Search Movie Database for

This week on DVD and Blu-ray - June 24th 2008

Want to make a post? Log on with a free my town account.

This post refers to...

Page 1 of 2

mvckalel

Jun 24, 2008 - CDT 12:00 PM
says... I now own UP and Monsters, Inc. on blu-ray!!!
mvckalel
Member since:
October 2007
Thanks for this column...as for the VHS release, don't start, or it will take over both DVD and blu-ray... ...and as for fullscreen? Well, there are still LOTS of people with regular TVs, so it's for them...back to my proposition, are we ever going to get a 16:9 fullscreen??

Falcon01

Jun 24, 2008 - CDT 1:07 PM
Falcon01
Member since:
July 2006
The American Gangster HD DVD is a 16X9 Full screen, as in it fills the whole screen on a 16X9 TV. There are others that do this also but not many.

JJ79

Jun 24, 2008 - CDT 1:56 PM
says... Also known as The Movie Rambler
JJ79
Member since:
January 2006
Quote:
as for the VHS release, don't start, or it will take over both DVD and blu-ray


I thought it was a fair question, considering we have WS, FS, BD and 2 disc releases now. (Damn, forgot about UMD!!!!)

Quote:
...and as for fullscreen? Well, there are still LOTS of people with regular TVs, so it's for them


So what if you have a regular TV? I've had a regular tv until April, 2008, and never bought a FS movie. EVER. (Thanks to a very special friend who extolled the virtues of widescreen vs. fullscreen way back in the late 1990s to me.) Just because you have a regular TV does not in any way mean FS was made for "you." If anything FS needs to be abolished, unless it is the OAR.

Jason, fond memories

John J. Puccio

Jun 24, 2008 - CDT 8:35 PM
says... "It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide." --A.E. Neuman
John J. Puccio
Member since:
March 2002
"...back to my proposition, are we ever going to get a 16:9 fullscreen?" --mvckalel

Yes, I seem to remember your mentioning this before, but I can't remember in what regard. What did you mean by "16:9 fullscreen" (since by movie-studio definition "fullscreen" or "full-screen" refers to a 1.33:1 ratio, not 1.78:1/16:9)?

John

Skyhawk

Jun 24, 2008 - CDT 8:47 PM
Skyhawk
Member since:
October 2007
Perhaps he meant pan'n'scanning all movies wider than 1.78:1 to 16:9?

You know, there's a lot of people upset that they bought their widescreen HDTVs and still get the black bars on many movies....

JJ79

Jun 24, 2008 - CDT 8:52 PM
says... Also known as The Movie Rambler
JJ79
Member since:
January 2006
Skyhawk,

Then I will gladly go into each of those homes and explain precisely why there are black bars on top and bottom. It's quite simple, believe it or not.

And if someone doesn't want to listen to me, I'll gladly take their HDTV and replace it with a shitty 13 inch B/W set with rabbit ears so they can watch their FOOLSCREEN garbage which "takes up their entire screen." Seriously, this is one topic that irks me to no end.

Jason, non-believer

Mike37

Jun 24, 2008 - CDT 9:15 PM
says... http://twitter.com/DoctorTran37
Mike37
Member since:
December 2007
Quote:
You know, there's a lot of people upset that they bought their widescreen HDTVs and still get the black bars on many movies....


People are idiots.

Skyhawk

Jun 24, 2008 - CDT 9:24 PM
Skyhawk
Member since:
October 2007
There used to be this satire site years ago that someone posted a link to on the Usenet DVD newsgroup. It showed the OAR versus the "full screen" version of a bunch of scenes from "Lawrence of Arabia", then state how the "full screen" version was superior. They would say it like this:

"As you can see above, the full-screen version of this shot again removes distracting elements from the original, offering significant improvement. For example, the mountains are gone from the left, as well as the Arab guy with the camel on the right, allowing the viewer to give his full attention to the dry well."

It was actually very funny they way they said it for each clip. Unfortunately I can't find the site anymore.

mvckalel

Jun 25, 2008 - CDT 11:16 AM
says... I now own UP and Monsters, Inc. on blu-ray!!!
mvckalel
Member since:
October 2007
For starters, Wal-mart tends to have many movies in fullscreen (4:3), which means people who are not that knowledgeable about movies and OARs would notice/care. So I would rather have a chopped 16:9 fullscreen version of a 2.35:1 movie...at least it shows some progress. And we all know how difficult it is trying to explain people why those black bars matter, or why it's better to have OAR...but we all want more for our money, which means we need to see the screen FULL, regardless of OAR.

Skyhawk

Jun 25, 2008 - CDT 11:43 AM
Skyhawk
Member since:
October 2007
Quote:
So I would rather have a chopped 16:9 fullscreen version of a 2.35:1 movie...at least it shows some progress. And we all know how difficult it is trying to explain people why those black bars matter, or why it's better to have OAR...but we all want more for our money,


I disagree. How are you getting "more for your money" with chopping off a portion of the picture, even if a smaller portion? If I saw half cut-off faces and other picture elements that were cut or completely missing, I'd personally feel like I was getting less for my money. But that's just me...

Now opening the matt a little is different, and its effect would be dependant on whether the more panoramic view looks better or not. And that's an artistic judgement call. But actually cutting the ends of the picture? Oh my!
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Jun 25, 2008 - CDT 11:44 AM]

Page 1 of 2

Want to make a post? Log on with a free my town account.


Get this site ad-free »