 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: DVD with 16:9 capable, purchase only,who cares,never? posted by Elizabeth on July 02, 2001 at 15:59:24:
Count me as another that prefers original aspect ratio dvd's.I am not interested in owning movies "modified to fit your tv set" or other non original aspect ratios.
To me, anything other than oar is the equivalent of taking original sized prints of world reknown art masterpieces, and cropping them to fit as a page in a small pocket book because the publisher liked that book size.
John_N
Follow Ups:
...is that many of those films, made for very wide screen, don't show well on small screen. You hardly get the intended effect of the 2.78:1 original format that was supposed to envelop you, draw you in, on your TV, even a 16:9 one. You in effect watch it from great distance, reducing the effect many-fold. In some of those cases close-ups and pan-and-scans actually do make sense. Watching something like Ben Hur when you can't even see the faces while capturing the whole panorama is not the best possible way, in my view. Of course it is always a matter of degree.As always, this is a tradeoff, with no single right answer. I think it makes sense to be flexible in these matters.
Nor am I a fan of 2.35! Gimme a 1.85:1 any day!clark
yes
You certainly CAN sit closer in some cases, but the resolution will suffer.Again, it is all a matter of priorities. But when actor's face disappears in a blur of scan lines - that is usually not too nice.
Anyway, I don't have perfect answer either.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
