RE: Re: [OT] Harry Potter DVD - Whats the deal ????

["Kenneth Watt" <kennwatt@xxxxxxx>]

This whole 16:9 thing is a bit misleading IMO.

There is amamorphic widescreen which is what you *really* want for a
widescreen set as this fills the screen nicely if the transfer was
correct and should not become redundant. The 16:9 standard seems to
vary
even within one studios releases and it rarely seems to be right. IMO
opinion anamorphic is the best balance between all the different ratios
as it will look good on almost any set without tripping them up.

The aspect of 2.35:1 is the classic "cinemascope" ratio AFAIK and
is
therefore a legacy thing from the days when cinema was competing with
the TV in the home. Some people still prefer this ratio, including many
directors, so it will probably be around for a while to come.

What I have noticed on a couple of visits to the local multiplex of
late
is that a few movies now seem to be shot in anamorphic therefore the
transfer to the home cinema environment should be easier and more
faithful to the movie you see in the Odeon in future.

A very good guide to all this can be found here :
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/index.html
this is it
for dummies but is *very* clear and easy to read. As you will read here
there is a bewildering array of different logos and ways of saying the
same thing differently when it comes to aspects on a DVD.

As for the TV set not displaying the image correctly in a "wide"
ratio,
this is entirely down to the smarts in the box 99/100. Most 16:9 sets
will try to fill the screen with the image whatever ratio the source is
presented in, how well it does it is another matter and, even allowing
for a very clever set, they can still be tripped up or confused by
certain images. Even my Philips set, which is usually very good at
sorting out the ratio, gets tripped up all the time but this is usually
down to the broadcast material being pants.

HTH

K.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: steevc [mailto:steevc@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 20 May 2002 08:09
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: [ukha_d] Re: [OT] Harry Potter DVD - Whats the deal ????
> 
> AFAIK the 16:9 is just a compromise between getting a wide picture
> and being viable to manufacture CRTs. I suppose with plasma and
LCD
> screens they could be much wider.
> 
> It seems to be an eternal problem that people will complain if
they
> see black bars on their screens. I seem to remember a Watchdog
> article where someone complained that a 'widescreen' DVD did not
fill
> his widescreen TV and then they went on about the confusing system
of
> different ratios.
> 
> Personally I prefer to see as much of the original picture as
> possible. On our 32" it's usually big enough even in very
wide
> ratios. I remember watching The Abyss and thinking that it was
taking
> up less than half the screen. I don't like stretched pictures, so
> things like Sky 1 are watched with bars at the sides. Cars do not
> have oval wheels. I have been caught out by this when the TV was
on
> the wrong setting.
> 
> With broadcast you see very little that's wider than 16:9.
Sometimes
> they get your hopes up by showing the titles in full width, but
> that's just to fit all the writing in.
> 
> What makes me laugh is that Cbeebies is always 16:9 even though
most
> of the programmes were made in 4:3. Like little kids care?
> 
> There's been a whole discussion about ratios over at
www.avforums.com
> which I can recommend for those who like to argue about such
things.
> 
> Steve
> Who doesn't get that much time to watch TV anyway
>

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx 
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx 
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx 
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.