Re: why 2.35:1 ?



On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:30:50 -0500, def456 wrote:

But the people in the picture are too small. I have a 25" TV with 4:3 aspect
ratio.

As someone who used to watch 2.35:1 films on a 20" 4:3 TV, I have no
sympathy for your position. I'd much rather have the correct image than
one that shows me the incorrect image larger.

They need to do away with 2.35:1 ratio on DVDs, or provide the option to
automatically crop it to 16:9. I don't have much of a problem with 16:9
aspect ratio, which is about 1.8 compared to the standard 1.3.

Every DVD player I had with my 4:3 TV would do this with the first zoom
option on the remote. It was a 1.5x zoom I beleive. Alternatively, you
could set your DVD player to output to a 16:9 set, which would stretch the
image to about 16:9 on a 4:3 TV. Of course, everything would appear
stretched and too thin, but you just want your screen filled, not the
correct image, right? Or, you could combine the two methods and get a
stretched, zoomed 4:3 image of a 2.35:1 film. See how watchable that image
is.

I think Samsung DVD players with the "EZ view" feature actually cycle
through the options I listed when that feature is implimented.

As far as that goes...
Who goes to movie theaters anymore?

Enough people to make the practice still profitable in the long run. You
should be grateful to them, since they're allowing the studios to actually
produce the movies you're eventually watching on video.

-Jay
.