Netscape 6, since watching dynamite or firecrackers sounds pretty boring to me, I really don’t care. Apparently you prefer seeing a single decent special effect than an entire movie, and I guess that’s a chasm that can never be bridged.
it wasn’t me that was whooashed this time. 
if read me post you will notice the bit about plot coming first (english assumed of course).
The dynamite and fire crackers was a mediphore. Although dynamite and other large explosions are cool for a special treat. The fourth of july fireworks would have no one to come look at them otherwise and plenty seem to.
Yeah, but you didn’t explain how losing a third of the movie enhances the plot, only the special effects. Also, it’s metaphor, not mediphore, and using initial caps isn’t a crime.
it does not enhance the plot but it does not take away from it either, well in most cases anyway, admitadly there might be a few cases here more then one thing the plot was dependent on was happening in the shot on opposite sides and editor had to choose, but what are the chances of that? I think the enhancement to the special effects is worth it.
Also, my spelling sucks, and not using intial caps isn’t a crime either.
Look, fellow widescreen afficionados, there is no point in debating this with netscape 6, since the excerpt above clearly shows that he/she has no interest whatsoever in seeing movies as they were actually crafted by the director and cinematographer. You can lead the horse to water, but you can’t make it think.
when the actual crafting subtracts from my enjoyment of the movie, yes. I’ll agree with that.
well here I have to disagree. I’m sure with proper training you could get a horse solving simple puzzles, heck they trained pigeons to solve what comes next puzzles. Horses are smarter then pigeons. Maybe you could train it to look for seaweed:confused:
I’m definitely somebody who prefers widescreen over fullscreen, but just for the record:
One of these filmmakers is (was) Stanley Kubrick. The official “Kubrick Collection” DVDs are mostly fullscreen presentation, because that’s how Kubrick preferred it; he wanted to use the real estate available to him. On his more recent films, that meant framing his shots in such a way that the theatrical version would have the top and bottom trimmed off the image to fit the cinema screen, while the home video version would have the top and bottom put back with the sides slightly trimmed. In order to do this, he had to frame his shots in the camera such that they would work both ways. Naturally, this is extremely difficult to manage, but Kubrick wasn’t considered a genius for nothing.
The movies he made prior to the consideration of home viewing (including wide syndication of broadcast airings) are primarily composed for cinema purposes, though. 2001 is the best example. Eyes Wide Shut, by contrast, was shot with an eye toward eventual video release.
I was wondering about this just today. I was at BestBuy and they had two copies with different SKUs and prices. Neither said widerscreen or fullscreen though. Good to know.
This was fun, it’s nice to argue about something that not so important on the internet for a change.
I followed the advice on this link:
Projector Central - 4:3 vs 16:9
I can watch both with my projector (NEC 240K). The width of my screen is 73". A full 91" diagonal at 4:3. When I shrink it down to 16:9, I just use the masking function on the projector to darken the top and bottom bars. Works great. I can watch old movies and new and get better picture and sound than in a theatre.
One thing I noticed when shopping around is that a wide screen projector might have a resolution of say 1024x576. A full screen projector might have 1024x768. If you were to watch a 16:9 movie on a full screen projector, the resolution would be something like 1024x576 because of the top and bottom bars. The same as the wide screen projector. But, if you were to watch a full screen movie on a wide screen projector the resolution would be something like 768x576 because of the bars on the side! It would be crappy compared to a full screen projector.
I don’t know what sort of theatres you’ve been watching, but you WILL NEVER get better picture/sound than the huge multiplex’s over here (UK). Fully THX certified, massive screens, DTS ES, 4k+ rigs, etc etc etc.
Certainly better than your average 42" widescreen tv though…
My system has all THX certified components, although the room itself isn’t the best for it. On the plus side I can position myself for optimum sound. As for screen size, you ever watched a 91" screen from 10’ away. It is huge. Not much different from sitting in the middle of a theatre. In addition to this no loud mouth yapping in the seat in front of you (no seat in front of me at home and the only loudmouth is me). No sticky stuff on the floor unless the freshly made carmel pop-corn falls out of the bowl. And most importantly, no waiting for when the damn movie will start and sitting through 15 minutes of previews/commercials. Oh, and I can watch it nude - with the girl friend - with breaks as needed, hehe.
Damn, Uzi. Nice set-up. Yemen? You from an oil-rich family, or do you just reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally love movies?
I am jonesing a projector system. Not a projection t.v., but a true projector. I’ve found this beautiful South Korean curved silver screen material. It is amazing in its contrast ration and color rendition.
Some day…
To show you how seriously I feel about seeing all of the image, when I shoot t.v., my studio viewfinder shows me full-image. Every darned electron. I don’t wanna KNOW from Title-Safe Area. SHOW ME da full image. Always. In all aspect ratios.
As for such extreme cases as 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was shot out there at the hairy edge of 2.66:1 or wider ( I think Super Cinemascope is wider than that ), it’d be fun on a wide screen projector.
No, I just work in Yemen. I live in Canada. I work 5 weeks then have 5 off. 5 weeks off at at time sounds great, but can be pretty boring at times. You need something to fill in the gaps. I don’t watch a whole lot of regular TV programming, so at the time when I was going to purchase a new TV I took a look at how I wanted to use it and figured if I wanted it only for movies then I’d do it right within a reasonable :rolleyes: budget. I didn’t have room for a rear-projection tv other than the newer variety of LCD/DLP. The cost of one of them was the same as the projector, plus you were limited to 43", or 51", for the models I was looking at. So, going with the projector cost the ~same money with 4 times the viewing area!
**
I used this instead of buying a regular screen. It offered the contrast and gain I wanted. DIY . My projector has a contrast ratio of 2000:1, so I thought a real high contrast screen wasn’t necessary but I wanted some contrast because I couldn’t find a definitive source on whether a 2000:1 contrast ratio needed any help by the screen. Also, I wanted a gain of 1. The typical screens from Stewart etc only offered high contrast screens with a gain of .9. As I have a room that can be difficult to darken during the day, I wanted as much image coming back as possible, but still be able to see it from all points in the room. A .9 gain wasn’t acceptable. I settled for the Australian Opal with a gain of 1. The screen glitters when you look at it from the right angles.
I can watch things during the day, but at night it is truly amazing. Lord of the Rings was a new experience that was unlike being in a theatre. And I’ve been in theatres in Hong Kong (where I saw the Two Towers), London (IRRC, the one on the north side of Leiscter(sp?) square), Dubai (where I’ve seen all the Harry Potter movies), in addition to the theatres in Canada.
A long time ago, before I married an uber-geek, and also when the whole letterbox concept was fairly new to most casual moviegoers, I was mildly annoyed that the black bars made the picture smaller on my already small TV. But once I was shown an example of the difference, converting to wide-screen was a no brainer. It also helps that we have a large TV now.