If you're not sure about whether to buy a 4:3 or 16:9... (1 Viewer)

[PaulKH]

See the 16:9 version of Shrek (2nd DVD in the package) on a 16:9 set. It's spectacular. No way you'd want to see that squeezed on a 4:3 set after that.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I honestly have no idea what you mean.
When you see a 2.40:1 movie on a 16:9 set, does it feel compromised to you, that it would look better on a fictitious 2:40 set that is simply shorter than your 16:9 set?
I am genuinely curious.
I watch the movie, not the shape of a passive piece of plastic.
[Edited last by Michael St. Clair on November 11, 2001 at 12:09 AM]

 

[PaulKH]

My point is that movies aren't meant to be squished onto a TV (4:3) shaped screen.
Sure a 2.35 (or 2.40 - I only remember seeing one) movie will have black bars top and bottom on a 16:9, and will look EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS on a 4:3 screen, with bars above and below as big as the visible area.

 

[Richard Kim]

I have one word to say in response:
Mattes
On my 4:3 TV with black foamboard mattes, widescreen movies look great.

 

[Bill_M]

If you want up to a 57" 16x9 get a 4x3 that squishes to the size 16x9 you want. Larger than 57" 16x9 you have to go with a 16x9.

 

[Richard Burzynski]

My 70" 4:3 set gives me a 65" 16:9 picture. No "squeeze" feature - I am viewing lower resolution than anamorphic playback allows - but I do have a nice, sharp, and *big* picture.
No regrets here.
Rich B.

 

[John Schmiedt]

Richard,
Can you explain to me why this is so? I know lots of people do mattes, but I guess I don't understand why it would make a difference?
Thanks,
John
Quote:
I have one word to say in response:
Mattes
On my 4:3 TV with black foamboard mattes, widescreen movies look great.