Star Wars: Widescreen Catching On.
One-Shot Scot
"... And let me tell you, those of you watching these films in full
frame are doing yourselves (and the restoration team) a huge
disservice." (I guess so! No Star Wars fan would want to throw away 40%
of the movie.)
"On an interesting side note, DVD producer Van Ling was also on hand,
and let us know that early numbers indicate that some 80% of the first
day sales of the DVDs at Wal-Mart stores are the widescreen versions.
Wal-Mart DVD sales, as you may know, are usually skewed heavily towards
full frame. Hey... maybe people are FINALLY starting to figure out that
movies like these should ALWAYS be seen in their original aspect ratio."
This was my Wal-Mart experience on Tuesday morning at 7:30 AM: Only two
of the gold narrowscreen versions had been sold and the clerk was
starting in on the second case of silver widescreen versions. However,
due to the $37 Wal-Mart price, the first-day sales may not be an
accurate indicator. Those in line with me at the crack of dawn had been
anticipating the Star wars DVD release for months. Over the next week,
many Wal-Mart narrowscreen customers will be saying, "Look at this Ellie
Mae, Star Wars is out on DVD! Be sure the get the fullscreen version --
we don't want none of them black bars covering up the picture."
From the looks of the hundreds of Star Wars DVD sets piled on the
pallets, Costco seemed to have a 50/50 mix. My guess is that only the
gold narrowscreen versions will be left after two weeks. In the early
stages of DVD rental, customers would settle for the VHS version when
the DVD rental copy was rented out. But I don't think that many
customers will settle for the narrowscreen DVD version of Star Wars when
the widescreen version is sold out.
May the farce be with you.
@(^_~)@
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/index.html#mytwocents
Nick Legrand
the screen completely on WS TV..
not practical? I guess 16:9 is the way between 4:3 and 2.35:1 or so ;) and
there are not that many 2.35:1 anyways...
so a stupid question
"One-Shot Scot" <So...@Bitch.com> wrote in message
news:z9WdnVo5FrX...@inreach.com...
dvd...@webtv.net
so ;) and
there are not that many 2.35:1 anyways...
thats their excuse. But the truth is that that was just as practical as
switchinng to 16:9.
instead of squaring it, just cube it to te 2.37 aspect ratio, and with
the overscan on tv sets, you're left with a visible 2.35 picture filling
the screen.
so it's not some odd ratio that makes it impossible to transfer 4:3
material to like they try to claim it is. It's still a very
convertible ratio, just cubed instead of squared.
the real reason they foolishly went with 16:9 instead of 2.37 is so that
the empty space on the screen is the same when watching 4:3 material on
a 16:9 set as it is when watching 16:9 material on a 4:3 set.
Monte Castleman
>the empty space on the screen is the same when watching 4:3 material on
>a 16:9 set as it is when watching 16:9 material on a 4:3 set.
That's the reason, but I don't consider it foolish. There's a lot more 4
:3 content out there than 2.35:1
--
Monte Castleman, <<Spamfilter in Use>>
Bloomington, MN <<to email, remove the "q" from address>>
Electric Fan Club
<dvd...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3194-415...@storefull-3117.bay.webtv.net...
It may sound stupid, but the 16:9 format actually came from cine film. It
is the picture format that you get when make a frame 3 perforations (of
standard 35mm film) high instead of 4 perforations (which gives 4:3).
It is also difficult to manufacture Cathode Ray Tubes in large sizes with
high aspect ratios that do not distort the picture. Of course, if flat
panel technology had been just a few years farther ahead, we could well be
watching 2.35:1 format TVs.
Ian.
Richard C.
> the empty space on the screen is the same when watching 4:3 material on
> a 16:9 set as it is when watching 16:9 material on a 4:3 set.
>
Which is FAR from foolish.
It was wise............