|
|
Posted by Lincoln Spector on 12/04/06 02:40
"dgates" <dgates@spamlinkline.com> wrote in message
news:oc04n2drqrml9l8jc0vct1apvhbvv3s50t@4ax.com...
> 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.
Especially when you consider that films are shot with an assumption of a
margin of error on the part of the theaters. No professional will shoot for
1.85 in such a way that it won't work in 1.78.
Lincoln
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|