|
|
Posted by Invid Fan on 11/15/05 18:42
In article <Iq0ACL.1vsn@wjv.com>, Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
The video will be the same quality as dvds of 4:3 shows: I'd just get
that better picture with letterboxed material. As it is anamorphic
films give me a worse picture, as scan lines are thrown out so the full
image fits on my screen. Like I said, it's not that important to me.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|