Lawsuit over fake widescreen

What happened to the lawsuit about soft-matted films being
marketed as "widescreen"?

Mark Gold

"Mark Gold" <> wrote in message
news:bthmb6$t7c$...
: What happened to the lawsuit about soft-matted films being
: marketed as "widescreen"?
:
============================
Hopefully it was dismissed outright.

Richard C.

In article <bthmb6$t7c$>, says...
>
>
>What happened to the lawsuit about soft-matted films being
>marketed as "widescreen"?

I have noticed some DVDs are spelling out "matted" on the box. Maybe
this is a result.

I sense most consumers are totally ignorant about movie aspect ratios
and the various methods of transfer to video, and moviephiles trying to
simplify things to "letterbox vs pan & scan" isn't helping. Even on
Usenet once in a while you see someone astonished that they can see more
of the picture on a fullscreen video as opposed to widescreen, or
wondering why Wizard of Oz has only been available in pan & scan...

Plus some people buy widescreen TV's because they're "in" and have no
concept how to use them. I watched "Brother Where Art Thou" on about a
70" widescreen TV; they had the DVD set to non-anamorphic and the TV to
"stretch", so the black bars were still there, just everthing was too
wide. I complained about it and the people said they thought it was
"more cinematic" with the bars...

Suggestions? Maybe standardize DVD labeling to try and clarify things,
and include a digital flag to automatically set widescreen televisions.

---
Monte Castleman, <<Spamfilter in Use>>
Bloomington, MN to email, remove the "q" from my address

Monte Castleman

"Mark Gold" <> wrote in message
news:bthmb6$t7c$...
> What happened to the lawsuit about soft-matted films being
> marketed as "widescreen"?

Laughed out of court, I'd assume.

Joshua Zyber

I hope this makes for clearer labeling and explanation on part of the
video companies though.

Mike

Joshua Zyber wrote:
>
> "Mark Gold" <> wrote in message
> news:bthmb6$t7c$...
> > What happened to the lawsuit about soft-matted films being
> > marketed as "widescreen"?
>
> Laughed out of court, I'd assume.

Michael Rogers

If they just released EVERY movie in OAR only, it would not be a problem.

=============
"Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
news:...
: I hope this makes for clearer labeling and explanation on part of the
: video companies though.
:
: Mike
:
: Joshua Zyber wrote:
: >
: > "Mark Gold" <> wrote in message
: > news:bthmb6$t7c$...
: > > What happened to the lawsuit about soft-matted films being
: > > marketed as "widescreen"?
: >
: > Laughed out of court, I'd assume.

Richard C.

I'm talking about open matte and why the uninformed viewer would feel
"cheated" if they were to see an unmatted movie compared to a properly
matted movie on DVD.

I think a lot of the "widescreen versions cut off the top and bottom of
the picture" misinformation come from the confusion over open matte
material.

They get a "widescreen" dvd of an open matte film, then catch some of
that movie on HBO and see more information at the top and bottom.

Then, thye think all widescreen DVD's are like that even if they are
from 2.35 films.

Mike

"Richard C." wrote:
>
> If they just released EVERY movie in OAR only, it would not be a problem.
>
> =============
> "Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> : I hope this makes for clearer labeling and explanation on part of the
> : video companies though.
> :
> : Mike
> :
> : Joshua Zyber wrote:
> : >
> : > "Mark Gold" <> wrote in message
> : > news:bthmb6$t7c$...
> : > > What happened to the lawsuit about soft-matted films being
> : > > marketed as "widescreen"?
> : >
> : > Laughed out of court, I'd assume.

Michael Rogers

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 03:01:07 GMT, Michael Rogers wrote in alt.video.dvd:

> I think a lot of the "widescreen versions cut off the top and bottom
> of the picture" misinformation come from the confusion over open matte
> material.

I've tried educating some people, but most just complain that they
aren't using their TV to it's fullest extent with widescreen material.
They don't care if it's in OAR or not, they just want their TV filled...

--
- Cods


(un ROT-13 to email)

Codswallop

As I said: "If they just released EVERY movie in OAR only, it would not be a
problem"

Meaning on EVERY medium, including TV
===========
"Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
news:...
: I'm talking about open matte and why the uninformed viewer would feel
: "cheated" if they were to see an unmatted movie compared to a properly
: matted movie on DVD.
:
: I think a lot of the "widescreen versions cut off the top and bottom of
: the picture" misinformation come from the confusion over open matte
: material.
:
: They get a "widescreen" dvd of an open matte film, then catch some of
: that movie on HBO and see more information at the top and bottom.
:
: Then, thye think all widescreen DVD's are like that even if they are
: from 2.35 films.
:
: Mike
:
: "Richard C." wrote:
: >
: > If they just released EVERY movie in OAR only, it would not be a problem.
: >
: > =============
: > "Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
: > news:...
: > : I hope this makes for clearer labeling and explanation on part of the
: > : video companies though.
: > :
: > : Mike
: > :
: > : Joshua Zyber wrote:
: > : >
: > : > "Mark Gold" <> wrote in message
: > : > news:bthmb6$t7c$...
: > : > > What happened to the lawsuit about soft-matted films being
: > : > > marketed as "widescreen"?
: > : >
: > : > Laughed out of court, I'd assume.

Richard C.

Michael Rogers <> wrote:

>I hope this makes for clearer labeling and explanation on part of the
>video companies though.

One thing they could do is put the year of release onto the
package itself; having to look it up at imdb.com is stupid.

Mark Gold