Am I the only one who doesn't give a damn if my DVDs are "widescreen" or not?

[Balduran]

I’m a full-screen man myself. Pan n Scan has never bothered me, but those black bars do.

Some of you widescreen advocates have been insulting and rude. Cut it out.

[SpartanDC]

*Originally posted by Priceguy *
**And when, pray tell, did I say it was a miserable failure? No, I didn’t, did I? I just said it was stupid to not have a floppy drive. It was.

Exqueeeeze me? In case you missed it, I’m arguing in favor of widescreen. This thread isn’t about DVD, it’s about widescreen vs pan-and-scan. **

I’m just trying to say the “no floppy” thing was obviously not the bad idea you thought it was.

And I apologize on my second remark, even if your overall opinion of DVDs still boggles my mind.

[Anamorphic]

*Originally posted by Balduran *
**Some of you widescreen advocates have been insulting and rude. Cut it out. **

Huh? Rude? Wherezat? Seriously, I see a rather civil discussion about the merits of widescreen vs. pan-and-scan; I don’t think it’s gotten rude and insulting at all. The only rude thing was the guy who managed to work in a requisite, stupid swipe at Apple in a thread that isn’t even about computers.

[rjung]

All I know is that the USB floppy drive I bought for my iMac has been unused for over four years now. I don’t think I’ve used it more than ten times since I bought it.

And pan-n-scan is for wusses.

[joshmaker]

Although I can understand why people with very small TVs might not want widescreen, personally, I can’t stand the thought that I am missing things that the director wanted me to see.

Here is an example I found on the web that might help people to evaluate the difference between widescreen and pan and scan: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/6781/EmpireCompare.html
You can find more examples here:http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml

*Originally posted by Keith Berry *
Though, to clear up some confusion, most “Full-Frame” DVD’s are not actually pan-and-scan. Movies made with the 1:85 ratio are usually shot at full camera apeture (bout the size of a TV screen) with the matte bars optically imposed later. So when you rent a “Full-Frame” movie that was shot for 1:85, you actually are seeing more top and bottom image and not missing anything off the sides.

Remember though, the stuff that gets choped out in this case are things the director does not want you to see such as boom mikes. One example of this is in A Fish Called Wanda, where a very funny scene hinges upon John Cleese being naked. However, in the “Full-Frame” version, the joke is ruined because you can tell he is wearing pants! Once again, you are better off with widescreen.

PS, I am a die-hard Mac user, and even I can’t tell what floppy drives have to do with widescreen movies; maybe someone should start a new thread.

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by SNenc *
I’m just trying to say the “no floppy” thing was obviously not the bad idea you thought it was.

Compared to what? It robbed some computer users of a basic functionality, for little or no reason. I can’t imagine the iMac would have been significantly more expensive with a floppy drive in it.

Besides, as I said to spectrum, success isn’t the arbiter of whether something is good or not.

Anyway, joshmaker is right. Let’s kill this hi-jack or start another thread about it.

[spectrum]

I still fail to see how I’ve been harmed by my last three Macs not being saddled with useless floppy disk drives. My last Windows abomination didn’t have a 5 1/2" floppy drive, either. Where’s the anger about that?