Speaking about projectors, I got an Infocus, albeit the smaller model (a DLP350). It has a great line doubler, and it does anamorphic video nicely, although I rarely use those functions since I use an HTPC as a video source (and it looks simply gorgeous when used that way). I don't like the...
Point taken. But in non - HT equipped homes, the vast majority of shelf spaces will be sized for a 4:3 TV. If buying a widescreen TV, you'll end up with a smaller 4:3 image.
I solved the issue by buying a DLP projector. That way I can get a 100" diagonal 4:3 image and a decent enough...
Yuo are very wrong, Doug. I know exactly what anamorphic does. But you can go ahead and wrestle a crocodile. :D
Vince knew exactly what I'm talking about. Read his post. That's exactly what I was thinking about. Think widescreen. Now think widescreen with added content and resolution on the...
Thanks Lew! I recovered a bit of confidence in my english :)
As for the 4x3 debate, it's fun how we could spend the entire thread saying "think of 16x9 as 4x3 with extra info at the sides!" and "think of 4x3 as 16x9 with extra info at the top and bottom!"
The best argument I can think of...
Hmmm... my point is *still* not getting across :)
OK Lew, imagine the football transmission in widescreen. Now imagine it with added content on top and on the bottom. That's what I'm talking about. Forget about the IMAX analogies, et al - it's hard enough to try to be understood in a language...
Ok, here it goes again:
The whole idea of my post is that it is esentially wrong for us to have widescreen TVs in our houses when HDTV is a reality.
Instead of settling for less of an image (say, 1.78:1), we might want to stick with the 4:3 format, and use the extra resolution for added...
First of all, NO. I am an enemy of non letterboxed editions of movies and films. I don't buy them. I recently returned my R4 edition of Monsters, Inc., because it was Pan and Scan. Or so I thought. And so the story goes. When I bought the R1, I realized the entire movie had been...