4x3 is better than 16x9 !

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by def456, Jul 26, 2007.

  1. def456

    def456 Guest

    I've done some comparisons between the 4x3 and 16x9 versions when both are
    offered on the same DVD, usually on the flip side, sometimes on the same
    side via a menu selection. For example Annie Hall and Rocky 3. Look at
    Woody's monolog at the start of the film. You can see 2-3 buttons on his
    shirt with the 4x3 version, but barely 1 button with the 16x9 version. You
    don't lose anything significant with the 4x3 version, which is slightly
    cropped on the sides, but very little. Maybe only about 5-10% of the width
    of the 4x3 version is cropped off. However the tops of people's heads are
    typically cut off with the 16x9 versions. I estimate that at least 25% of
    the vertical heighth is cropped to make it into a 16x9 image.

    So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
    bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those areas
    were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more real
    content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.

    I think that what we have here is a big promotion to buy the new expensive
    16x9 televisions that cost over $1,000. To provide them with something to
    watch in the same size, films are being hacked to death to fit that size
    artificially. It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to fit
    the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
    beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.

    The 7:3 versions (usually called 2.35:1) are another ballgame entirely.
    def456, Jul 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising


  2. > So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
    > bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those areas
    > were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more real
    > content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.
    >
    > I think that what we have here is a big promotion to buy the new expensive
    > 16x9 televisions that cost over $1,000. To provide them with something to
    > watch in the same size, films are being hacked to death to fit that size
    > artificially. It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to fit
    > the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
    > beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.


    I believe you are referring to 4x3 movies that have
    been "matted" (or whatever the phrase is) to 16x9
    in which case you are probably correct.

    Video that was shot widescreen is what the whole move
    to 16x9 tvs and having more than 4:3 is all about.

    Just my 2 cents...


    drc :)

    =====
    Photography, video and media services
    visit us: www.dragonfyrephoto.com

    AOL users! - please use a separate
    browser such as Firefox when visiting
    Darrel Christenson, Jul 26, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. def456

    Stuart Guest

    "def456" <> wrote in message
    news:__8qi.51$...
    > I've done some comparisons between the 4x3 and 16x9 versions when both are
    > offered on the same DVD, usually on the flip side, sometimes on the same
    > side via a menu selection. For example Annie Hall and Rocky 3. Look at
    > Woody's monolog at the start of the film. You can see 2-3 buttons on his
    > shirt with the 4x3 version, but barely 1 button with the 16x9 version. You
    > don't lose anything significant with the 4x3 version, which is slightly
    > cropped on the sides, but very little. Maybe only about 5-10% of the width
    > of the 4x3 version is cropped off. However the tops of people's heads are
    > typically cut off with the 16x9 versions. I estimate that at least 25% of
    > the vertical heighth is cropped to make it into a 16x9 image.
    >
    > So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
    > bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those
    > areas were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more
    > real content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.
    >
    > I think that what we have here is a big promotion to buy the new expensive
    > 16x9 televisions that cost over $1,000. To provide them with something to
    > watch in the same size, films are being hacked to death to fit that size
    > artificially. It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to
    > fit the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
    > beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.
    >
    > The 7:3 versions (usually called 2.35:1) are another ballgame entirely.
    >


    What you need to do is look at a DVD that has the notation anamorphic on it
    and then do a comparison to a 4;3 release. Sometimes so called 16:9 releases
    are either cropped 4:3 or the original film was deliberately framed for
    cinema cropping, so called widescreen releases in the 1950's and later.
    There is a full description and historical account of this sorry state at
    http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
    Stuart, Jul 27, 2007
    #3
  4. def456

    Impmon Guest

    On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:45:55 -0500, Darrel Christenson
    <> wrote:

    >I believe you are referring to 4x3 movies that have
    >been "matted" (or whatever the phrase is) to 16x9
    >in which case you are probably correct.
    >
    >Video that was shot widescreen is what the whole move
    >to 16x9 tvs and having more than 4:3 is all about.
    >
    >Just my 2 cents...


    Yes. Most of the recent movies (past 30 years or so I think) were
    shot in 16x9 format and for those movies, often time the sides were
    chopped off to fit a 4x3 TV. A few movies were done both with release
    to TV in mind. A good example is Harry Potter movies.

    In the first movie, in 4x3 mode you can see the whole letter Harry was
    reading about acceptance to Hogswart. in 16x9 (which appeared in
    movie theater) you can't see the bottom part of the letter. But there
    are a lot of scenes where 16x9 would be better than 4x3 like showing
    more of the crowd and landscape

    It's a matter of preference but considering 4x3 TV are about to be
    extinct when NTSC standard is discontinued next year, chances are
    people would be forced to get wide screen TV for their next purchase.
    By then, basic wide screen TV should be much cheaper.

    I do pity those who invested a lot in 4x3 only DVDs, it won't look
    good on wide screen TV. The picture could be centered with black bars
    on the sides, the picture could be stretched and look ugly, there
    could be "smart" stretching where the center area is correct
    proportion but edges are pulled. People with sharp eyes would notice
    distortion. Finally the TV could enlarge the picture to eliminate
    blank side by chopping off top and bottom and you'd lose a lot of
    viewing area compared to actual wide screen movies.

    When possible I bought the wide screen version so I can view it as it
    appeared in movie theaters.
    Impmon, Jul 27, 2007
    #4
  5. def456

    Richard C. Guest

    Stump!

    Dumb!

    ============================
    "def456" <> wrote in message
    news:__8qi.51$...
    > I've done some comparisons between the 4x3 and 16x9 versions when both are
    > offered on the same DVD, usually on the flip side, sometimes on the same
    > side via a menu selection. For example Annie Hall and Rocky 3. Look at
    > Woody's monolog at the start of the film. You can see 2-3 buttons on his
    > shirt with the 4x3 version, but barely 1 button with the 16x9 version. You
    > don't lose anything significant with the 4x3 version, which is slightly
    > cropped on the sides, but very little. Maybe only about 5-10% of the width
    > of the 4x3 version is cropped off. However the tops of people's heads are
    > typically cut off with the 16x9 versions. I estimate that at least 25% of
    > the vertical heighth is cropped to make it into a 16x9 image.
    >
    > So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
    > bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those
    > areas were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more
    > real content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.
    >
    > I think that what we have here is a big promotion to buy the new expensive
    > 16x9 televisions that cost over $1,000. To provide them with something to
    > watch in the same size, films are being hacked to death to fit that size
    > artificially. It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to
    > fit the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
    > beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.
    >
    > The 7:3 versions (usually called 2.35:1) are another ballgame entirely.
    >
    Richard C., Jul 27, 2007
    #5
  6. def456

    Richard C. Guest

    "Stuart" <stuart€@whodunnit8.com> wrote in message
    news:yicqi.12442$...
    >
    > What you need to do is look at a DVD that has the notation anamorphic on
    > it and then do a comparison to a 4;3 release. Sometimes so called 16:9
    > releases are either cropped 4:3 or the original film was deliberately
    > framed for cinema cropping, so called widescreen releases in the 1950's
    > and later. There is a full description and historical account of this
    > sorry state at http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

    ===================

    WRONG!

    So wrong, I do not know where to start.
    Anamorphic DVDs and Anamorphic lenses for filming
    are similar in concept, but are not the same thing.

    ===============================
    Richard C., Jul 27, 2007
    #6
  7. On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:11:23 -0500, "def456" <> wrote:

    >I've done some comparisons between the 4x3 and 16x9 versions when both are
    >offered on the same DVD, usually on the flip side, sometimes on the same
    >side via a menu selection.


    From your post title... you are completely full of shit with this
    ridiculous contention.

    SNIP

    For example Annie Hall and Rocky 3. Look at
    >Woody's monolog at the start of the film. You can see 2-3 buttons on his
    >shirt with the 4x3 version, but barely 1 button with the 16x9 version. You
    >don't lose anything significant with the 4x3 version, which is slightly
    >cropped on the sides, but very little. Maybe only about 5-10% of the width
    >of the 4x3 version is cropped off. However the tops of people's heads are
    >typically cut off with the 16x9 versions. I estimate that at least 25% of
    >the vertical heighth is cropped to make it into a 16x9 image.
    >


    I depends on how the original shots were taken. Not all 2.35:1 AR films
    get shot in such a way that the 4:3 P&S version shows more than the OR
    version. Don't let your lack of understanding of it allow you to become
    jaded.

    >So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
    >bottom of widescreen versions is a good one,


    Bullshit... Too late... You're an idiot.

    > because it's true.


    What I just wrote is what is true.

    > Those areas
    >were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more real
    >content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.


    You are absolutely full of shit, and or a 100% trolling, fucktard.

    >I think that what we have here is a big promotion to buy the new expensive
    >16x9 televisions that cost over $1,000. To provide them with something to
    >watch in the same size, films are being hacked to death to fit that size
    >artificially.


    You are a goddamned idiot. That remark was just too stupid for you to
    be trolling.

    > It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to fit
    >the screen,


    Wrong. The expression for today is ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO.

    > not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
    >beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.


    You are a total retard. You starred in that film, right?

    >The 7:3 versions (usually called 2.35:1) are another ballgame entirely.


    No one refers to 2.35:1 as 7x3.

    4x3 and 16x9 are display device ratios. Film ratios are always
    described as being something to one.
    Spurious Response, Jul 27, 2007
    #7
  8. On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:05:04 -0700, "Richard C." <>
    wrote:

    >
    >Stump!
    >
    >Dumb!



    We!

    Finally!

    Agree!

    Well... except for the

    RETARDED!

    Top-Post!

    **** Off! (had to stay true to form, idiot)
    Spurious Response, Jul 27, 2007
    #8
  9. "def456" <> wrote:

    > It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to fit
    >the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
    >beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.


    You are talking about the "open matte" transfers to home video of films
    that were shot full frame but intended to be matted (have the top and
    bottom blocked) to widescreen dimensions for exhibition. The most famous
    example is Pee Wee's Big Adventure, where the open matte transfer
    absolutely ruins some shots.

    See also
    http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t265499-any-examples-of-how-open-matte-ruins-composition.html

    Of course, there are a few films that actually look better in open matte
    transfers. The Secret of NIMH comes to mind. And I haven't seen the 4:3 DVD
    of the Monkees' movie "Head", but the letterboxed version on TCM looked
    very wrong in many scenes.
    Kimba W. Lion, Jul 27, 2007
    #9
  10. def456

    Jordan Guest

    On Jul 26, 3:11 pm, "def456" <> wrote:

    > So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
    > bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those areas
    > were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more real
    > content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.


    Really? Here are some screen grabs from "Pink Panther Strikes Again",
    one of my favorite flicks.

    16:9 - A Psychiatrist offers a cigar to his newly "cured" patient:
    http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1259/pp01iu4.jpg

    4:3 - A Psychiatrist offers a cigar to a black patent leather shoe:
    http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7378/pp01pjd2.jpg

    16:9 - Detail of the Psychiatrist's office:
    http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3976/pp02lt2.jpg

    4:3 - 1/3rd less detail!
    http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6927/pp02pjx8.jpg

    16:9 - Clouseau collapses in bed:
    http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6966/pp03uy7.jpg

    4:3 - Clouseau and... um, something kind of blue. I guess it's a bed:
    http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2102/pp03pwk4.jpg

    Get the picture? Actually you aren't if you insist on that 4:3 crap...

    - Jordan
    Jordan, Jul 27, 2007
    #10
  11. On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:43:57 -0700, Jordan <> wrote:

    >On Jul 26, 3:11 pm, "def456" <> wrote:
    >
    >> So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
    >> bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those areas
    >> were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more real
    >> content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.

    >
    >Really? Here are some screen grabs from "Pink Panther Strikes Again",
    >one of my favorite flicks.
    >
    >16:9 - A Psychiatrist offers a cigar to his newly "cured" patient:
    >http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1259/pp01iu4.jpg
    >
    >4:3 - A Psychiatrist offers a cigar to a black patent leather shoe:
    >http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7378/pp01pjd2.jpg
    >
    >16:9 - Detail of the Psychiatrist's office:
    >http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3976/pp02lt2.jpg
    >
    >4:3 - 1/3rd less detail!
    >http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6927/pp02pjx8.jpg
    >
    >16:9 - Clouseau collapses in bed:
    >http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6966/pp03uy7.jpg
    >
    >4:3 - Clouseau and... um, something kind of blue. I guess it's a bed:
    >http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2102/pp03pwk4.jpg
    >
    >Get the picture? Actually you aren't if you insist on that 4:3 crap...


    Definitely beat the piss out of the retarded **** with the facts.

    MAYBE he'll feel the same way Nixon did, but I doubt it.

    "Don't confuse me with the facts..." -R.M. Nixon, during the
    Watergate scandal hearings.
    Spurious Response, Jul 27, 2007
    #11
  12. def456

    Stuart Guest

    "def456" <> wrote in message
    news:__8qi.51$...
    > I've done some comparisons between the 4x3 and 16x9 versions when both are
    > offered on the same DVD, usually on the flip side, sometimes on the same
    > side via a menu selection. For example Annie Hall and Rocky 3. Look at
    > Woody's monolog at the start of the film. You can see 2-3 buttons on his
    > shirt with the 4x3 version, but barely 1 button with the 16x9 version. You
    > don't lose anything significant with the 4x3 version, which is slightly
    > cropped on the sides, but very little. Maybe only about 5-10% of the width
    > of the 4x3 version is cropped off. However the tops of people's heads are
    > typically cut off with the 16x9 versions. I estimate that at least 25% of
    > the vertical heighth is cropped to make it into a 16x9 image.
    >
    > So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
    > bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those
    > areas were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more
    > real content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.
    >
    > I think that what we have here is a big promotion to buy the new expensive
    > 16x9 televisions that cost over $1,000. To provide them with something to
    > watch in the same size, films are being hacked to death to fit that size
    > artificially. It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to
    > fit the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
    > beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.
    >
    > The 7:3 versions (usually called 2.35:1) are another ballgame entirely.


    Read and view the examples on this page

    http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/caveat_emptor.htm
    Stuart, Jul 27, 2007
    #12
  13. def456

    def456 Guest

    "Stuart" <stuart€@whodunnit8.com> wrote in message
    news:0Afqi.12480$...
    > Read and view the examples on this page
    > http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/caveat_emptor.htm


    That's an interesting link. I waded through it, but it's a bit too
    complicated and technical for my wee old brain.
    :)

    I just look at the picture and if the tops of their heads are cut off,
    then I know it should have been burned onto the DVD in 4x3 instead of 16x9.
    This happens frequently. I don't know exactly what percentage to put on it -
    but maybe 50% of the time. In other words, I believe that about half of the
    16x9 movies out there are artificial hack jobs, and should really be 4x3.

    Again I won't comment on the 7x3 (2.35:1) format, which is an entirely
    different situation. However they can occasionally be hack jobs too, really
    4x3,
    artificially cropped down to a horizontal sliver. You can call it matting or
    matte process, if you want, but I call it cropping. The edges are cut off
    and discarded.

    Will I ever have a widescreen TV, or a HD TV? Maybe, but they'll have to get
    a lot cheaper! I've never spent more than $200 for a TV and don't expect
    to, in the future. Yes, I archive the widescreen versions of films too, when
    available, considering that possible eventuality. In the meantime my Curtis
    Mathis 25" 4x3 TV still works fine and might continue for many more years.
    def456, Jul 27, 2007
    #13
  14. def456

    Richard C. Guest

    "def456" <> wrote in message
    news:jzlqi.96$...
    >
    > In the meantime my Curtis
    > Mathis 25" 4x3 TV still works fine and might continue for many more years.
    >

    ==============================
    Don't worry - be happy -
    Watch much TV?
    Do you know about February 2009?
    Richard C., Jul 27, 2007
    #14
  15. Spurious Response <> wrote:

    > >16:9 - A Psychiatrist offers a cigar to his newly "cured" patient:
    > >http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1259/pp01iu4.jpg
    > >
    > >4:3 - A Psychiatrist offers a cigar to a black patent leather shoe:
    > >http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7378/pp01pjd2.jpg
    > >
    > >Get the picture? Actually you aren't if you insist on that 4:3 crap...

    >
    > Definitely beat the piss out of the retarded **** with the facts.
    >
    > MAYBE he'll feel the same way Nixon did, but I doubt it.
    >
    > "Don't confuse me with the facts..." -R.M. Nixon, during the
    > Watergate scandal hearings.


    Hey, you noodle-necked moron-tard dickless piratical punk, those
    pictures show a 2.35 aspect ratio, not a 16:9 ration, so is completely
    different than the OP was talking about first; the OP acknowledged that
    2.35 is a different situation than 1.85!
    Walter Traprock, Jul 27, 2007
    #15
  16. "Richard C." <> wrote:

    > "def456" <> wrote in message
    > news:jzlqi.96$...
    > >
    > > In the meantime my Curtis
    > > Mathis 25" 4x3 TV still works fine and might continue for many more years.
    > >

    > ==============================
    > Don't worry - be happy -
    > Watch much TV?
    > Do you know about February 2009?


    2009, when digital broadcasts are mandated, just like they were
    mandated in 2006?

    Or are you trying to say that the 4:3 aspect ratio will soon
    become illegal or something?
    Walter Traprock, Jul 27, 2007
    #16
  17. Impmon <> wrote:

    > It's a matter of preference but considering 4x3 TV are about to be
    > extinct when NTSC standard is discontinued next year, chances are
    > people would be forced to get wide screen TV for their next purchase.
    > By then, basic wide screen TV should be much cheaper.


    That may be the case, tho I reserve the right to grumpily proceed.

    On the other hand, widescreen tvs may flop and become extinct.
    I much prefer watching 4:3, 1.85 and 2.35 material on a 4:3 tv
    than a widescreen tv.

    > I do pity those who invested a lot in 4x3 only DVDs, it won't look
    > good on wide screen TV. The picture could be centered with black bars
    > on the sides, the picture could be stretched and look ugly, there
    > could be "smart" stretching where the center area is correct
    > proportion but edges are pulled. People with sharp eyes would notice
    > distortion. Finally the TV could enlarge the picture to eliminate
    > blank side by chopping off top and bottom and you'd lose a lot of
    > viewing area compared to actual wide screen movies.


    i hate this distortion of image: widescreen tvs ought nought to be
    even *capable* of "stretch".

    > When possible I bought the wide screen version so I can view it as it
    > appeared in movie theaters.


    I do to, it irked me to accidentally rent the fullscreen version of
    the motorcycle diaries, because the widescreen (1.85?) would probably
    have nicely displayed the subtitles on the lower black bar on my
    4.3 tv; i'd have been rather pissed if i had actually bought it, and
    wound up with fullscreen rather than widescreen. 4.3 tvs are
    *ideal* for subtitled 1.85 movies!
    Walter Traprock, Jul 27, 2007
    #17
  18. def456

    GMAN Guest

    In article <>, Walter Traprock <> wrote:
    >Impmon <> wrote:
    >
    >> It's a matter of preference but considering 4x3 TV are about to be
    >> extinct when NTSC standard is discontinued next year, chances are
    >> people would be forced to get wide screen TV for their next purchase.
    >> By then, basic wide screen TV should be much cheaper.

    >
    >That may be the case, tho I reserve the right to grumpily proceed.
    >
    >On the other hand, widescreen tvs may flop and become extinct.


    I very much doubt that. Its the other way around, it will be the 4x3 TV's
    that are destined to extinction.

    Its not HDTV if its not 720p or 1081i/p and those two are Widescreen formats.
    Any other ATSC mode is considered EDTV



    >I much prefer watching 4:3, 1.85 and 2.35 material on a 4:3 tv
    >than a widescreen tv.
    >
    >> I do pity those who invested a lot in 4x3 only DVDs, it won't look
    >> good on wide screen TV. The picture could be centered with black bars
    >> on the sides, the picture could be stretched and look ugly, there
    >> could be "smart" stretching where the center area is correct
    >> proportion but edges are pulled. People with sharp eyes would notice
    >> distortion. Finally the TV could enlarge the picture to eliminate
    >> blank side by chopping off top and bottom and you'd lose a lot of
    >> viewing area compared to actual wide screen movies.

    >
    >i hate this distortion of image: widescreen tvs ought nought to be
    >even *capable* of "stretch".
    >
    >> When possible I bought the wide screen version so I can view it as it
    >> appeared in movie theaters.

    >
    >I do to, it irked me to accidentally rent the fullscreen version of
    >the motorcycle diaries, because the widescreen (1.85?) would probably
    >have nicely displayed the subtitles on the lower black bar on my
    >4.3 tv; i'd have been rather pissed if i had actually bought it, and
    >wound up with fullscreen rather than widescreen. 4.3 tvs are
    >*ideal* for subtitled 1.85 movies!
    GMAN, Jul 27, 2007
    #18
  19. def456

    Mark W Guest

    "def456" <> wrote in message
    news:__8qi.51$...
    > I've done some comparisons between the 4x3 and 16x9 versions when both are
    > offered on the same DVD, usually on the flip side, sometimes on the same
    > side via a menu selection. For example Annie Hall and Rocky 3. Look at
    > Woody's monolog at the start of the film. You can see 2-3 buttons on his
    > shirt with the 4x3 version, but barely 1 button with the 16x9 version. You



    Perhaps you can see the microphone at the top of the picture too in some
    shots. Just as the director intended but wasn't able to bring you in the
    widescreen version.
    Mark W, Jul 27, 2007
    #19
  20. "Mark W" <s@o> wrote:

    > "def456" <> wrote in message
    > news:__8qi.51$...
    > > I've done some comparisons between the 4x3 and 16x9 versions when both are
    > > offered on the same DVD, usually on the flip side, sometimes on the same
    > > side via a menu selection. For example Annie Hall and Rocky 3. Look at
    > > Woody's monolog at the start of the film. You can see 2-3 buttons on his
    > > shirt with the 4x3 version, but barely 1 button with the 16x9 version. You

    >
    >
    > Perhaps you can see the microphone at the top of the picture too in some
    > shots. Just as the director intended but wasn't able to bring you in the
    > widescreen version.


    I assume as fact that the fullscreen versions of School of Rock and Bad
    Santa are not fully full frame because there were microphones on the top
    of the screen in some scenes in the theater I saw them at, and
    presumably they zoomed it out when they issued 4.3 versions of the
    movies.
    Walter Traprock, Jul 27, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. PNeski

    Thin Red Line 16X9???

    PNeski, Nov 24, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    413
    Ted Miller
    Nov 25, 2003
  2. Feck
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    521
  3. BNE
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    483
    Ed Kim
    Oct 29, 2004
  4. No One Realy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    653
    No One Realy
    Sep 19, 2005
  5. dh@.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    460
    PTravel
    Aug 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page