Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Re: Angel Season 2 - okay, is it really 1.33:1 or WS???

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Angel Season 2 - okay, is it really 1.33:1 or WS???

 
 
Brian \Demolition Man\ Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2003
In news:(E-Mail Removed) .net,
Mark Spatny <(E-Mail Removed)> said in a panic:
> Black Locust,(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> Likely an error. 1.78:1 is the correct aspect ratio, but it's
>> definitely not "full screen." Read this:

>
> You guys aren't thinking it through, from a modern TV standpoint.
>
> It *IS* full screen, on a modern 1.78:1 (16x9) screen, as opposed to
> 1.85:1, 2.35:1, and 1.33:1 productions, which will have bars one way
> or another.
>
> You've got to start thinking outside the box.


The problem however is going to be with Joe Sixpacks buying
"Angel" Season 2 who don't understand what "aspect ratios" mean.
To them they see "full frame" and they assume "aaawwwwwllllllright,
thiiissee ddaavaaadddeeeeeeeee wille faaayiiieee mae taevae."
Personally I find the use of "full frame" in this case - even tho I
now get it - still inappropriate.

But oh well, as long as its intended screen format then in the end
I'm happy to buy it that way even if I find its labeling a bit annoying.

--
Brian "Demolition Man" Little


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Brandon Fisher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2003

"Brian "Demolition Man" Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The problem however is going to be with Joe Sixpacks buying
> "Angel" Season 2 who don't understand what "aspect ratios" mean.
> To them they see "full frame" and they assume "aaawwwwwllllllright,
> thiiissee ddaavaaadddeeeeeeeee wille faaayiiieee mae taevae."
> Personally I find the use of "full frame" in this case - even tho I
> now get it - still inappropriate.


Maybe they'll just look at it as a gamble - the odds are 1.78:1 that it's
full screen.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jayembee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2003
"Brian \"Demolition Man\" Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The problem however is going to be with Joe Sixpacks buying
>"Angel" Season 2 who don't understand what "aspect ratios" mean.

[snip]

I dunno. An ANGEL season set is not the kind of thing I'd expect Joe
Sixpack to be buying.

-- jayembee
 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian \Demolition Man\ Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2003
In news:(E-Mail Removed),
jayembee <(E-Mail Removed)> said in a panic:
> "Brian \"Demolition Man\" Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> The problem however is going to be with Joe Sixpacks buying
>> "Angel" Season 2 who don't understand what "aspect ratios" mean.
>> [snip]

>
> I dunno. An ANGEL season set is not the kind of thing I'd expect Joe
> Sixpack to be buying.


You might be surprised at who buy's stuff like that at times.

--
Brian "Demolition Man" Little


 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2003
"jayembee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >The problem however is going to be with Joe Sixpacks buying
> >"Angel" Season 2 who don't understand what "aspect ratios" mean.

> [snip]
>
> I dunno. An ANGEL season set is not the kind of thing I'd expect Joe
> Sixpack to be buying.


Maybe if he mistook it for that 70s movie series about the teenage
hooker.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Spatny
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2003
"Brian \"Demolition Man\" Little" <(E-Mail Removed)>,"Brian \"Demolition Man\"
Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> says...
> The problem however is going to be with Joe Sixpacks buying
> "Angel" Season 2 who don't understand what "aspect ratios" mean.
> To them they see "full frame" and they assume "aaawwwwwllllllright,
> thiiissee ddaavaaadddeeeeeeeee wille faaayiiieee mae taevae."
> Personally I find the use of "full frame" in this case - even tho I
> now get it - still inappropriate.


That's why it says 'Full Frame 1.78:1' and not just 'Full Frame'.

This is going to be more and more relevant, and you'll need to be
looking for it more, when we get HD-DVD. Because the studios will be
releasing 2.35:1 films pan & scanned to 1.78:1.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Black Locust
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed) t>,
Mark Spatny <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> That's why it says 'Full Frame 1.78:1' and not just 'Full Frame'.
>
> This is going to be more and more relevant, and you'll need to be
> looking for it more, when we get HD-DVD. Because the studios will be
> releasing 2.35:1 films pan & scanned to 1.78:1.


Oh god I hope not. The one thing I was hoping for more than anything
else is that once HDTV had completely taken over the market, vile pan &
scan would be abolished forever.
--
BL
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2003
"Black Locust" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > This is going to be more and more relevant, and you'll need to be
> > looking for it more, when we get HD-DVD. Because the studios will be
> > releasing 2.35:1 films pan & scanned to 1.78:1.

>
> Oh god I hope not. The one thing I was hoping for more than anything
> else is that once HDTV had completely taken over the market, vile pan

&
> scan would be abolished forever.


HBO-HD already crops all movies to 1.78:1. This is a trend that must be
stopped.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian \Demolition Man\ Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2003
In news:_u%4b.21828$(E-Mail Removed) link.net,
Joshua Zyber <(E-Mail Removed)> said in a panic:
> "Black Locust" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> This is going to be more and more relevant, and you'll need to be
>>> looking for it more, when we get HD-DVD. Because the studios will be
>>> releasing 2.35:1 films pan & scanned to 1.78:1.

>>
>> Oh god I hope not. The one thing I was hoping for more than anything
>> else is that once HDTV had completely taken over the market, vile
>> pan & scan would be abolished forever.

>
> HBO-HD already crops all movies to 1.78:1. This is a trend that must
> be stopped.


HBO-HD in general seems to be the worst HD network so far. I've seen
numerous things from bad picture quality ("Ace Ventura: When Nature
Calls" looked like they were upsampling from a VHS copy it was that bad)
to them putting gray bars on the sides of a 1.78:1 Widescreen formatted
special (making of T3).

I've been very happy with the quality I have seen so far on Showtime HD,
HDNet, and Discovery HD. All three have been great. ESPN HD is a mixed
bag - its great when its supposed to be in HD but otherwise it has the "4:3
broadcast upconverted to 16:9" syndrom. Sad because any true HD broadcast
on ESPN HD looks just great, just like you are there at the football game or
whatever is on.

--
Brian "Demolition Man" Little


 
Reply With Quote
 
Derek Janssen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-03-2003
Brian "Demolition Man" Little wrote:

> The problem however is going to be with Joe Sixpacks buying
> "Angel" Season 2 who don't understand what "aspect ratios" mean.
> To them they see "full frame" and they assume "aaawwwwwllllllright,
> thiiissee ddaavaaadddeeeeeeeee wille faaayiiieee mae taevae."


(Presuming they were...recovering from a really bad stroke, or
something.) 0_o??

Derek Janssen (*I* didn't know Kirk Douglas was an "Angel" fan!)
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dark Angel Season 2 DVD Set Review @ GENRE ONLINE.NET! Writer R5 DVD Video 0 10-15-2003 12:41 AM
Re: Angel Season 2 - okay, is it really 1.33:1 or WS??? Larry Gold DVD Video 0 09-06-2003 01:32 PM
Re: Angel Season 2 - okay, is it really 1.33:1 or WS??? DVDHelp.us DVD Video 13 09-05-2003 03:22 PM
Re: Angel Season 2 - okay, is it really 1.33:1 or WS??? DVDHelp.us DVD Video 3 09-04-2003 01:44 AM
Re: Angel Season 2 - okay, is it really 1.33:1 or WS??? Frank Malczewski DVD Video 0 09-01-2003 04:17 AM



Advertisments