|
|
Posted by HellRazor on 10/04/83 11:30
"Doonie" <me@myself.i> wrote in message
news:ni9ol1tv6upokhu0jmbc6p4rhdblumk4h4@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:55:07 -0700, <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
>>but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a
>>movie
>>theater. I'd certainly ask for my money back if a movie were to be
>>presented that way. Apparently theater owners agree with me, since they
>>always fill the screen, regardless of what difference there might be
>>between
>>the aspect ratio of the screen and that of the film.
>
> Ever see a 2.35:1 movie on an Imax screen? Letterboxed, with "black
> bars" on the top and bottom.
>
>>When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm acutely
>>aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you see a head
>>cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety you have a
>>slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.
>
> The movie wasn't filmed with your TV in mind. How else would they
> show a close-up of a person's face in a 2.35:1 frame?
> Are you just playing dumb?
In DorkMatter's case, he's not just playing.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|