Re: why 2.35:1 ?

Jay G. wrote:
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.

Also, while widescreen movies are processed more or less in their original theatrical form, fullscreen movies have to be separately RE-processed for FS disk--
Which means the 4:3 version will look slightly blurrier, zoomed-in and second-generation.

If you bought a DVD player for clarity, fullscreen movies bring you right back to the VHS.

Derek Janssen
ejanss@xxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why 2.35:1 ?
    ... I'd much rather have the correct image than ... If you bought a DVD player for clarity, fullscreen movies bring you right back to the VHS. ... Janssen is full of beans when he claims slightly blurrier, second-generation quality on full-screen processed flicks. ...
    (alt.video.dvd)
  • Re: why 2.35:1 ?
    ... I'd much rather have the correct image than ... Which means the 4:3 version will look slightly blurrier, ... If you bought a DVD player for clarity, fullscreen movies bring you right back to the VHS. ...
    (alt.video.dvd)