Letterbox is annoying, even on new 61" TV!

I can't believe that some people are STILL asking this question and acting
as if there is something wrong

I'm surprised that you're surprised. Hell, they had to invent VCR+
because people couldn't manage to set their VCR timers. I've got a
brother in law who I had to show more than twice how to insert a row
into Excel. Some people just can't figure **** out.

On Mar 17, 7:20 am, 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?

Also, I tried playing a James Taylor HD-DVD, and it hung
repeatedly. I had read about this problem in the reviews
of this movie in a review, but chalked it up to an
inexperienced user.

Overall though, I'm very happy and amazed by the picture!


You'll get the bars, but It shouldn't be half the screen. Make sure
your DVD player is set to 16x9 widescreen. It can make a big
difference if it was defaulting to 4x3.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:34:29 -0400, Warren Oates
wrote:

In article ,
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

What other tools would you take away from directors and
cinematographers? How about being consistent and banning black and white
movies? Ban soft focus lenses. Ban false color. Ban allegory. Specify a
minimum number of explosions per film. Ban swear words. Ban nudity. Ban
plot twists. Ban on screen murders. Ban elliptical story telling. Ban
symbolism. Ban documentaries. Ban subtitles. Ban flash backs. Ban flash
forwards.

I'm all for banning allegory.

I like 1:85 as a screen ratio, myself. Bugger these Eurowimps.
Cinemascope was just an aberration to compete with tv, so bugger that
too.


This little sub-topic started with me saying "I personally wouldn't
mind if every movie shot from now till the end of time were 16x9."

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

I don't know how that was twisted into the idea of banning all sorts
of things from the brilliant artists that make these movies.


I will say this, however. I think that the idea behind shooting a
2.35:1 movie is that it's supposed to be BIG. At least, I know the
idea started that way in the 1950s.

Right now, I don't even know which comes out "bigger" on a regular
movie screen -- movies that are 1.85:1 or 2.35:1.

But I do know this: Anyone who shoots a 2.35:1 movie with the goal of
offering the "biggest" possible experience will achieve that (maybe)
for the 3 to 6 months that his movie is shown on actual movie screens.
Then, barring a couple revivals, from the point that the film hits DVD
until the end of time, his movie is going to end up SMALLER than an
episode of "30 Rock."

So, if there's a director whose vision absolutely requires showing the
WIDENESS of things (say, the empty deserts in Lawrence of Arabia),
then perhaps he'll settle for only being 75% the size of an episode of
"30 Rock."

But for a producer or director whose goal is to use the tools at hand
to make the BIGGEST possible movie for the most people...

Well, I guess he'll first have to determine which format actually ends
up taking up more square feet at today's movie theaters. Then he'll
have to figure out how many people will see it how many times -- in
theaters vs. on TVs, then make a judgment call on how much he "cares"
about those who don't even see it once in a movie theater, etc.


All I'm doing is throwing out the idea that I maybe having the movie
as BIG as possible is more important than having the movie as WIDE as
possible -- especially if there are no other trade-offs.

"James Egan" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:33:27 -0400, Guest wrote:


"James Egan" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:05:05 -0400, Guest wrote:

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.


I can't believe that someone is so stupid and so immature. Of course
I'm familiar with letterbox,

If that was the case, there is no reason for you to be surprised or
annoyed.

but not with letterbox and LARGE screen
TV's.

? So by your twisted logic, the larger the screen gets, the more th
epicture fills up the screen? Common sense man, common sense!


Different TV's have different aspect ratios dip-****. Common sense!


How many different aspect ratio TVs do you think there are?

--
ThePunisher

All I'm doing is throwing out the idea that I maybe having the movie
as BIG as possible is more important than having the movie as WIDE as
possible -- especially if there are no other trade-offs.

Big != wide.

I really don't care how ignorant you wish to stay. Keep on chattering.
Artists use the aspect ratios they choose to assist in telling the story
the way they wish to tell it.

If the result doesn't fill your screen, TFB.

Get over it.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

"ThePunisher" wrote in message
...
"James Egan" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:33:27 -0400, Guest wrote:


"James Egan" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:05:05 -0400, Guest wrote:

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.


I can't believe that someone is so stupid and so immature. Of course
I'm familiar with letterbox,

If that was the case, there is no reason for you to be surprised or
annoyed.

but not with letterbox and LARGE screen
TV's.

? So by your twisted logic, the larger the screen gets, the more th
epicture fills up the screen? Common sense man, common sense!


Different TV's have different aspect ratios dip-****. Common sense!


How many different aspect ratio TVs do you think there are?

--
ThePunisher
====================================
Four at least:
1) OLD conventional 1.33:1
2) NEW conventional 1.78:1
3) Interim (such as Pioneer Cinemawide) 1.50:1
4) Projection methods utilizing 2.40:1 lenses


I am sure there are more, such as the old round 1:1

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:23:24 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
wrote:



All I'm doing is throwing out the idea that I maybe having the movie
as BIG as possible is more important than having the movie as WIDE as
possible -- especially if there are no other trade-offs.

Big != wide.

I really don't care how ignorant you wish to stay. Keep on chattering.
Artists use the aspect ratios they choose to assist in telling the story
the way they wish to tell it.

If the result doesn't fill your screen, TFB.

Get over it.

I'm sure that when someone has a different opinion than you do, he's
the one who's ignorant.

I think there are some realities that you're overlooking in the name
of defending an artist's right to do whatever he wants.

I don't know who's supposed to get over what. The two of us yakking
isn't changing anything. New films will come out and producers and
directors will figure out what aspect ratios they want to use.

In article ,
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

I really don't care how ignorant you wish to stay. Keep on chattering.
Artists use the aspect ratios they choose to assist in telling the story
the way they wish to tell it.

But there are really only 2 screen ratios to choose from (in Hollywood
movies): 1:85 and Cinemascope. No American director is going to use 1:66
and no serious movie director is going to use 16:9 (1.78) just to
appease the tv gods.

'scope looks great in the big theater, which is why they use it. I think
Kubrick may have been one of the last serious directors to shoot in 1:33
(1:37, whatever).

16:9 was chosen because it scales up and down from 4:3 nicely. Yes, it
would have been nice if 2:1 was the deal, but think how big the tellys
would have to be ...
--
W. Oates

"Warren Oates" wrote in message
...
...
'scope looks great in the big theater, which is why they use it. I think
Kubrick may have been one of the last serious directors to shoot in 1:33
(1:37, whatever).
...

Coppola (pere) ostentatiously shot one feature in what
he termed "Academy Frame." Somebody (not me)
will recall the title.

"Anthony Buckland" wrote in message
...

"Warren Oates" wrote in message
...
...
'scope looks great in the big theater, which is why they use it. I think
Kubrick may have been one of the last serious directors to shoot in 1:33
(1:37, whatever).
...

Coppola (pere) ostentatiously shot one feature in what
he termed "Academy Frame." Somebody (not me)
will recall the title.
===============================
"One from the Heart" - great movie.