There's no doubt that letterboxing is a negative factor

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Guest, Oct 21, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
    but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a movie
    theater. I'd certainly ask for my money back if a movie were to be
    presented that way. Apparently theater owners agree with me, since they
    always fill the screen, regardless of what difference there might be between
    the aspect ratio of the screen and that of the film.

    When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm acutely
    aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you see a head
    cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety you have a
    slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.

    Norm Strong
     
    Guest, Oct 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    Aphelion Guest

    > When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm acutely
    > aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you see a head
    > cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety you have a
    > slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.


    Total idiot or troll?


    Aphelion
     
    Aphelion, Oct 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Justin Guest

    Aphelion wrote on [Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:20:16 GMT]:
    >> When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm acutely
    >> aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you see a head
    >> cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety you have a
    >> slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.

    >
    > Total idiot or troll?


    Yes.
     
    Justin, Oct 21, 2005
    #3
  4. Guest

    Matt Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
    > but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a
    > movie theater. I'd certainly ask for my money back if a movie were to be
    > presented that way. Apparently theater owners agree with me, since they
    > always fill the screen, regardless of what difference there might be
    > between the aspect ratio of the screen and that of the film.
    >
    > When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm acutely
    > aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you see a head
    > cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety you have a
    > slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.
    >
    > Norm Strong

    LOL!
    I take this to be a joke.
    Matt
     
    Matt, Oct 21, 2005
    #4
  5. Guest

    Jeff Rife Guest

    () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
    > but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a movie
    > theater.


    You haven't been to many theaters, then.

    There are quite a few that have 1.85:1 screens only, and 2.35:1 movies
    have black bars at the top and bottom.

    Of course, you may have theaters that just let the extra width of a 2.35:1
    movie fall onto the curtains at the side of a 1.85:1 screen. I know I have
    seen this at some screens. If you say this is preferable to letterboxing,
    you're an idiot.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/ClothesHorse.gif
     
    Jeff Rife, Oct 21, 2005
    #5
  6. Guest

    Howard Guest

    "Aphelion" <> wrote in
    news:4z86f.9$:

    >> When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm
    >> acutely aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you
    >> see a head cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety
    >> you have a slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.

    >
    > Total idiot or troll?


    Can't it be both?

    --
    Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
    . Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
    I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
    no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
     
    Howard, Oct 21, 2005
    #6
  7. Guest

    Mark W Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
    > but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a
    > movie theater. I'd certainly ask for my money back if a movie were to be
    > presented that way. Apparently theater owners agree with me, since they
    > always fill the screen, regardless of what difference there might be
    > between the aspect ratio of the screen and that of the film.
    >
    > When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm acutely
    > aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you see a head
    > cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety you have a
    > slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.
    >
    > Norm Strong
    >



    Well, I still have one of those science fiction *round* shaped TV sets, like
    Flash Gordon used to watch, and so I am also aware of the dirty tricks you
    refer to.
     
    Mark W, Oct 21, 2005
    #7
  8. Guest

    P Pron Guest

    Howard wrote:
    || "Aphelion" <> wrote in
    || news:4z86f.9$:
    ||
    |||| When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm
    |||| acutely aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction.
    |||| When you see a head cut off that clearly could have been shown in
    |||| its entirety you have a slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I
    |||| do.
    |||
    ||| Total idiot or troll?
    ||
    || Can't it be both?

    Absolutely - and persistent, too....

    paul
     
    P Pron, Oct 21, 2005
    #8
  9. Guest

    Large Farva Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
    > but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a
    > movie theater.


    Gee, maybe because the screen is a RECTANGLE and not a SQUARE?


    I'd certainly ask for my money back if a movie were to be
    > presented that way.


    I'd ask for my money back if I went to a theater and saw a sqaure screen.
     
    Large Farva, Oct 21, 2005
    #9
  10. On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:55:07 -0700, <> Gave
    us:

    >It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
    >but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a movie
    >theater.


    You're a fucking idiot, boy.

    A movie theater already HAS the correctly shaped screen. A TV is
    not. In order to make the picture fit, letterboxing is required.

    You could be a bit more retarded, but not today.
     
    NunYa Bidness, Oct 21, 2005
    #10
  11. On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:55:07 -0700, <> Gave
    us:

    > Apparently theater owners agree with me, since they
    >always fill the screen, regardless of what difference there might be between
    >the aspect ratio of the screen and that of the film.



    You're an idiot.
     
    NunYa Bidness, Oct 21, 2005
    #11
  12. On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:55:07 -0700, <> Gave
    us:

    >
    >When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm acutely
    >aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you see a head
    >cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety you have a
    >slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.
    >
    >Norm Strong



    You're an utter retard. If the 2.35 to 1 movie is such, it would
    have been in the theaters with the exact same "cut off head" that you
    see on your TV. NOTHING is removed, you idiot. In fact, if it were
    full screen there would be serious removals.

    Get a clue, dumbass.
     
    NunYa Bidness, Oct 21, 2005
    #12
  13. On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:33:43 +0100, "Mark W" <s@o> Gave us:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
    >> but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a
    >> movie theater. I'd certainly ask for my money back if a movie were to be
    >> presented that way. Apparently theater owners agree with me, since they
    >> always fill the screen, regardless of what difference there might be
    >> between the aspect ratio of the screen and that of the film.
    >>
    >> When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm acutely
    >> aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you see a head
    >> cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety you have a
    >> slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.
    >>
    >> Norm Strong
    >>

    >
    >
    >Well, I still have one of those science fiction *round* shaped TV sets, like
    >Flash Gordon used to watch, and so I am also aware of the dirty tricks you
    >refer to.
    >

    You're a friggin' idiot. There were no dirty tricks other than the
    one your mom pulled in order for them to let her take you home from
    the hospital.
     
    NunYa Bidness, Oct 21, 2005
    #13
  14. Guest

    Mark Jones Guest

    Aphelion wrote:
    >> When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm
    >> acutely aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When
    >> you see a head cut off that clearly could have been shown in its
    >> entirety you have a slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.

    >
    > Total idiot or troll?


    Both. Most of what was written was actually incorrect.
     
    Mark Jones, Oct 22, 2005
    #14
  15. Guest

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm
    > acutely aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When
    > you see a head cut off that clearly could have been shown in its
    > entirety you have a slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.


    Have you considered suicide?
     
    Joshua Zyber, Oct 22, 2005
    #15
  16. Guest

    Richard C. Guest

    X-No-archive: yes

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
    > but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a
    > movie theater.

    =======================================
    Then you have not been paying attention.
    =======================================

    > I'd certainly ask for my money back if a movie were to be presented that
    > way. Apparently theater owners agree with me, since they always fill the
    > screen, regardless of what difference there might be between the aspect
    > ratio of the screen and that of the film.
    >

    ====================================
    You should pay attention to how they use the curtains and maskings when
    showing a movie.
    =====================================

    > When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm acutely
    > aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you see a head
    > cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety you have a
    > slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.
    >
    > Norm Strong


    ===============================
    Then you have no knowledge of composition.
     
    Richard C., Oct 22, 2005
    #16
  17. Guest

    jonnydepp Guest

    You wouldn't by chance be from America would you?

    Yes?

    'Nuff said!

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
    > but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a

    movie
    > theater. I'd certainly ask for my money back if a movie were to be
    > presented that way. Apparently theater owners agree with me, since they
    > always fill the screen, regardless of what difference there might be

    between
    > the aspect ratio of the screen and that of the film.
    >
    > When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm acutely
    > aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you see a head
    > cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety you have a
    > slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.
    >
    > Norm Strong
    >
    >
     
    jonnydepp, Oct 22, 2005
    #17
  18. In article <>,
    Jeff Rife <> wrote:
    > () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >> It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
    >> but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a movie
    >> theater.

    >
    >You haven't been to many theaters, then.


    >There are quite a few that have 1.85:1 screens only, and 2.35:1 movies
    >have black bars at the top and bottom.


    >Of course, you may have theaters that just let the extra width of a 2.35:1
    >movie fall onto the curtains at the side of a 1.85:1 screen. I know I have
    >seen this at some screens. If you say this is preferable to letterboxing,
    >you're an idiot.


    I liked the older theatres that had curtains that only exposed the
    amount of screen needed - so they'd pull all the way back for
    the 2.35:1. Of course that was before the current 'stadium
    seating' with screens just almost being the far wall.



    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
     
    Bill Vermillion, Oct 22, 2005
    #18
  19. Guest

    HellRazor Guest

    "NunYa Bidness" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:55:07 -0700, <> Gave
    > us:
    >
    >>It may be necessary to letterbox a movie in order to see the entire frame,
    >>but it isn't a good thing. I've never seen a letterboxed picture in a
    >>movie
    >>theater.

    >
    > You're a fucking idiot, boy.
    >
    > A movie theater already HAS the correctly shaped screen. A TV is
    > not. In order to make the picture fit, letterboxing is required.
    >
    > You could be a bit more retarded, but not today.


    LOL! DORKMATTER IS BACK!

    How ya doin Dorky? Ya miss me?
     
    HellRazor, Oct 22, 2005
    #19
  20. Guest

    HellRazor Guest

    "NunYa Bidness" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:55:07 -0700, <> Gave
    > us:
    >
    >>
    >>When I watch a 2.35:1 letterboxed picture on my 4:3 television I'm acutely
    >>aware of the arbitrary cut in the vertical direction. When you see a head
    >>cut off that clearly could have been shown in its entirety you have a
    >>slightly unpleasant reaction. At least I do.
    >>
    >>Norm Strong

    >
    >
    > You're an utter retard. If the 2.35 to 1 movie is such, it would
    > have been in the theaters with the exact same "cut off head" that you
    > see on your TV. NOTHING is removed, you idiot. In fact, if it were
    > full screen there would be serious removals.
    >
    > Get a clue, dumbass.


    Too bad someone doesn't do us all a favor and cut off YOUR head, you poor
    retarded ****!
     
    HellRazor, Oct 22, 2005
    #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. Joshua Lim
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    652
    Joshua Lim
    Jun 11, 2005
  2. Silverstrand

    An Introduction to Thermaltake's BTX Form Factor Cases

    Silverstrand, Jan 23, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    747
    Silverstrand
    Jan 23, 2006
  3. Hackworth

    Baby-AT/mATX dual-form-factor case needed

    Hackworth, Oct 6, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    585
    Hackworth
    Oct 6, 2004
  4. amiranj.dev
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    754
    amiranj.dev
    May 22, 2007
  5. Buffalo

    Re: Just in case there was any doubt

    Buffalo, Dec 30, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    408
    Aardvark
    Dec 31, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page