Aspect Ratios on HBO HD - Page 10  

As I said, fine, but you've only participated at AVS for less than a year, perhaps you should go back and review my track record.



Consider this. When they act contradictory, by not using OAR on the HD channel, and using letterboxing on the SD channel, they are certainly as capable of acting randomly or capriciously, in your words.

I hope you don't expect an intelligent and rational response to your question. I've see "debaters" like Bicker before (as we all have). His response will involve misdirection and evasiveness. He just isn't capable of directly and succinctly responding to your very valid point.

Yes, debate over the debate.

Or just unsupported statements he expects us to accept as fact no matter how unbelievable they are, such as the DVD market is different than HD cable market and HD channels make more money presenting cropped movies than OAR movies so it's all a matter of business. These would be excellent points if there were any evidence that they were true.

Well, I give up on him. He is obviously oblivious, and more interested in evasiveness than logic. His response to my argument of film being an art form went over my head. I wonder how he would feel if he paid to go to a museum, and all the paintings were arbitrailily cropped. I suspect it wouldn't bother him a bit, but I'd be flippin' out!

Oh well...

And to those who don't.

I know your track record, and respect your perspectives on technical issues, and perhaps even creative issues. This isn't a technical issue. It's not a creative issue. It's a business issue.

A common refrain of someone in the lynch mob.

Instead of constructively contributing to the discussion, you elect to just throw mud. Nice. THAT is why this thread got so nasty: Because some people refuse to keep to the topic, and instead choose to stoop to personal attacks.

Accept or don't, I don't care. I just want people to be mature enough to acknowledge that there are reasonable, opposing perspectives, something which the cliquish environment here doesn't seem to be able to handle very well. I'll keep trying to get you folks to see the light though.


More self-serving distortion of what I said. I raised the possibility. I didn't say it was or wasn't true. I raised the possibility -- and did so to show how weak the arguments against HBO were. If you want to refute it, provide proof that it is not true. All my intention is is to shoot holes in your house of cards that fosters your unjustified indignation at HBO's practices. I only need to highlight the possible faults in your arguments. And that's all I have time to do.


And your objections to me raising those points would be valid if there was convincing evidence that they were false.

However, instead of defending their own perspective, some folks here chose to engage in personal attacks. Interesting choice.

Instead of attacking me, why not try to convince me that you're correct? No, it seems that some folks are just too arrogant to even fathom that concept. No surprise, given that this thread began with the presumption that HBO is a bunch of idiots for doing what they think is best for their business. It seems to me that the more you feed your own distorted indignation at companies doing something you don't like, when they're simply doing what they view as best for their business, the more unnecessary bitter disappointment you'll experience. Good luck with that.

I'm sorry about that, but you asked, so I answered.

Very often, I've found that folks focused too heavily on a few aspects of a situation tend to miss the bigger picture. And invariably, online, the bit they're missing is the business perspective. They simply view everything from a consumer's standpoint, to their own detriment.


This just shows that you really truly didn't understand what I said, or simply refuse to. I've made the distinction, over and over and over again, between art and entertainment. I'm sorry if folks are having trouble understanding that entertainment exists, and has a right to. Entertainment, and the entertainment business, both have a right to exist, and that includes the right for entertainment considerations to trump artistic ones when it best serves the intended objective of the proprietor. Sacred cows have no standing.

Perhaps arguing just for the sake of arguing is part of the problem.

And responding to all points made that: HBO is a business, OAR is a business decision, therefore whatever they do must necessarily be correct and justified.....isn't exactly "constructively contributing to the discussion".

At least initially, you were debating from the standpoint that the majority shared your opinion. Now you have changed your position to suggest that you are also pro-OAR (very few here have a problem with 1.85:1 presented in 16:9) but you are simply unselfishly debating for the benefit of that silent majority who are not represented here - the ones who HBO is catering to.

And some incorrectly assume that a business' perspective must always be what's best for that business. Even when shown that many similar businesses have a different perspective.

But apparently none are wrong, simply because they are businesses.

I disagree. When folks are sitting around bashing HBO without defensible cause, pointing out that fact is very constructive.


I'm sorry for that confusion. Majorities don't rule. If 90% of the people don't care, then the battle is among the remaining 10%, and even then, the battle isn't based on which side is larger, but what is the effect on the business if they satisfy one side versus the other.


Oh come on.... that was many many pages ago! I made it clear at that time that I took a more extreme position to reflect how some folks, though not necessarily me, feel. My perspective is that this discussion inadequately reflects the feelings of the general public. If anyone wants to get up and defend an assertion that AVS Forum members are representative of the general public, I'd sure like to see them try.


You could have fooled me. I made that preference known very early in this thread, yet people still attacked me and it. I'd sure like to see everyone who has no problem with 1.85:1 presented full screen on 16:9 displays say so clearly. YOU'RE not even saying, here, that you're one of those people!!!


I really hate how this forum fosters self-fulfilling rationalization: "We all think this way, so this way must be the only correct way!" I'll always make that point, even when I agree with the prevailing sentiment, and that's the case regardless of the venue: This forum, other forums, the water-cooler at work, the dinner table at family gatherings, etc. I feel strongly that people must think in a less insular manner.

Thank you for proving my point. Ken asked you to respond to a specific question about letterboxing on the SD channels but eliminating bars on the HD channels. I said you would refuse to respond and instead argue away over nothing. You did exactly what I said you'd do. How can you expect respect when you refuse to answer questions that will prove you wrong? There's really nothing left to do but belittle you a bit. You invite it upon yourself.

There is now nothing left to argue about. Some purists will complain about 16:9 full screen showings of 1.85 movies, but it's not a problem for most.

So it comes down to people being told they are of the lynch mob, miss the big picture, are in need of more maturity, don't or refuse to understand, or view things from a consumer standpoint to their detriment.

Really, from whose standpoint are we supposed to view things? Consumers make up the marketplace, and it is in our best interests to pursue what each of us feels are the best options.

This thread took off because of a prominent poster's position that full frame was best for all 16:9 viewing. The same poster changed his/her position and continued to argue in order to try to move others from their arrogant and distorted viewpoints, all the while chastising others for not being able to understand different perspectives.

Aren't we done here?

You've been given plenty of "defensible cause" explaining how they arbitrarily came up with their anti-OAR policy. You just refuse to acknowledge or counter those facts.


Taking an "extreme position" just for the sake of arguing is part of the reason many feel you are simply trying to live up to your name, and not constructively discussing the topic.



Yes, I'm one of those people. I have no problem with 1.85:1 presented in 16:9. The varying overscan I have on my HDTVs has more impact than that does. Plus, that does not introduce the pan & scan that a 2.35 > 1.78 move requires.


Your viewpoint is the insulated view. Not because your viewpoint differs from the majority represented at AVS - but because you are holding to your viewpoint in spite of all evidence supporting the opposing view. That's a similar fault shared by many in business who refuse to listen to the marketplace, or even their own employees because they are unable or unwilling to accept that their preconcieved assumptions may not be accurate.

Like I said, perhaps you need to go back and review my track record. I post comments on as many business issues, as the others.

This isn't about my perspective. This is what I was told happened at HBO, by sources that have yet to be contradicted. Again, I'll let my track record for posting info from TV industry insiders stand on its own merits.

I'll throw you a bone here. It is possible the info I was given was wrong, and that your assumption (HBO has legitimate business reasons for non-OAR) could be right. What I don't get is someone like you, with obvious intellect and business background, refusing to even admit the possibility of the correctness info I was given.

In any event, I'm done.

You'll do better at this if you back your opposing perspectives with actual evidence that supports these perspectives. The more opposing the perspective, the more evidence you'll need to avoid looking ill-informed. Whoa, I actually remembered something from high school debate!


You can't assert a "possible" (meaning speculative) fact as if it were an accepted fact without qualifying it as such (there was no "maybe" or "perhaps" in these statements). Doing this is futile to refute a generally accepted fact. For example, if the world were flat, it would perfectly explain a number of things we see every day. But it's generally accepted that the world isn't flat so "raising the possibility" that it is flat is futile. Those close-minded round-Earthers are so damn arrogant!


Didn't you read the part where I said that most if not all homes that subscribe to HBO-HD have at least one DVD player, strongly indictating that the people who watch movies on HBO-HD prefer OAR like the DVDs they buy and rent?


OK you definitely didn't read what I wrote. Oh well, what's the point? And I didn't attack you. I attacked your weak arguments (which you now say might not be true anyway) and I attacked your inability to support your statements with any independent evidence. You now admit your facts are based on your own speculation.

Now if I wanted to do a full scale ad hominem attack on you, it would have read something like this....

In other words, Ken asked to take control over what points I would be making. Dude... this isn't an inquisition, as much as the rest of you would like to make it into one. I make my points. I don't answer loaded questions.

Hey Frank, have you stopped beating your wife?


Questions don't prove anything. Only answers prove things. If you don't have the answer to prove me "wrong", then they don't exist. What's really the case is that there never should have been an issue of "right" and "wrong" brought up. That was my whole point. This is a matter of personal preference, not "right" and "wrong".


Because that's all you really had to defend against my points. They're valid, they're rational, and they actually reflect the reality of the marketplace. Since you can't prove them wrong, your answer, predictably, seems to be to try to drown them out, or try to mock them out of existence. I think I've proven that I won't let such silliness dissuade me.

Good question. I would think that people would have been satisfied expressing their preferences as preferences, instead of bashing people, like the folks who run HBO, who hold a different opinion. Perhaps people will, in the future, start acknowledging their preferences as preferences, and stop assuming that if something doesn't go their way that something is wrong.


Including the ones who are just looking for entertainment.


Pursue? Or how about just "engage", "patronize", "enjoy"? I think the issue is that it is one thing to choose X over Y. It is a completely different thing to attack Y because you don't like the fact that it exists. The former is reasonable, IMHO. The latter smacks of entitlement mentality, IMHO.


I sure hope so.

Why don't they just make it against the law for anyone in the United States who produces a film to do it in any other resolution than that that perfectly fills 16:9 TVs?

Problem solved--case closed!