|
|
Posted by Bill Vermillion on 11/15/05 17:15
In article <301020051447137296%invid@localnet.com>,
Invid Fan <invid@localnet.com> wrote:
>In article <yr-dnUvpNOQgcfneRVn-sg@comcast.com>, One-Shot Scot
><SonOf@Bitch.com> wrote:
>
>> "Invid Fan" <invid@localnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:291020051428114438%invid@localnet.com...
>> > In article <lvOdnQ_5ZaBXEP7eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, Richard C.
>> > <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> > > I refused to buy the original because it was non-anamorphic.
>> > > For a WS set, that makes it look like crap.
>> > >
>> > It'll be another 5+ years before I get a widescreen tv, so I can't say
>> > that was an issue when the dvd first came out (nor is it now).
>>
>>
>> You don't need an expensive _widescreen_ TV in order to take advantage
>> anamorphic DVDs.
>>
>> "Some 4:3 TVs have a built-in 16:9 mode which shrinks the overall height of
>> the picture whilst retaining the same number of lines as in full screen
>> mode - these TVs allow you to take advantage of the full resolution of 16x9
>> enhanced DVDs. Theoretically, you could achieve the same effect on any 4:3
>> TV by adjusting the vertical height of the image."
>But I don't need a better picture, so I'm not going to change tv modes
>every time I put a dvd in.
If you've never seen the difference you don't know what you are
missing.
>A quick check shows I don't have the option anyways :)
True of most sets. My Sony WEGA needs to be switched via the
remote - it was made a year before the auto-sensing.
The difference is dramatic.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|