottom (or part) of the
Upper Grid (Marcia, Carol, & Greg) and the Lower Grid (Greg, Peter,
and Bobby) to accentuate the Wider Picture. To which I say:
Yuck!
So again let those who want to eat the Meat and Potatoes (Pan and
Scan) eat of that and let those who want Broccoli and Peas (Letterbox)
eat of that. Amen.
And Dismissed!
Google. Begin Post Submission.
Jeff Barnes
The Lower Grid is Cindy, Mike, and Bobby
NOT
Greg, Peter, and Bobby
Which would be partially covered by the Black Bar of Letterbox.
Now the Brady Grid in Pan and Scan:
P----S----Marcia-------Carol-------Greg------P S
C C
A-&--A-----Jan---------Alice-------Peter-----A & A
N----N----Cindy--------Mike--------Bobby-----N N
Righteous.
Peace out.
Joseph S. Powell,III
non-letterbox TV!!!
HDTV is the future, and it is darn stupid of these pan & scan idiots to
demand all new DVD's be released in pan & scan only.
They are not the future.....
"Darius" <the...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ueu1mj4...@corp.supernews.com...
The Chicken
> In article <y_UG8.1553$4J1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> wickeddoll195...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >If you mean email chainletters, I agree - but snail mail ones have done lots
> >of things, such as getting the first shuttle named "Enterprise"
> >
>
> And, I believe, fans were able to extend the life of the series,
> Nikita. (The extention made things worst in my opinion,however.)
I love watching movies in letterbox on my tv if it means I'm seeing
the vision of the director. I do think, though, that broadcasting tv
shows like West Wing and ER is just pure pretentiousness.
Jonathan Diehl
news:f0543d32.02060...@posting.google.com...
Get used to it with HDTV gaining momentum. All HD material is in 16:9
widescreen, so as more and more shows start shooting in HD, you'll see them
leave it in 16:9 for the standard def broadcast too (especially for dramas).
For sitcoms, they usually hack it up and broadcast the SD version in 4:3
(ie. CBS monday lineup).
hit-and-run tactics
Interesting point of view!
Najida
>Date: 6/7/02 8:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f0543d32.02060...@posting.google.com>
>
>galim...@Wahoo.org (Pelerin Galimatias) wrote in message
>news:<zX6H8.1703$cw5.1...@monger.newsread.com>...
>> In article <y_UG8.1553$4J1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> wickeddoll195...@yahoo.com says...
>> >
>> >If you mean email chainletters, I agree - but snail mail ones have done
>lots
>> >of things, such as getting the first shuttle named "Enterprise"
>> >
>>
>> And, I believe, fans were able to extend the life of the series,
>> Nikita. (The extention made things worst in my opinion,however.)
Much worse....there were those who knew what the writers had up their sleeves
and fought the renewal (heck, most of the actors were glad it was over.)......
Guess it proves the saying "Be careful what you wish for"
Naj
SaintlyRaven
<ne...@nulli.us> wrote in message news:abpfmt$g6d$1...@news.tamerica.net...
> In alt.tv.six-feet-under Joe Freezetag <joe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I discovered recently that my Sony digital camcorder has a 16x9
> recording mode. I take it to university every day and record the
> professors' lectures (with their permission, of course), then
> watch the lectures again at a later time. It think it doubles my
> comprehension (I could do with some doubling of comprehension at
> my age of 65). If anyone is curious, I'm considering Latin as my
> major. After two semesters, I have a 4.0 average in the subject,
> so it seems like a good bet.
>
*Smile*
I'm 17, preparing for college, and God....I really gotta respect your
effort. Way to go.
> --
> Nobody wants to be a nobody Nemo esse vult nemo
> and since I am nobody, et quoniam nemo sum ego,
> I am exactly what I want to be! is ipse sum qui esse volo!
> --Terry Groff --Nemo Nullius
>
> Note: all email to my posting address goes directly to /dev/null.
~SaintlyRaven
--
"Family is the first unit of government, and the most easily corrupted."
-A.M. Whitting, speech on monarchy.
Joseph S. Powell,III
if a movie is only available in 4:3 aspect ratio......
16:9 is the future, and nobody can deny it.
"Jeff Barnes" <JeffU...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:826df449.02053...@posting.google.com...