Re: Blu-ray movies

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:03:06 -0600, Good Man wrote:

Wes Newell <w.newell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
C8dfj.16946$DG4.16154@trnddc04:">news:C8dfj.16946$DG4.16154@trnddc04:

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:57:06 -0800, www.locoworks.com wrote:

You are not speaking facts, you are speaking opinions... and pretty
silly ones at that.

Here, this site will explain it so that even you can understand it
(they use pictures).

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/2933/favaspectratio.html

Go there and broaden your horizons.

I saw this years ago. It does nothing but prove my point. My eyes are
wide open. I've looked at all the pictures. All of them have half or
more wasted space in them.

I get it! Wasted space! So you like to view the world like a horse
with blinders - straight-ahead vision only, no peripheral vision. So
when you're in a forest, or a city for that matter, you just want to see
the single tree you're focused on, or the building you're looking at.
None of that pesky waterfall in the distance, or people and cars driving
around. Makes sense. Sensory overload I guess.

When I'm watching TV that is exactly correct. And trying to equate TV
viewing to real life visual experiences is ludicrous. Almost as much as
widescreen TV's. The real problem is I don't want to have to pay for that
wasted space.

picture by comparison. IOW's it's not a true comparison of images and
is only there to show one the differences in the cinematography.

Thats *the whole fucking point*. I know you think movies are all about
the person talking on screen, but did you know that every film is
deliberatly PHOTOGRAPHED? For, like, art's sake?

Screw art. I don't care about the damn scenery. You could take all the old
paintings that idiots pay millions for have a bonfire with them for all I
care. Most of them are crappy anyway. Art and antiques are just expensive
junk the rich can use to flaunt their money. None of it's really worth
crap. And diamonds are only good for griding stones IMO. And that's
probably where most are used. I've got a couple of old (1906) oil
paintings. Some sucker want to buy them in there original frames? One on
canvas, one on wood. Pr they worth any to me as far as viewing or looking
at? Hell no. A picture would be much clearer. The only real worth they
have is some idiot will pay good money for them when my kids or grandkids
sell them.

Have you ever seen Lawrence of Arabia? Did you happen to notice the
scenery or photography, or were you just so wrapped up in the talking
heads on screen?

Yes, I'll admit some movies do take advantage of widescreen. And if I want
to see it as intended, I'll go to the movies or just zoom the picture out
to get it all it. But I don't watch a lot of movies. I watch TV. That's
hat this is about. Not movies. Not cinematography. Simply the best bang
for your buck when buying a TV.

I'm now convinced you're a troll, because if you're not, then as another
poster said, you'd be perfectly satisfied to look at a family portrait
with the sides lopped off so it fits in your frame.

Yeah, I get it, if someone is not of your same opinion they're a troll.:-)
That's why I've got a networked 6 HDTV tuner MythTV system, because I'm
not really interested in TV.:-)

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
.