Giant: Not Anamorphic!

What an incredible disappointment!

Just put this in to play last night and it is not anamorphic.
1.66:1 is one of the worst aspects to not have anamorphic.
There is no way to expand it without stretching or cropping on a 16:9 set.

Damn that WB! Why would they do this?


*************************************

Richard C.

"Brockhurst Pertwee" <> wrote in message
news:22212-3EF71B58-...
: Don't blame Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was his decision (he
: believes that his father liked height rather than width). The fact that
: the film was shown in 1:85 in most theaters apparently means nothing.
: Of course, I have the import which is enhanced, but that transfer looks
: awful.
:
=============================
You miss my point......
It was not an anamorphic DVD.
1.66:1 can easily be done that way.
If you understood 16:9 sets and "anamorphic enhancement" you would get why I am
****ed.
The 1.66 aspect ratio is not the problem.................

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:01:29 -0700, "Richard C." <post-> wrote:

>What an incredible disappointment!
>
>Just put this in to play last night and it is not anamorphic.
>1.66:1 is one of the worst aspects to not have anamorphic.
>There is no way to expand it without stretching or cropping on a 16:9 set.
>
>Damn that WB! Why would they do this?
>
>
>*************************************
>


Life's full of these little tragedies. Only through Jesus can you overcome such misery.

First I wrote:

<Don't blame Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was his decision (he
believes that his father liked height rather than width). The fact that
the film was shown in 1:85 in most theaters apparently means nothing. Of
course, I have the import which is enhanced, but that transfer looks
awful. >
=============================
Then Richard C. responded:

<You miss my point......
It was not an anamorphic DVD.
1.66:1 can easily be done that way.
If you understood 16:9 sets and "anamorphic enhancement" you would get
why I am ****ed.
The 1.66 aspect ratio is not the problem.................>

I missed your point? Did you read what I wrote? I said don't blame
Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS decision to not do the
transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with the most minimal
letterboxing it could have, and did not want it windowboxed for
anamorphic sets. Once again, how did I miss your point? I know 1:66
can be done, I had a widescreen TV before you did, and I get why you're
****ed. It's fine to be ****ed, just don't blame Warners because had it
been up to them they would have done an anamorphic transfer and DID do
so on the Canadian import which I own.

I know what the problem is, Richard, you don't need to preach to me, you
just need to learn to read my posts and not interpret them so that they
suit your whim. The fact is, I've stopped buying ANY MGM 1:66 or 1:85
title that is not enhanced for widescreen - they are the real idiots.

> I missed your point? Did you read what I wrote? I said don't blame
> Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS decision to not do the
> transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with the most minimal
> letterboxing it could have, and did not want it windowboxed for
> anamorphic sets. Once again, how did I miss your point? I know 1:66
> can be done, I had a widescreen TV before you did, and I get why you're
> ****ed. It's fine to be ****ed, just don't blame Warners because had it
> been up to them they would have done an anamorphic transfer and DID do
> so on the Canadian import which I own.
>
> I know what the problem is, Richard, you don't need to preach to me, you
> just need to learn to read my posts and not interpret them so that they
> suit your whim. The fact is, I've stopped buying ANY MGM 1:66 or 1:85
> title that is not enhanced for widescreen - they are the real idiots.


And on and on and on it goes...

Looks like them black bars are a problem after all.

Max Christoffersen

"Dr. Speedbyrd:>" <e-> wrote in message
news...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:01:29 -0700, "Richard C." <post->
wrote:
>
> >What an incredible disappointment!
> >
> >Just put this in to play last night and it is not anamorphic.
> >1.66:1 is one of the worst aspects to not have anamorphic.
> >There is no way to expand it without stretching or cropping on a 16:9
set.
> >
> >Damn that WB! Why would they do this?
> >
> >
> >*************************************
> >
>
>
> Life's full of these little tragedies. Only through Jesus can you
overcome such misery.

LMAO! Now that is a funny post.

"Brockhurst Pertwee" <> wrote in message
news:22213-3EF7C323-...
: First I wrote:
:
: <Don't blame Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was his decision (he
: believes that his father liked height rather than width). The fact that
: the film was shown in 1:85 in most theaters apparently means nothing. Of
: course, I have the import which is enhanced, but that transfer looks
: awful. >
: =============================
: Then Richard C. responded:
:
: <You miss my point......
: It was not an anamorphic DVD.
: 1.66:1 can easily be done that way.
: If you understood 16:9 sets and "anamorphic enhancement" you would get
: why I am ****ed.
: The 1.66 aspect ratio is not the problem.................>
:
: I missed your point? Did you read what I wrote? I said don't blame
: Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS decision to not do the
: transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with the most minimal
: letterboxing it could have, and did not want it windowboxed for
: anamorphic sets.

===========================
But, being non-anamorphic, it IS WINDOWBOXED on 16:9 sets.
That is the entire problem.
See...you did miss the point.
If it were anamorphic it would appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as
1.85:1 appears to.
==============================

: Once again, how did I miss your point?

================================
Your statement about windowboxing shows that you did.
==============================

: I know 1:66
: can be done, I had a widescreen TV before you did, and I get why you're
: ****ed. It's fine to be ****ed, just don't blame Warners because had it
: been up to them they would have done an anamorphic transfer and DID do
: so on the Canadian import which I own.
:
: I know what the problem is, Richard, you don't need to preach to me, you
: just need to learn to read my posts and not interpret them so that they
: suit your whim. The fact is, I've stopped buying ANY MGM 1:66 or 1:85
: title that is not enhanced for widescreen - they are the real idiots.
:
================================

"max christoffersen" <> wrote in message
news:bd8kch$go1$...
:
: > I missed your point? Did you read what I wrote? I said don't blame
: > Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS decision to not do the
: > transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with the most minimal
: > letterboxing it could have, and did not want it windowboxed for
: > anamorphic sets. Once again, how did I miss your point? I know 1:66
: > can be done, I had a widescreen TV before you did, and I get why you're
: > ****ed. It's fine to be ****ed, just don't blame Warners because had it
: > been up to them they would have done an anamorphic transfer and DID do
: > so on the Canadian import which I own.
: >
: > I know what the problem is, Richard, you don't need to preach to me, you
: > just need to learn to read my posts and not interpret them so that they
: > suit your whim. The fact is, I've stopped buying ANY MGM 1:66 or 1:85
: > title that is not enhanced for widescreen - they are the real idiots.
:
:
: And on and on and on it goes...
:
: Looks like them black bars are a problem after all.
:
: Max Christoffersen

==========================
Do you even understand what the problem is?

I doubt it.

Black bars are no problem at all..............

Brockhurst Pertwee wrote:
> I missed your point? Did you read what I wrote? I said don't blame
> Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS decision to not do the
> transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with the most minimal
> letterboxing it could have, and did not want it windowboxed for
> anamorphic sets. Once again, how did I miss your point? I know 1:66
> can be done, I had a widescreen TV before you did, and I get why
> you're ****ed. It's fine to be ****ed, just don't blame Warners
> because had it been up to them they would have done an anamorphic
> transfer and DID do so on the Canadian import which I own.
>
> I know what the problem is, Richard, you don't need to preach to me,
> you just need to learn to read my posts and not interpret them so
> that they suit your whim. The fact is, I've stopped buying ANY MGM
> 1:66 or 1:85 title that is not enhanced for widescreen - they are the
> real idiots.

But, your wrong. It has nothing to do with Georgie Jr. that the transfer
isn't anamorphic. He may have a say on widescreen, but not 16x9
enhancement.
It simply is Warner Bros. policy (why, I'll never know) that all 1.66 movies
will be non-anamorphic.

See Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon for examples.

Richard C says:


> See...you did miss the point. If it were anamorphic it would<
> appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as 1.85:1 <
> appears to. < Richard C


Richard you just joined the screen-filling fraternity.


Max Christoffersen