| ste.parker@gmail.com 2005-05-23, 8:31 pm |
|
Alastair Foster wrote:
quote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 22:52:43 +0100, "[ste parker]"
> <imaginey@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
norm, in[vbcol=seagreen]
TV.[vbcol=seagreen]
DVDs[vbcol=seagreen]
bars,[vbcol=seagreen]
be in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> So you consider a 2.35:1 aspect ratio films cropped into 16:9 a good
> thing? Doesnt that kind of defeat the purpose of a widescreen
> television?
>
Personally, yes, if I had the option of a 16:9 version and a 2.35:1 (or
worse, 2.40:1) version of a film, I'd pick the 16:9 version. No doubt
that will have some cinema buffs screaming heresy etc. but I have a
16:9 TV and I quite like screen being filled because I sit probably
12ft away from it, so the more picture the better. I don't think that
having a 16:9 picture on a 16:9 TV defeats the purpose of a widescreen
TV, I'd say that *is* the purpose of a (16:9) widescreen TV.
--
[ste]
|