|
|
Posted by Impmon on 07/27/07 01:58
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:45:55 -0500, Darrel Christenson
<darrel.christensen@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>I believe you are referring to 4x3 movies that have
>been "matted" (or whatever the phrase is) to 16x9
>in which case you are probably correct.
>
>Video that was shot widescreen is what the whole move
>to 16x9 tvs and having more than 4:3 is all about.
>
>Just my 2 cents...
Yes. Most of the recent movies (past 30 years or so I think) were
shot in 16x9 format and for those movies, often time the sides were
chopped off to fit a 4x3 TV. A few movies were done both with release
to TV in mind. A good example is Harry Potter movies.
In the first movie, in 4x3 mode you can see the whole letter Harry was
reading about acceptance to Hogswart. in 16x9 (which appeared in
movie theater) you can't see the bottom part of the letter. But there
are a lot of scenes where 16x9 would be better than 4x3 like showing
more of the crowd and landscape
It's a matter of preference but considering 4x3 TV are about to be
extinct when NTSC standard is discontinued next year, chances are
people would be forced to get wide screen TV for their next purchase.
By then, basic wide screen TV should be much cheaper.
I do pity those who invested a lot in 4x3 only DVDs, it won't look
good on wide screen TV. The picture could be centered with black bars
on the sides, the picture could be stretched and look ugly, there
could be "smart" stretching where the center area is correct
proportion but edges are pulled. People with sharp eyes would notice
distortion. Finally the TV could enlarge the picture to eliminate
blank side by chopping off top and bottom and you'd lose a lot of
viewing area compared to actual wide screen movies.
When possible I bought the wide screen version so I can view it as it
appeared in movie theaters.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|