Posted by Dennis N. Yugo on 12/28/37 11:27

In article <EUDYe.1411$xc4.255@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Notreally@myemailaddress.com says...
>
> "Keeper of the Purple Twilight" <no@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:no-7BDDB9.15284117092005@news.central.cox.net...
> > In article <MPG.1d95ed27a19c53e7989680@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Dennis N. Yugo <number6@oncebitten.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I have a non-anamorphic DVD of "To Kill a Mockingbird". Does anyone have
> >> an opinion on the new anamorphic release? One newspaper reviewer didn't
> >> think it was any better.
> >
> > Anamorphic is always better than non-anamorphic, by definition. :)
> If you don't have a widescreen TV (or a standard one that support 16x9),
> there's no difference.
>
> Lincoln
>
>
>
OK, I know what anamorphic is. I have a CRT projector with variable line
scaler. But I have seen some anamorphic transfers that are worse than
some letterbox transfers. All transfers are not the same in quality. And
if all you do is blow up a letterboxed transfer, without any new picture
information, just so you can shrink it down again, it does not
necessarily result in a more detailed picture.

Maybe someone who has seen this DVD can just answer my basic question...
Is this a good transfer... better than the previous release?

More likely I will just fork over the 16.99 at Costco and hope for the
best.

dy

[Back to original message]