Gulliver's Travels 1.33:1 only please! - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 202 Old 12-06-2008, 10:27 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy Ramzyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: milwaukee
Posts: 3,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've heard a disturbing rumor that the upcoming Blu-Ray of Max Fliesher's animated classic, Gulliver's Travels will for the first time be presented in "widescreen" by Kotch Media.

This of course would be an extremely misguided move as it's original 1.33:1 ratio would require the top and bottom of the frame be whacked off.

Any way to complain about this where it would do some good?
Timothy Ramzyk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 12:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy Ramzyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: milwaukee
Posts: 3,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If any animation fan wants to drop Kotch Visions a quick line urging them to release Max Fleishers GULLIVER'S TRAVELS 1.33:1 rather than the stupid 1.77.1 they have planned, here is the email address.
I've already dropped them a line.
VideoSales@kochent.com
Timothy Ramzyk is offline  
post #3 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 03:18 AM
 
FoxyMulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Ramzyk View Post

I've heard a disturbing rumor that the upcoming Blu-Ray of Max Fliesher's animated classic, Gulliver's Travels will for the first time be presented in "widescreen" by Kotch Media.

This of course would be an extremely misguided move as it's original 1.33:1 ratio would require the top and bottom of the frame be whacked off.

Any way to complain about this where it would do some good?

If this is the original 1939 version then it should not be presented in 1.78:1 as it will lose so much picture information.

I hope others join in and let them know this is wrong if indeed they do release it that way....Original aspect all the way.
FoxyMulder is offline  
post #4 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SirDrexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 4,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This doesn't surprise me. It's the new pan and scan. The Roy Orbison concert, the Dragon's Lair game, and the Thunderbirds TV show have gotten the same treatment, and Seinfeld is being shown in HD this way on TBS. Granted, those may not be sacred works of art, but I figured it was only a matter of time before something people cared about was released this way.

There hasn't been much opposition to this for some reason. I think I may have been the only one here to complain about the Orbison concert. Others seemed to think that was just fine, but you know that if a 2.40:1 movie was cropped, people would be up in arms.
SirDrexl is offline  
post #5 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 09:08 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy Ramzyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: milwaukee
Posts: 3,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Kotch wrote me back, Yuck. it's true (about GULLIVER"S TRAVELS coming out widescreen), it should be 1.33:1

Quote:


Kotch

Timothy

Thank you for your inquiry. Gulliver's will release in 16x9 with enhanced audio (three options).

Quote:


Me

Sorry, but that's not how it was shot and I'm going to do all I can to inform people of your mistake so that they don't throw their $ away on a severely modified/cropped image (and sound). This isn't a 16 x 9 film and we both know it, so do quite a few other people.

Sounds like some silly ploy to get rights back in the release of a public domain film to me.

Tim

I know I got snippy, but the first letter was very sincere and polite.
I still think it's worth dropping them a line to show them we're not all idiots out here.
Timothy Ramzyk is offline  
post #6 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 09:09 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy Ramzyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: milwaukee
Posts: 3,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Disney thinks it's OK to put out PINOCCHIO as shot (1.33:1) by the way.

My original email,

Quote:


I was very excited to see that you will be offering a blu-ray of the classic Max Fleischer animated feature GULLIVER"S TRAVELS, but then I heard throughout the internet the bad news, that you're planning on a widescreen presentation.

This would be the wrong ratio for this pre-widescreen film to be shown in, and would require that the top and bottom of the image be cropped off in order change a square frame to a rectangular one. I think animation fans and reviewers alike will reject an attempt to "modernize" a 30's film by removing part of the image. If Disney can release PINOCCHIO in the correct ratio, I'd think you could release this important film as it was shot too.

Please don't this.

Thank you,
Timothy Ramzyk

Timothy Ramzyk is offline  
post #7 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 09:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
s2mikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 2,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I know this will be blasphemous....but 4:3 completely sucks. Id rather watch a 4:3 title with a decent stretching algorithm than anything else. I agree that zooming isnt a good choice either. But... pillar boxing is a deal-killer, IMO. YUK!

Also: Doesnt content have to be 16x9 or wider to even actually be an HD resolution? How can 4:3 be HD to begin with?
s2mikey is offline  
post #8 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 09:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Timothy! Please keep up the (polite) pressure, everyone. Send those emails!

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #9 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 09:57 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy Ramzyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: milwaukee
Posts: 3,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

I know this will be blasphemous....but 4:3 completely sucks. Id rather watch a 4:3 title with a decent stretching algorithm than anything else. I agree that zooming isnt a good choice either. But... pillar boxing is a deal-killer, IMO. YUK!

Also: Doesnt content have to be 16x9 or wider to even actually be an HD resolution? How can 4:3 be HD to begin with?

It doesn't sound like a lot of films of this era would interest you anyway, so my question is why cater to those who aren't gonna buy the thing anyway? Truthfully, would you really be in the market for slightly creaky, non-Disney, public domain animated feature from the 30's?

I'm not trying to be rude, but it's kinda like coming up with one frame size for all the paintings in a gallery just because that's what is fashionable. A pillar-boxed image can be HD, I have a few and they look great.
Timothy Ramzyk is offline  
post #10 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 10:01 AM
Advanced Member
 
Dex Robinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada
Posts: 778
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

Id rather watch a 4:3 title with a decent stretching algorithm than anything else.

Also: Doesnt content have to be 16x9 or wider to even actually be an HD resolution? How can 4:3 be HD to begin with?

Shoot me now.
Dex Robinson is offline  
post #11 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 10:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
s2mikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 2,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Ramzyk View Post

It doesn't sound like a lot of films of this era would interest you anyway, so my question is why cater to those who aren't gonna buy the thing anyway? Truthfully, would you really be in the market for slightly creaky, non-Disney, public domain animated feature from the 30's?

I'm not trying to be rude, but it's kinda like coming up with one frame size for all the paintings in a gallery just because that's what is fashionable. A pillar-boxed image can be HD, I have a few and they look great.

Actually, there are some older titles I'd be into. The Wizard of Oz is a MUST own for me, as an example. Im just saying that I'd prefer the screen to be filled if at all possible with these older titles. And no, I have no problem with 2.4:1 aspect ratio films. I just dont care for pillarboxing.
s2mikey is offline  
post #12 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
s2mikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 2,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dex Robinson View Post

Shoot me now.

Dex - Why choose being shot? Its a legitimate question, IMO. HD resolutions START at 1366x768...dont they? Thats not 4:3. Ya know?

s2mikey is offline  
post #13 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 10:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
prospect60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:


4:3 title with a decent stretching algorithm

There's an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Distorted and decent can't be used together in a meaningful way. I'd rather zoom it than geometrically distort any picture -- at least with zoom I'm not physically ill after 10 minutes.
prospect60 is offline  
post #14 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 10:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy Ramzyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: milwaukee
Posts: 3,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

Actually, there are some older titles I'd be into. The Wizard of Oz is a MUST own for me, as an example. Im just saying that I'd prefer the screen to be filled if at all possible with these older titles. And no, I have no problem with 2.4:1 aspect ratio films. I just dont care for pillarboxing.

Wizard will be 1.33:1, it always has been last 3 times out. You'll have to be content to zoom or stretch, or just enjoy it as it was photographed (you've done so, so far).

HD can be any ratio, it's true.

P.S. I didn't start this folder specifically to argue ratios all over again, just plug people in that a important film is about to be ill-used, and possibly nip it in the bud.
Timothy Ramzyk is offline  
post #15 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 10:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
Steve P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
HD does not automatically equal widescreen. There are already several Blu-ray and/or HD DVD discs out in 4X3, such as CASABLANCA, THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, or the upcoming QUO VADIS. All of these are 1080p discs.

Putting out the 1939 version of GULLIVERS TRAVELS in a widescreen format would be a big mistake, just as bad a panning and scanning a Panavision film.

If you think this is a good idea then obviously you don't care about the integrity of the original film at all, and would probably be better off watching something more recent.

Cropping, streching, panning and scanning or tilt and scanning are all just plain wrong. If you can't handle watching movies as intended, why even bother watching them at all? It's like reading a book in which half the pages have been torn out; it isn't the original work at all.
Steve P. is offline  
post #16 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 10:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
s2mikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 2,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Ramzyk View Post

Wizard will be 1.33:1, it always has been last 3 times out. You'll have to be content to zoom or stretch, or just enjoy it as it was photographed (you've done so, so far).

HD can be any ratio, it's true.

Agreed. The Wizard has always been 4:3. I didnt know if it had been shot in widescreen or whatever but reformatted to fit TV screens. Excuse my lack of knowlege on some of this stuff, especially older movies. I do know that some might have been shot with wider aspect ratios so thats what prompted the questions.

When did movies start actually using widescreen aspect ratios? Im curious to know....

OK, HD can be any ratio.... I really didnt know that. Now, I do.
s2mikey is offline  
post #17 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 10:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
s2mikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 2,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve P. View Post

HD does not automatically equal widescreen. There are already several Blu-ray and/or HD DVD discs out in 4X3, such as CASABLANCA, THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, or the upcoming QUO VADIS. All of these are 1080p discs.

Putting out the 1939 version of GULLIVERS TRAVELS in a widescreen format would be a big mistake, just as bad a panning and scanning a Panavision film.

If you think this is a good idea then obviously you don't care about the integrity of the original film at all, and would probably be better off watching something more recent.

Cropping, streching, panning and scanning or tilt and scanning are all just plain wrong. If you can't handle watching movies as intended, why even bother watching them at all? It's like reading a book in which half the pages have been torn out; it isn't the original work at all.

Understood. Dont kill me or anything here. I didnt know if some of these older films might have been shot in widescreen mode and then reformatted for TV screens or whatever. Its an honest question/concern. I always watch stuff in its proper aspect ratio. I also know that some older films were shot in a widescreen format and might be available in such a ratio.

I am not a fan of pillarboxing though... but if thats all Wizard of Oz or whatever come out in then I'll have to live with it.
s2mikey is offline  
post #18 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 10:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Composition is a very important artistic decision the directors/cinematographers have to make and completely destroying the intended composition of each shot by cropping old films is an insult to the filmmakers and the viewer's intelligence. I was hoping pan and scan would die along with VHS...
42041 is offline  
post #19 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 10:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

Agreed. The Wizard has always been 4:3. I didnt know if it had been shot in widescreen or whatever but reformatted to fit TV screens. Excuse my lack of knowlege on some of this stuff, especially older movies. I do know that some might have been shot with wider aspect ratios so thats what prompted the questions.

When did movies start actually using widescreen aspect ratios? Im curious to know....

OK, HD can be any ratio.... I really didnt know that. Now, I do.

With minor exceptions, think filmmakers started trying to outdo TV screens in the early 50s. Before that, there was the standardized academy ratio (1.37:1) that pretty much everyone filmed in.
42041 is offline  
post #20 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 10:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sharkcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Cropping to 1.78:1 is the new pan&scan

Back off man, I'm a scientist.
sharkcohen is offline  
post #21 of 202 Old 12-22-2008, 11:41 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy Ramzyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: milwaukee
Posts: 3,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

Agreed. The Wizard has always been 4:3. I didnt know if it had been shot in widescreen or whatever but reformatted to fit TV screens. Excuse my lack of knowlege on some of this stuff, especially older movies. I do know that some might have been shot with wider aspect ratios so thats what prompted the questions.

When did movies start actually using widescreen aspect ratios? Im curious to know....

OK, HD can be any ratio.... I really didnt know that. Now, I do.

Widescreen did really take hold until the mid-50's with the rise of television. So PINOCCHIO, GONE WITH THE WIND, CITIZEN KANE, SNOW WHITE, KING KONG, CASABLANCA, FRANKENSTEIN, WIZARD OF OZ... should all be 1.33:1
Timothy Ramzyk is offline  
post #22 of 202 Old 12-23-2008, 08:08 AM
tsb
AVS Special Member
 
tsb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
lots of evil crap being discussed here

look at the people who happily accepted TDK even though the IMAX scenes have been r@ped

I can live with VAR, but OAR is a must for all content
tsb is offline  
post #23 of 202 Old 12-23-2008, 08:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsb View Post

look at the people who happily accepted TDK even though the IMAX scenes have been r@ped

IMAX is (correctly) presented in several ratios (depending on the individual screen installation), because, according to their production/presentation spec, the aim of IMAX material is not to meet a particular frame-shape, but to extend the image beyond the limits of the audience's peripheral vision (and thus exhibit no frame-shape at all). In light of this intention, the 1.78:1 presentation on the TDK Blu-ray is very arguably the best approach to this material possible. To say it has been "r@ped", IMO, only displays an ignorance to the very concept of an IMAX film.

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #24 of 202 Old 12-23-2008, 10:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
s2mikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 2,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

IMAX is (correctly) presented in several ratios (depending on the individual screen installation), because, according to their production/presentation spec, the aim of IMAX material is not to meet a particular frame-shape, but to extend the image beyond the limits of the audience's peripheral vision (and thus exhibit no frame-shape at all). In light of this intention, the 1.78:1 presentation on the TDK Blu-ray is very arguably the best approach to this material possible. To say it has been "r@ped", IMO, only displays an ignorance to the very concept of an IMAX film.

Well said. Although its a tough crowd here so good luck convincing anyone! The IMAX scenes in TDK on blu-ray were the coolest thing EVER on home video. Period.
s2mikey is offline  
post #25 of 202 Old 12-23-2008, 10:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

The IMAX scenes in TDK on blu-ray were the coolest thing EVER on home video. Period.

Eh, they're no match for 5 cuts of Blade Runner in HD in a smaller-than-a-single-DVD case.

What part of upstate you in? I'm in Albany.

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #26 of 202 Old 12-23-2008, 11:06 AM
 
FoxyMulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Let's get back to discussing the aspect ratio of Gullivers Travels as there is a whole thread dedicated to The Dark Knight.

I have written them an email in the nicest possible terms explaining the widescreen concept and that Gullivers Travels should be issued in a 1.37:1 aspect ratio and if they intend to go ahead with the widescreen cropped release then give us both cuts of the movie which means the original aspect ratio and the fake widescreen cropped edition.

Anyone who cares about future editions of classic movies should write to these people before this becomes the norm and people start accepting it because as someone has already said this is the pan and scan thing all over again. ( with people wanting to fill the screen up on their 1.78:1 televisions )

Here's a page with a history of the widescreen format at the cinema...

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/intro.htm
FoxyMulder is offline  
post #27 of 202 Old 12-23-2008, 11:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

Let's get back to discussing the aspect ratio of Gullivers Travels as there is a whole thread dedicated to The Dark Knight.

It really seems to worm its way into every other thread around here lately, doesn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

I have written them an email in the nicest possible terms explaining the widescreen concept and that Gullivers Travels should be issued in a 1.37:1 aspect ratio

I have, as well, and I really hope they get bombarded with (considerate!) emails. We're the core market right now, so if we refuse to buy a niche title like this, the distributors may well listen. It's worth the effort!

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #28 of 202 Old 12-23-2008, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gunbunnysoulja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Inverness, FL
Posts: 2,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
OAR is the only way to go... If they want to satisfy the "widescreen" crowd, then they should do a dual release. This is completely unacceptable.

E-Mail sent.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
gunbunnysoulja is offline  
post #29 of 202 Old 12-23-2008, 12:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
adpayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Camp Lake,WI
Posts: 1,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

I have written them an email in the nicest possible terms explaining the widescreen concept and that Gullivers Travels should be issued in a 1.37:1 aspect ratio and if they intend to go ahead with the widescreen cropped release then give us both cuts of the movie which means the original aspect ratio and the fake widescreen cropped edition.

I think that is a great idea, Foxy! Some people just want their screen filled, and have no concern over proper ratios, etc. My Sister is one of them. Now that she has embraced HD, she wonders why some films have bars on the top and bottom. I explained, but she prefers the screen to be filled. (I kidded her about all the full-frame DVDs she bought over the years will now have pillar bars, just like I warned her when she bought them. )

Two versions would statisfy everyone.

Art
adpayne is offline  
post #30 of 202 Old 12-23-2008, 01:08 PM
Member
 
brendanjc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

I think that is a great idea, Foxy! Some people just want their screen filled, and have no concern over proper ratios, etc. My Sister is one of them. Now that she has embraced HD, she wonders why some films have bars on the top and bottom. I explained, but she prefers the screen to be filled. (I kidded her about all the full-frame DVDs she bought over the years will now have pillar bars, just like I warned her when she bought them. )

Two versions would statisfy everyone.

Art

Why do you even need to do that? I would think that absolutely every HD tv has the ability to zoom a 4:3 picture to fill the screen. It's the same issue with DNR and EE - if you want to smooth out the picture to remove grain, to boost the contrast or sharpness, why not use your TV settings to accomplish that? If you create the release missing all the original information people who actually care about OAR or a film-like presentation can't get back the information that's lost.
brendanjc is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off