Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Aaron J. Bossig, Jun 23, 2003.

  1. "Richard C." <> said:

    > What an incredible disappointment!
    >
    > Just put this in to play last night and it is not anamorphic.
    > 1.66:1 is one of the worst aspects to not have anamorphic.
    > There is no way to expand it without stretching or cropping on a 16:9 set.
    >
    > Damn that WB! Why would they do this?


    Why not just view it directly, no stretching or cropping?



    --
    Aaron J. Bossig

    http://www.GodsLabRat.com
    http://www.daily-reviews.com
     
    Aaron J. Bossig, Jun 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aaron J. Bossig

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Aaron J. Bossig" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Just put this in to play last night and it is not anamorphic.
    > > 1.66:1 is one of the worst aspects to not have anamorphic.
    > > There is no way to expand it without stretching or cropping on a

    16:9 set.
    > >
    > > Damn that WB! Why would they do this?

    >
    > Why not just view it directly, no stretching or cropping?


    On a 16:9 set, a non-anamorphic 1.66:1 image will have black bars on top
    and bottom and gray bars on the sides. It's really a quite shitty way to
    view a movie. Had they properly windowboxed the movie with anamorphic
    enhancement, it both increases the resolution and makes a nice fit for a
    widescreen TV without losing picture information.

    - Josh
     
    Joshua Zyber, Jun 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:23:35 GMT, Aaron J. Bossig <> wrote:

    >"Richard C." <> said:
    >
    >> What an incredible disappointment!
    >>
    >> Just put this in to play last night and it is not anamorphic.
    >> 1.66:1 is one of the worst aspects to not have anamorphic.
    >> There is no way to expand it without stretching or cropping on a 16:9 set.
    >>
    >> Damn that WB! Why would they do this?

    >
    >Why not just view it directly, no stretching or cropping?



    They'd be expecting that and RC would have nothing to bitch about.
     
    Dr. Speedbyrd:>, Jun 24, 2003
    #3
  4. Aaron J. Bossig

    Richard C. Guest

    "Sydney Assbasket " <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : Will 16:9 TV manufacturers soon come out with a 1.66:1 mode?
    :
    ==========================
    They have one now.........
    It is called "full" and it is the same mode used for ANY anamorphic DVD.
    ============================
     
    Richard C., Jun 24, 2003
    #4
  5. Aaron J. Bossig

    Richard C. Guest

    "Dr. Speedbyrd:>" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:23:35 GMT, Aaron J. Bossig <> wrote:
    :
    : >"Richard C." <> said:
    : >
    : >> What an incredible disappointment!
    : >>
    : >> Just put this in to play last night and it is not anamorphic.
    : >> 1.66:1 is one of the worst aspects to not have anamorphic.
    : >> There is no way to expand it without stretching or cropping on a 16:9 set.
    : >>
    : >> Damn that WB! Why would they do this?
    : >
    : >Why not just view it directly, no stretching or cropping?
    :
    :
    : They'd be expecting that and RC would have nothing to bitch about.

    =======================
    I AM viewing it directly.
    That is why I am bitching.
    A non-anamorphic 1.66:1 movie on a 16:9 set has black ALL around it.
    It is windowboxed and only fills about 66% of the screen.
    If it were anamorphic, it would not be cropped, stretched, or altered in any other
    way and it would fill 95% of the screen.
    Zooming it (as you can do with a 1.85:1 movie) will crop the picture top and bottom -
    not acceptable.
    Anyone with a 16:9 set would know what the problem is.
    =========================
     
    Richard C., Jun 24, 2003
    #5
  6. Aaron J. Bossig

    Bil Gonzalez Guest

    "Dr. Speedbyrd:>" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:46:32 -0700, "Richard C." <>

    wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Aaron J. Bossig" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >: "Richard C." <> said:
    > >:
    > >: > What an incredible disappointment!
    > >: >
    > >: > Just put this in to play last night and it is not anamorphic.
    > >: > 1.66:1 is one of the worst aspects to not have anamorphic.
    > >: > There is no way to expand it without stretching or cropping on a 16:9

    set.
    > >: >
    > >: > Damn that WB! Why would they do this?
    > >:
    > >: Why not just view it directly, no stretching or cropping?
    > >:
    > >======================
    > >I will have to, but it is only 66% of the size it could

    be................
    > >

    >
    >
    > Size isn't everything... ;)


    Your comment is ironic, considering the name of the film....
     
    Bil Gonzalez, Jun 24, 2003
    #6
    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. Richard  C.

    Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    Richard C., Jun 23, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    2,161
    DRutsala
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. MarkZimmerman

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    MarkZimmerman, Jun 24, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    860
    MarkZimmerman
    Jun 24, 2003
  3. Brockhurst Pertwee

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    Brockhurst Pertwee, Jun 25, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    780
    Richard C.
    Jun 26, 2003
  4. Brockhurst Pertwee

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    Brockhurst Pertwee, Jun 26, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    784
    Brockhurst Pertwee
    Jun 26, 2003
  5. DRutsala

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    DRutsala, Jul 5, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    378
    John Harkness
    Jul 5, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page