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

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Brian \Demolition Man\ Little, Sep 1, 2003.

  1. In news:,
    Mark Spatny <> said in a panic:
    > Black Locust, 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
     
    Brian \Demolition Man\ Little, Sep 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Brian "Demolition Man" Little" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Brandon Fisher, Sep 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brian \Demolition Man\ Little

    jayembee Guest

    "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.

    [snip]

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

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Sep 1, 2003
    #3
  4. In news:,
    jayembee <> said in a panic:
    > "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.
    >> [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
     
    Brian \Demolition Man\ Little, Sep 2, 2003
    #4
  5. Brian \Demolition Man\ Little

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "jayembee" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >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.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Sep 2, 2003
    #5
  6. Brian \Demolition Man\ Little

    Mark Spatny Guest

    "Brian \"Demolition Man\" Little" <>,"Brian \"Demolition Man\"
    Little" <> 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.
     
    Mark Spatny, Sep 2, 2003
    #6
  7. Brian \Demolition Man\ Little

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <>,
    Mark Spatny <> 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
     
    Black Locust, Sep 2, 2003
    #7
  8. Brian \Demolition Man\ Little

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Black Locust" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > 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.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Sep 2, 2003
    #8
  9. In news:_u%4b.21828$,
    Joshua Zyber <> said in a panic:
    > "Black Locust" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>> 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
     
    Brian \Demolition Man\ Little, Sep 2, 2003
    #9
  10. 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!)
     
    Derek Janssen, Sep 3, 2003
    #10
    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. Frank Malczewski
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    409
    Frank Malczewski
    Sep 1, 2003
  2. DVDHelp.us
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    633
    jayembee
    Sep 5, 2003
  3. DVDHelp.us
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    580
    Mark Spatny
    Sep 4, 2003
  4. Larry Gold
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    418
    Larry Gold
    Sep 6, 2003
  5. Writer R5
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    536
    Writer R5
    Oct 15, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page