|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 04/26/07 02:55
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:40:31 -0500, Justin wrote:
> WinField wrote on [Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:11:32 -0700]:
>> Results: the FS version had noticeably better detail. When the WS frame
>> was zoomed to approximate the FS view, the full-screen picture actually
>> looked high-definition compared to what the 27" WS TV was showing.
>> Sharks! & yes, Derek IS a gerbil-butt.
>
> How did the FS version look when at the same zoom level?
Why would you zoom in a FS presentation? The zoom comparison was likely in
response to those who replied that the OP should just zoom in the 2.35:1
image if he wanted a 4:3 image. This comparison shows that doing so
results in a much lower quality image than a separate 4:3 version created
by the studio does.
Also, I think it was to discount Derek's assertion that the 4:3 version was
"reproccessed" and "VHS quality" compared to the WS version. In the
instance of trying to get a 4:3 image, it's the WS image that has to go
through additional processing via the DVD player to get a 4:3 image,
resulting in a lower quality picture.
WinField does point out that the WS DVD does show more actual image, and as
a viewer I would rather see the full image that was intendend to be seen
instead of seeing a fraction of that image in better detail.
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|