Search results

For some reason it's the way DVD Beaver identifies the 2012 Paramount Home Entertainment Japanese Blu-ray in their review. HTF thread on it here.

You could just use the fingers and thumbs of both hands to form a rectangle and hold it in front of your eyes. Nothing weird about that.

Wouldn't a 1.66 frame show more vertical image than a 1.85, not less horizontal?

I'm talking about the common argument poorly-informed letterbox fans made back then that letterboxing matted films was "fake widescreen" because all it did was cut off image area at the top and bottom of the frame. And here the whole idea behind letterbox was that it was supposed to let you see...

Or to put it another way, we'd take a time machine trip back to the 1990s.

If you mean “anamorphic” as in the process used in authoring widescreen DVDs, that has no application to hi-def discs.

Criterion has a blog-like thing on their site called "The Daily," but the forum (at criterionforum dot org) is a private affair with no connection with the company.

The Variety clipping Bob Furmanek posted does indeed mention the intention for Eastman and also the widescreen ratio.