Search results

Actually, the cover he directed me to does say "enhanced for widescreen TVs". However, it still does not fit the recognized definition of Full Screen and is certainly in the minority.

Absolutely. There are plenty of discs that incorrectly claim to be anamorphic, plenty that don't say - but are, and plenty that have the wrong aspect listed all together. Someone looking for "Full Screen" is someone with a 4:3 TV. If they buy a widescreen TV, they would look for...

Thanks for the correction. I'm not sure why I said Paramount. My DVD clearly has the WB logo on it.

It depends on the source. A good print from a technicolor film can look spectacular in HD. In some cases, even better than the original theatrical presentation due to the more accurate registration process, a cleaner print and fewer intermediate prints. Since computers don't slip like sometimes...

If you're referring to the 2000 Lionsgate DVD, that's 1.33:1. The OAR is 1.78:1. There are two Region 2 versions that are 1.77:1 and 1.78:1, but I don't know how the aspect is described on them since I don't own them. However, there is also an OAR Region 2, as well out there.

Where did you see that? The DVD cover only states "16x9 Widescreen Digitally Restored". And, BTW, that would be 1999, not 2000. I have the DVD in front of me.