Posted by Susan Bartholomew on 09/20/06 14:05

fredman wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:02:44 -0500, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Luke Hooft wrote on [Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:29:59 +0930]:
>>
>>>"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>>>news:slrneh14e2.asf.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>zoomed them in? You mean zoomed the widescreen in to lame-o cheapo p&S?
>>>
>>>Nope, not at all. He means zooming in the lame-o cheapo 4:3 letterbox format
>>>so that the widescreen image actually reaches the edges of a widescreen TV.
>>
>>Aaaaah. Gotcha. I can see that being an issue.
>>Are the subtitles hard subbed then?
>
>
> Apparantly so - hard subbed into the 4:3 area below the movie frame. I
> can 'cure' this in my 4:3 HiScan by viewing on a player via component,
> which allows you to select a 4:3 image for non-anamorphic discs. My
> other player, via HDMI/DVI displays it framed within the letterbox
> area in the 4:3 screen - which is what most modern setups will get on
> their widescreens. Great. Now non-anamorphic discs suck even more
> when you upgrade. BTW, I also thought he was doing what an
> acquaintence of mine did when he upgraded his set: he didn't like the
> piller-boxing of 4:3 material on his 16:9 set, so he S T R E T C H E S
> the image to fit the screen, and then has the gall to sit there and
> watch it as if it's normal. Now, THAT is wrong... Cheers.

What I don't get is why they didn't just leave the subtitles where
they were, in the image-or would that have made them too small to read?

[Back to original message]