I have a regular 27" TV, and it’s just fine for watching widescreen movies. Now, admittedly, on my previous 19" set a widescreen film could be a bit hard to handle, but i think that 27" is easily big enough to see a widescreen picture clearly.
And, in terms of the quality of the experience, there’s really no comparison, IMO.
Well, obviously when transferring from the big screen to the small screen you lose something. Would you rather lose content or a little resolution? Myself, I’d rather lose a little resolution and have the entire movie in Wide Screen, than to see some butchered version in the so-called “Full Screen”.
Lindy Hopper & mhendo, What Mfg. of television do you own? Mrs. Roboto and I own a 27 inch Samsung and the Widescreen format is brutally small. I can’t beleive that we are not viewing the same demensions unless your Mfg. has some built in Compensators.
In defense of the OP, most chick flicks don’t require widescreen. They’re not works of art that can be destroyed by cutting off the sides of the picture. They’re just fluff entertainment.
But I prefer widescreen for everything, even on my 14" TV.
I watch almost everything on a 19" Sharp TV and widescreen, even 2.35:1, looks fine to me.
I wouldn’t be so cavalier with your “awesomes”.
You’re talking about Lawrence of Arabia, a movie that was filmed on 70mm stock in 2.2:1 aspect ratio. And your effective screen height is about 7 inches.
While you’re certainly getting something out of the movie that a “fullscreen viewer” isn’t, there are people watching it in fullscreen that are getting more out of that movie than you are.
Until David Lean shows up and says otherwise, don’t be so sure you are seeing that movie as the director intended any more than a fullscreen viewer is.
Roboto- Most TVs(especially small ones), don’t have anything built in to compensate for the difference in picture-they just play what’s fed in to them. A 16:9 image viewed on a regular 4:3 screen is a touch smaller, but you get almost all of the side images that are shorn off in Pan-and-Scan.
Even when I had a 4:3 TV I appreciated Widescreen movies more. Admittedly, it was a 36" screen, so the image shrink didn’t affect me like it affects you. Now when watching a P&S movie though, the effects are so annoyingly obvious and it drives me up the wall.
Sam
Those like mhendo may be closer to the television, making it easier to tolerate the widescreen format on a 27" pan 'n scan. If you’re sitting say, 5 ft further then mhendo usually does, it’ll be hard to see, whatever the ratio may be.
Care to explain how getting 33% less picture affords a viewer “more”.
I would assume the director intended us to see the movie as he shot it. I doubt he’d say “Hey, all that stuff on the sides is just crap. I only used panoramic shots because they gave me a free crane! If you can, get a magnifying glass and just watch Peter and Omar’s faces. It’s way more better that way!”
This could be the key.
I’m in a Baltimore rowhouse, which is fairly narrow. While the loungeroom is not especially small, the walls and entrances are arranged in such a fashion that only a few permutations of couch and TV arrangement are possible.
As it’s currently set up, my typical viewing distance from the screen is about 7 feet. If the couch were 3 or 4 feet further from the TV, my widescreen viewing experience might not be so acceptable.
I’m not claiming, either, that my 27" screen gives me a theater-like experience. I’;m just saying that it’s perfectly good enough to see the movie clearly, and that it’s infintely preferable to watching pan-and-scan versions. And, as i suggested before, 27" looks pretty good after the 19" TV that was there a year ago.
I take home these widescreen movies and it’s *what the fuck?? * half my screen is black?? Goddammit, I paid *good money * for this TV and it pisses me off that I don’t get to use all of it - every fucking inch - because of some director’s “vision”. Sonsa bitches. Fuckers.
Yeah, right. The OP is pitting the wrong format. Pan-and-scan sucks.
Sure, right after you explain how a picture displayed over about 160 square inches of screen captures the same amount of detail as a picture displayed over 300 square inches of television screen.
Yeah, and I doubt he’d say, “well, even though I decided to use 70mm and include shots where I do something like focus in on a grain of sand, I don’t really care about detail at all as long as you get to see a few more inches of DESERT and SKY.”
Not this shit again.
I certainly support your right to choose what style of home video you wish to watch.
However, you can have my widescreen DVD’s and LD’s after you pry them from my cold, dead, and decomposing fingers. 
You’re talking about resolution vs. content. Apples and oranges. I’m watching an old VHS copy of the widescreen version on a 27" RCA. You’re watching the DVD of the fullscreen version on a 42" Plasma screen. Which one of us is seeing the movie closer to the way David Lean shot it?
Same argument, different paragraph.
Well, I had a post about this, but Ponder Stibbons and Dante beat me to it. The resolution seems good enough for me, and the content is what David Lean intended. And by my calculations, the “effective screen height” is about 10 inches.
Mr. Roboto: not only is it a 27" Magnavox, but it’s almost 10 years old.
Damn straight.
And remember, we like our shit long and thin, just like the maker intended. Now of that compact, 4:3 shit.
No shit.
That’s the ENTIRE debate. Do you want an apple, or an orange?
Do you want to sacrifice resolution for content or sacrifice content for resolution?
Some of you, apparently, aren’t seeing the other side.
I prefer my shit in widescreen too, but some of you are acting like you’re not sacrificing anything by watching it that way. That’s ridiculous.
I have a widescreen TV. All of my widescreen DVDs show black bars somewhere. I’ve read the manual for the TV. I’ve read the manual for the DVD player. No matter what buttons I push on either the TV or DVD player remotes, I still have black bars to a greater or lesser degree.
Maybe I’m a moron and haven’t found the right combination of buttons, but I do remember reading that “widescreen” doesn’t necessarily mean exactly 16:9…
eh.
Ah, now I see your point.
I choose content, obviously. I think it’s far more important than the extra couple of lines of resolution you’d get from your average 400 line TV by switching to full screen.