|
|
Posted by moviePig on 12/02/06 21:05
RichA wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
> > Walter Traprock wrote:
> > > Folks, you should know, there's HDTV in standard aspect ratio!
> > >
> > > There's no need for the distortion-vision of widescreen TVs!
> > > There's no need for bright gray bars to "warn" you that you're
> > > watching material in the "wrong" aspect ratio.
> > >
> > > Go for flat screen, in Academy ratio as it's now possible.
> >
> > Might make sense *if* your set's to be used only for 4:3 movies. For
> > the rest of us, though, 16:9's a reasonable compromise (between 1.85:1
> > and 2:35:1)... with 4:3 getting shortest shrift, which is justifiable
> > considering that older movies generally have coarser resolution to
> > begin with, and thus won't suffer as much, percentage-wise, in a
> > reduced raster-portion.
>
> There should be NO compromise in movie playback. Problem is, too many
> people literally can't tell there is any distortion. How often have
> you seen tvs with uncalibrated colour or basketball player stretched or
> squashed, midget-looking actors and the idiots watching them could care
> less? The moment you start taking cues from those people, you might as
> well jump off a bridge.
By 'compromise', I refer only to the native shape of the raster field.
Of course all films should present, within that field, in their
original aspect ratios, i.e., with no squashing. (Thus, until
Hollywood makes a true 16:9 movie... that'll always mean gray bars.)
--
/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|