|
|
Posted by Frank Malczewski on 09/29/05 06:22
Dennis N. Yugo <number6@oncebitten.org> wrote:
> In article <EUDYe.1411$xc4.255@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> Notreally@myemailaddress.com says...
> >
> > "Keeper of the Purple Twilight" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:no-7BDDB9.15284117092005@news.central.cox.net...
> > > In article <MPG.1d95ed27a19c53e7989680@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > > Dennis N. Yugo <number6@oncebitten.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have a non-anamorphic DVD of "To Kill a Mockingbird". Does anyone have
> > >> an opinion on the new anamorphic release? One newspaper reviewer didn't
> > >> think it was any better.
> > >
> > > Anamorphic is always better than non-anamorphic, by definition. :)
> > If you don't have a widescreen TV (or a standard one that support 16x9),
> > there's no difference.
> >
> > Lincoln
> >
> >
> >
> OK, I know what anamorphic is. I have a CRT projector with variable line
> scaler. But I have seen some anamorphic transfers that are worse than
> some letterbox transfers. All transfers are not the same in quality. And
> if all you do is blow up a letterboxed transfer, without any new picture
> information, just so you can shrink it down again, it does not
> necessarily result in a more detailed picture.
>
> Maybe someone who has seen this DVD can just answer my basic question...
> Is this a good transfer... better than the previous release?
>
> More likely I will just fork over the 16.99 at Costco and hope for the
> best.
>
> dy
Watched it Saturday. It looked great to me.... (55" crt rear
projection).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|