Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!

Guest wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
...

"Guest" wrote in message
...

I can't believe that some people are STILL asking this question and
acting as if there is something wrong. I also find it hard to believe
that someone would spend the kind of money that he did and NOT know what
the hell he was getting into. It boggles the mind, but then again, I
have a buddy who buys things just to impress people and he does not know
what it is or does as long as it costs and not many have it.

The questions will probably continue for years. There is no way to know
what part of the population still do not know or do not understand current
technology. I recently had to inform someone that the OTA TV they have
been watching for the last 8 months was not really HD - they did not know
that they had to tune to the digital HD channels instead of the same old
analog channels they were used to watching with the old non-HDTV.


I guess things will get easier when everything is HD. Now you know why the
Japanese market their products differently for the USA then they do for Asia
and Europe...



You won't live that long. Everything available on your TV receiver
is not going to be HD. You may see "everything" become digital,
but that doesn't imply HD.

James Egan wrote in
:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:12:23 +0000, Mike Gratis wrote:

James Egan wrote:

I just got my new Samsung 61" DLP TV. I won't be getting my
DirecTV hardware upgraded for another two weeks, so I connected
the existing standard def equipment, and also a new XBox 360
HD-DVD player. I played the HD movie "Troy" a bit, just to
see the picture. I was amazed that with the letterbox, only
about 1/2 the screen was used for the actual picture. I was
able to "zoom" the picture some, but you loose quality then.
I thought that with the rectangular shaped TV's that the picture
would use the entire screen?


When I first started looking into HDTV, I found some good, basic
explanation info he

http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-...center/home/as
pect_ratio.html?page=2



Yes, I'm familiar with what letterbox is, but was hoping it would not
be as severe with a large TV. You can read about a great deal of
this and a great deal more at wikipedia.org:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterbox

It is not as severe with a large TV. With a 16:9 TV you lose about 25%
of your screen area to a letter-boxed 2.35:1 Cinemascope movie. With a
4:3 TV the loss is more like 43%.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

"Peter H. Coffin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:03:00 -0400, Tom Stiller wrote:
In article [email protected],
"WGD" wrote:

The writer is correct noting lose of quality in the zoom mode
particularly
when viewing large screens. This may be less of a problem as we
eventually
move over to BluRay and HD-DVD. For my office 32" LCD, the 2x zoom mode
is
fine.

What is it about the words "lose", "loose", and "loss" that makes it so
difficult for people to get it right?

Their morons. (;

No they're not, they are "highly paid professionals!" I guess that is
another way of saying drug dealer!


--
15. I will never employ any device with a digital countdown. If I find
that
such a device is absolutely unavoidable, I will set it to activate when
the counter reaches 117 and the hero is just putting his plan into
action.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:09:40 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 07:17:28 -0700, dgates wrote:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:10:24 -0400, James Egan
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:27:51 -0700, Richard C. wrote:
=========================
Many movies are 2.35:1/2.40:1.
They will be letterboxed even on a 16:9 (1.78:1) set.
There is nothing wrong with that.
It is a wonderful thing!
Besides, that still uses about 75% of the screen (which is more than half).
Zooming or worrying about black bars is a fools game.
==========================


I think directors think that letterbox is wonderful, and everyone
that watches their movies doesn't. g

Some of them are REALLY ridiculous. The movie Troy looked like
I was loosing 40-50% of the picture. The good thing is on a
61" set, the picture is really large to begin with!


I too would like to use my whole HD screen for every movie I watch. I
would love it if every movie ever shot had been in the same aspect
ratio -- whatever that ratio happened to be.

If everyone thought like that all the way back through movie history,
you'd probably be watching films in 1:1, and THEN where would your
over-wide 4:3 screens be?


I never heard about 1:1. But I'm sure I'd be just fine if all movies
and TV shows ever filmed and recorded were 4x3.

In article ,
dgates wrote:

I never heard about 1:1. But I'm sure I'd be just fine if all movies
and TV shows ever filmed and recorded were 4x3.

What's magic about 4:3? I've got two eyes placed bilaterally so 2:1
makes more sense to me.

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:44:10 -0400, Tom Stiller
wrote:

In article ,
dgates wrote:

I never heard about 1:1. But I'm sure I'd be just fine if all movies
and TV shows ever filmed and recorded were 4x3.

What's magic about 4:3? I've got two eyes placed bilaterally so 2:1
makes more sense to me.

I would also be fine if all movies and TV shows ever filmed and
recorded were 2:1.

It's the consistency I want, more than any particular ratio.

On 2007-03-18, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article ,
Bill McClain wrote:

People go to a theater to see a spectacle. That means wide.

Really?

No, it doesn't.

IMAX didn't think so, anyway.

To get more spectacle, do you go wider?

Ah, the American idea: "if some is good, more is better!"

Theatrical releases have been approximately 50% 2.35:1 for decades. Popular
not just in America.

-Bill
--
Sattre Press History of Astronomy
http://sattre-press.com/ During the 19th Century
by Agnes M. Clerke
http://sattre-press.com/han.html

Peter H. Coffin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:03:00 -0400, Tom Stiller wrote:
In article [email protected],
"WGD" wrote:

The writer is correct noting lose of quality in the zoom mode
particularly when viewing large screens. This may be less of a
problem as we eventually move over to BluRay and HD-DVD. For my
office 32" LCD, the 2x zoom mode is fine.

What is it about the words "lose", "loose", and "loss" that makes
it so difficult for people to get it right?

Their morons. (;

Your right.

--

Dave (Since 1962)

-=Perfect Picture. Perfect Sound
Live every moment in High Definition=-

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill McClain wrote:

People go to a theater to see a spectacle. That means wide.


To get more spectacle, do you go wider?

Ah, the American idea: "if some is good, more is better!"


You mean it's NOT ??
:-)
james

David Zinck wrote:
Peter H. Coffin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:03:00 -0400, Tom Stiller wrote:
In article [email protected],
"WGD" wrote:

The writer is correct noting lose of quality in the zoom mode
particularly when viewing large screens. This may be less of a
problem as we eventually move over to BluRay and HD-DVD. For my
office 32" LCD, the 2x zoom mode is fine.
What is it about the words "lose", "loose", and "loss" that makes
it so difficult for people to get it right?
Their morons. (;

Your right.


The problem is (of course) that your attempt at grammatical humor,
probably, went right over the heads of those for whom it was intended.
However, I must admit that it afforded me a little chuckle.

BB