Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

"Richard C." <post-> said:

> 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?

Why not just view it directly, no stretching or cropping?



--
Aaron J. Bossig

http://www.GodsLabRat.com
http://www.daily-reviews.com

Aaron J. Bossig

"Aaron J. Bossig" <> wrote in message
news:...
> > 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?
>
> Why not just view it directly, no stretching or cropping?

On a 16:9 set, a non-anamorphic 1.66:1 image will have black bars on top
and bottom and gray bars on the sides. It's really a quite shitty way to
view a movie. Had they properly windowboxed the movie with anamorphic
enhancement, it both increases the resolution and makes a nice fit for a
widescreen TV without losing picture information.

- Josh

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:23:35 GMT, Aaron J. Bossig <> wrote:

>"Richard C." <post-> said:
>
>> 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?
>
>Why not just view it directly, no stretching or cropping?


They'd be expecting that and RC would have nothing to bitch about.

"Sydney Assbasket " <> wrote in message
news:...
: Will 16:9 TV manufacturers soon come out with a 1.66:1 mode?
:
==========================
They have one now.........
It is called "full" and it is the same mode used for ANY anamorphic DVD.
============================

"Dr. Speedbyrd:>" <e-> wrote in message
news:...
: On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:23:35 GMT, Aaron J. Bossig <> wrote:
:
: >"Richard C." <post-> said:
: >
: >> 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?
: >
: >Why not just view it directly, no stretching or cropping?
:
:
: They'd be expecting that and RC would have nothing to bitch about.

=======================
I AM viewing it directly.
That is why I am bitching.
A non-anamorphic 1.66:1 movie on a 16:9 set has black ALL around it.
It is windowboxed and only fills about 66% of the screen.
If it were anamorphic, it would not be cropped, stretched, or altered in any other
way and it would fill 95% of the screen.
Zooming it (as you can do with a 1.85:1 movie) will crop the picture top and bottom -
not acceptable.
Anyone with a 16:9 set would know what the problem is.
=========================

"Dr. Speedbyrd:>" <e-> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:46:32 -0700, "Richard C." <post->
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Aaron J. Bossig" <> wrote in message
> >news:...
> >: "Richard C." <post-> said:
> >:
> >: > 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?
> >:
> >: Why not just view it directly, no stretching or cropping?
> >:
> >======================
> >I will have to, but it is only 66% of the size it could
be................
> >
>
>
> Size isn't everything...

Your comment is ironic, considering the name of the film....