|
|
Posted by Roy L. Fuchs on 03/23/06 23:18
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:36:45 -0800, "Richard C."
<post-age@spamcop.net> Gave us:
>X-No-archive: yes
>
>"Jack" <jack@jack.com> wrote in message
>news:1143133730_1781@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>>I just rented "2010: The Year We Make Contact," which was billed as a 2-
>> sided DVD with 4:3 (pan & scan) or widescreen options.
>>
>> I ended up watching the 4:3 side since the "widescreen" was only the width
>> of the standard view with much less height. My DLP projector reveals every
>> pixel so nothing gets downsampled or overlooked. On 4:3 TV sets people may
>> not notice the difference if the "widescreen" version plays full width.
>> Surely they aren't counting on that in most cases?
>>
>> This is a 116 minute movie and I don't know why they couldn't have stored
>> a
>> max-res widescreen version on one side, unless it has something to do with
>> layer transparency/interference?
>>
>> I have seen "mini widescreen" on a few other cheap-label DVDs that I
>> didn't
>> expect to be high quality. I have also seen it used for intro titles,
>> whereafter the movie switched to either true widescreen or 4:3. Is this a
>> known scam of sorts?
>>
>> Jack
>==================================
>Are you talking about "non-anamorphic" widescreen?
>If so, just zoom................
>Anamorphic is the only way to go, however.
>I do not understand why they even allowed non-anamorphic in the DVD
>standard.
T use the modern gang boy lingo...
True dat.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|