|
|
Posted by SuperM on 04/28/07 00:08
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:53:41 -0700, "Richard C."
<post-age@spamcop.net> Gave us:
>"WinField" <doghouse@operamail.com> wrote in message
>news:CG2Yh.267126$7g3.183849@newsfe14.phx...
>>
>>
>> Jay G. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:00:01 -0700, WinField wrote:
>>>
>>>>[FS still has] more detail. Not just being closer to objects.
>>>>
>>>> Wrinkles around the eyes. Skin pores. Easier to see the threads and
>>>> weave of cloth. Small text/print on objects not as fuzzy.
>>>
>>>
>>> So to clarify, the 4:3 version shows less actual image, but that reduced
>>> image is shown in more detail than that portion of the image is on the WS
>>> DVD. correct?
>>
>> Exactly. This is what I have discovered with "Die Another Day".
>>
>> When I get a chance, I hope to compare one or two more flicks in the same
>> way.
>>
>>
>>> So this proves that the 4:3 version is not "reprocessed" from the WS DVD
>>> and isn't an inherently "VHS quality", less resolution or less detailed
>>> version of the film, as Derek originally asserted.
>>>
>>> -Jay
>>
>> Indeed. Derek's comments on this subject were really over-the-top WS
>> fanboy dribble.
>>
>=======================
>You realize that the up to 43% of the movie that is cropped in a
>pan-and-scan
>version has Z E RO resolution!
Excellent way of putting it!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|