|
Keith,
Some
films are shot full frame, but then masked to 2.35:1 or whatever the cinema
release ratio is intended to be. Thus the film you are _meant_ to see
is
the widescreen one, even though there is _less_ on
screen.
Occasionally broadcasters xmit such films without
re-applying the masking so you get the situation you have
observed.
I
can't remember the reasoning behind filming in this way rather than using a
widescreen camera - perhaps it is just to make TV transmission easier so
they
don't have to do a pan 'n scan version.......
So: WS
does not necessarily mean more, it just means perhaps 'more likely to be
like
the cinema release'.
Is
this better? Dunno mate, but personally I think _not_ seeing the top
of
Dr. Emmet Brown's head is a _good_ thing :-))
Tony
Interesting words......
interesting in that you shell out loads of dosh
for a
16:9 screen to avoid the black bars and then get DVD's that are wider than
16:9 so you still get black bars :-(
I
got conned with the BoxSet of "Back To The Future". It is a letterbox
format.
Sometime later I read that the films were shot as 4:3 with only certain
scenes
in 16:9. Last time it was on BBC1 I did a comparison, after all the whole
arguement FOR widescreen was to see the bits that were chopped off the
sides
of the 4:3 picture.
Sky
Digital was showing a 16:9 broadcast
BBC1
Terrestrial was showing a FullScreen 4:3 image
As I
"knew" the film wasnt really Widescreen I was
intrigued.....
Standing where I could see 2 TV's I did a
comparison.
The edges of the pictures were identical so I studied the top and bottom of
the picture.
4:3
picture - I could see Dr. Emmet Brown's entire head
16:9
picture - cut off halfway up his forehead
They
had cropped a 4:3 picture to 16:9 and were giving you LESS picture when the
sales pitch for W/S sets is that you get MORE picture.
All
my TV's are still 4:3 at the moment.
I
am
used to a 28" TV. To get the same HEIGHT of picture on a 16:9 set would
require a 36" WS which is too much money at the moment although they are
dropping quite quickly. Anything less than 36" WS would be a SHORTSCREEN
set
as the picture would not be as tall as the one I currently
watch.
BTW.
I havent seen the Panny
Keith
Two words. Aspect
Ratio.
Tim
-----Original
Message-----
From: Gerard
McGovern [mailto:stuff@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 11 March 2002 14:11
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ukha_d] Anyone seen the
Panny LCD TVs in the flesh
But they are so expensive. Why
not get a 15inch LCD computer monitor, buy a tuner and then buy a SCART to
VGA adapter?
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.
********************************************************************
Visit our Internet site at http://www.rbsmarkets.com
This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above.
As this e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information,
if you are not the named addressee, you are not authorised to
retain, read, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it.
********************************************************************
| 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.
|