|
|
Posted by Bill Vermillion on 04/26/07 14:15
In article <xYFXh.17768$JZ3.17076@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>,
def456 <def456@none.none> wrote:
>
>"Mark Jones" <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ltwXh.495$296.73@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> def456 wrote:
>>> A lot of movies now come out on DVD in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, width to
>>> height, so called anamorphic. That causes a large black area at the
>>> top and bottom of the screen and poor picture quality with ordinary
>>> 4:3 TVs, and also significant black bands at the top/bottom with the
>>> newer 16:9 widescreen TVs. Since nobody has TVs to view 2.35:1
>>> properly, why do they produce it?
>>
>> Have you ever heard of a thing called a "movie theater"?
>Yes, but I haven't been to one for the last 25 years. :) The
>convenience and comfort of a home TV system capable of playing
>movies on tape or disc has taken over completely. I tried cable
>and satellite but prefer DVDs. I did the rental thing for VHS
>tapes then DVDs for a long time, but now it's just Netflix.
>Movie theaters are outmoded. Nobody goes anymore!
And there are a few theatres that are nice to watch a film in.
There is at least one local googolplex that uses a variant
on stadium seating.
The seat backs are very high so that you see NO heads or anyone in
front of you and the slope is such that the field of view is great.
Except for the people on either side of you, you get the impression
you are alone in the theatre until a scene comes up that
has the unseen audience 1) laughing, 2) cheering, 3) applauding,
or 4) some other noise so you know you are not alone.
And some films just don't work on small screens and only look
good on a 40+ foot wide screen - as smallish details or FX
just don't work.
The problem is that there aren't that many really good theatres
around. I hope you find one some day to see exactly what you are
missing on >>SOME<< films. Many seem to work better on the small
screen.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|