Posted by Justin on 04/26/07 04:23

Jay G. wrote on [Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:55:03 -0400]:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:40:31 -0500, Justin wrote:
>
>> WinField wrote on [Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:11:32 -0700]:
>>> Results: the FS version had noticeably better detail. When the WS frame
>>> was zoomed to approximate the FS view, the full-screen picture actually
>>> looked high-definition compared to what the 27" WS TV was showing.
>>> Sharks! & yes, Derek IS a gerbil-butt.
>>
>> How did the FS version look when at the same zoom level?
>
> Why would you zoom in a FS presentation?

Of course the WS version is going to look like crap when zoomed in, lower
res means lower quality.

> The zoom comparison was likely in
> response to those who replied that the OP should just zoom in the 2.35:1
> image if he wanted a 4:3 image.

That wasn't stated or even mentioned.

[Back to original message]