|
|
Posted by dgates on 12/02/06 22:43
On 2 Dec 2006 13:05:07 -0800, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:
>
>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.)
1.85:1 movies are pretty darn close to 1.78:1.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|