Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Mulan - Family Friendly Widescreen Aspect Ratio 1.66:1 - Enhanced???

Reply
Thread Tools

Mulan - Family Friendly Widescreen Aspect Ratio 1.66:1 - Enhanced???

 
 
Rutgar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2004
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 06:41:14 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 02:56:55 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:30:42 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>The point is what you are seeing, which is an uncropped 1.66:1 image.

>>
>> No, the point is: I don't care if it's 1.85.1, 1.77.1, or 1.66.1.

>
>As long as you don't care which it actually is, then you shouldn't mind
>admitting that you were wrong about it being cropped.
>
>-Jay


Is that what this is about with you? Whether your right or wrong?

What a dipshit.

- Rutgar
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jay G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2004
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:42:38 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 06:41:14 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 02:56:55 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>>> No, the point is: I don't care if it's 1.85.1, 1.77.1, or 1.66.1.

>>
>>As long as you don't care which it actually is, then you shouldn't mind
>>admitting that you were wrong about it being cropped.

>
> Is that what this is about with you? Whether your right or wrong?
>
> What a dipshit.


You seem to care more about the aspect ratio than you claim. After all, 4
separate people told you the correct ratio was 1.66:1, yet you still
insisted you were right. And now you've reduced yourself to petty insults.

-Jay
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rutgar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2004
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 16:55:48 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:42:38 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 06:41:14 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 02:56:55 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>>>> No, the point is: I don't care if it's 1.85.1, 1.77.1, or 1.66.1.
>>>
>>>As long as you don't care which it actually is, then you shouldn't mind
>>>admitting that you were wrong about it being cropped.

>>
>> Is that what this is about with you? Whether your right or wrong?
>>
>> What a dipshit.

>
>You seem to care more about the aspect ratio than you claim. After all, 4
>separate people told you the correct ratio was 1.66:1, yet you still
>insisted you were right. And now you've reduced yourself to petty insults.
>
>-Jay


If you check back through everything WE wrote, you will see that I
acknowledged that you were probably correct. It was only after I
said those three aspect ratios make no difference "to me", as long as
they're anamorphic, and you started harping about being right or
wrong, that I rightly pointed out that you're a dipshit.

- Rutgar
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2004
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:38:37 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 16:55:48 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>You seem to care more about the aspect ratio than you claim. After all, 4
>>separate people told you the correct ratio was 1.66:1, yet you still
>>insisted you were right. And now you've reduced yourself to petty insults.

>
> If you check back through everything WE wrote, you will see that I
> acknowledged that you were probably correct.


You said it was possible, you never said it was correct.

> It was only after I said those three aspect ratios make
> no difference "to me", as long as they're anamorphic,


Which is odd, since you posted on this thread wondering whether Mulan had
the correct aspect ratio at 1.66:1 instead of 1.85:1. If it truly made no
difference, why did you ask?

-Jay
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rutgar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2004
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:43:16 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:38:37 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 16:55:48 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>You seem to care more about the aspect ratio than you claim. After all, 4
>>>separate people told you the correct ratio was 1.66:1, yet you still
>>>insisted you were right. And now you've reduced yourself to petty insults.

>>
>> If you check back through everything WE wrote, you will see that I
>> acknowledged that you were probably correct.

>
>You said it was possible, you never said it was correct.
>

Saying it was possible, was saying you were very likely correct.

>> It was only after I said those three aspect ratios make
>> no difference "to me", as long as they're anamorphic,

>
>Which is odd, since you posted on this thread wondering whether Mulan had
>the correct aspect ratio at 1.66:1 instead of 1.85:1. If it truly made no
>difference, why did you ask?
>
>-Jay


At the time, I didn't know. My only other experience with "known"
1.66:1 titles on DVD was "Barry Lyndon". Which was non-anamorphic,
and gives me a small picture, surrounded by huge black bars on all
sides. A couple of years ago, there was a thread on this group about
Barry Lyndon, and it's 1.66:1 AR. One side was that it "couldn't be
anamorphic", because it would screw up the OAR. The other side said
just the oppisite, and said that you wouldn't lose that much picture
if it 1.66:1 was enhanced. When purchasing Mulan, I noticed the AR,
and that it was enhanced, and thought back to that thread. I wrote my
original post, BEFORE I actually watched Mulan. Between, what was
wrote here, and what I saw, when I actually viewed the film, I
conceded that you were "possibly" correct. Since I have no way of
watching the disk on anything other that my two TV's (I don't have a
DVD player in my PC), to prove or disprove what you said, I then said
it makes "no difference" between 1.85:1, 1.77:1, or 1.66:1 anamorphic
on MY sets. So if you follow what was actually being said in the
thread, instead of getting all worked up over "being right", you would
have seen that you made your point.

- Rutgar
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2004
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:21:53 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>
> it makes "no difference" between 1.85:1, 1.77:1, or 1.66:1 anamorphic
> on MY sets.


It makes no difference in the viewing area filled, since the black bars on
1.85:1 and 1.66:1 aspect ratio films are lost to overscan. However, it
does make a difference in the image shown on the screen. For example, on
the new Mulan DVD you will see mare image with the uncropped 1.66:1 image
on your TV than you would've with the previous 1.85:1 DVD, even though they
both apparently fill the screen.

-Jay
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rutgar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2004
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 21:11:04 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:21:53 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>>
>> it makes "no difference" between 1.85:1, 1.77:1, or 1.66:1 anamorphic
>> on MY sets.

>
>It makes no difference in the viewing area filled, since the black bars on
>1.85:1 and 1.66:1 aspect ratio films are lost to overscan. However, it
>does make a difference in the image shown on the screen. For example, on
>the new Mulan DVD you will see mare image with the uncropped 1.66:1 image
>on your TV than you would've with the previous 1.85:1 DVD, even though they
>both apparently fill the screen.
>
>-Jay



I think were getting back to that "tree" thing again.

- Rutgar
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2004
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:22:22 GMT, Rutgar wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 21:11:04 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:21:53 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>>>
>>> it makes "no difference" between 1.85:1, 1.77:1, or 1.66:1 anamorphic
>>> on MY sets.

>>
>>It makes no difference in the viewing area filled, since the black bars on
>>1.85:1 and 1.66:1 aspect ratio films are lost to overscan. However, it
>>does make a difference in the image shown on the screen. For example, on
>>the new Mulan DVD you will see mare image with the uncropped 1.66:1 image
>>on your TV than you would've with the previous 1.85:1 DVD, even though they
>>both apparently fill the screen.

>
> I think were getting back to that "tree" thing again.


The tree metaphor doesn't work, since other people do notice the
difference.

-Jay
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rutgar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2004
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:02:25 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:22:22 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 21:11:04 -0600, "Jay G." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:21:53 GMT, Rutgar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> it makes "no difference" between 1.85:1, 1.77:1, or 1.66:1 anamorphic
>>>> on MY sets.
>>>
>>>It makes no difference in the viewing area filled, since the black bars on
>>>1.85:1 and 1.66:1 aspect ratio films are lost to overscan. However, it
>>>does make a difference in the image shown on the screen. For example, on
>>>the new Mulan DVD you will see mare image with the uncropped 1.66:1 image
>>>on your TV than you would've with the previous 1.85:1 DVD, even though they
>>>both apparently fill the screen.

>>
>> I think were getting back to that "tree" thing again.

>
>The tree metaphor doesn't work, since other people do notice the
>difference.
>
>-Jay


Not on my TV's, they wouldn't.

- Rutgar
 
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
How to keep aspect ratio of image inside an ImageButton control? Arthur Hsu ASP .Net 5 12-08-2004 12:51 AM
Newbie: Image button aspect ratio =?Utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgV2hpdGNodXJjaC1CZW5uZXR0?= ASP .Net 5 11-07-2004 11:32 PM
Mulan Box set Dragon DVD Video 0 11-07-2004 05:06 PM
Re: Brother Bear DVD: "Family Friendly" Aspect Ratio. Brandon Wolgast DVD Video 0 04-04-2004 10:38 PM
FA: Mulan OOP Vesuvius \(was Columbia Ho\) DVD Video 1 09-07-2003 06:00 PM



Advertisments