Comments on: Wider Widescreen http://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/05/wider-widescreen/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wider-widescreen Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:40:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tinkerhttp://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/05/wider-widescreen/#comment-5739 Tinker Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:26:21 +0000 http://www.hometheaterblog.com/?p=384#comment-5739 Dumb question? Is the 2.35:1 projected image supposed to be seen on 16:9 screens or does it require a new screen dimension? Dumb question? Is the 2.35:1 projected image supposed to be seen on 16:9 screens or does it require a new screen dimension?

]]> By: Tinkerhttp://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/05/wider-widescreen/#comment-6870 Tinker Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:26:00 +0000 http://www.hometheaterblog.com/?p=384#comment-6870 Dumb question? Is the 2.35:1 projected image supposed to be seen on 16:9 screens or does it require a new screen dimension? Dumb question? Is the 2.35:1 projected image supposed to be seen on 16:9 screens or does it require a new screen dimension?

]]> By: Kelscihttp://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/05/wider-widescreen/#comment-540 Kelsci Mon, 08 May 2006 14:13:15 +0000 http://www.hometheaterblog.com/?p=384#comment-540 Some years back, video magazine had a drawing of the various aspect ratios in the form of various rectangles one aspect ratio over the others. It demonstrated why the 1:78 to 1 ratio was chosen. I was stupid not to save that article in not realizing how important a topic this would become. Some years back, video magazine had a drawing of the various aspect ratios in the form of various rectangles one aspect ratio over the others. It demonstrated why the 1:78 to 1 ratio was chosen. I was stupid not to save that article in not realizing how important a topic this would become.

]]> By: Kelscihttp://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/05/wider-widescreen/#comment-6869 Kelsci Mon, 08 May 2006 14:13:00 +0000 http://www.hometheaterblog.com/?p=384#comment-6869 Some years back, video magazine had a drawing of the various aspect ratios in the form of various rectangles one aspect ratio over the others. It demonstrated why the 1:78 to 1 ratio was chosen. I was stupid not to save that article in not realizing how important a topic this would become. Some years back, video magazine had a drawing of the various aspect ratios in the form of various rectangles one aspect ratio over the others. It demonstrated why the 1:78 to 1 ratio was chosen. I was stupid not to save that article in not realizing how important a topic this would become.

]]> By: B.Greenwayhttp://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/05/wider-widescreen/#comment-539 B.Greenway Fri, 05 May 2006 18:33:35 +0000 http://www.hometheaterblog.com/?p=384#comment-539 I knew I was forgetting something when I wrote this! http://www.panamorph.com/ Another anamorphic len's supplier. I knew I was forgetting something when I wrote this!

http://www.panamorph.com/

Another anamorphic len’s supplier.

]]> By: B.Greenwayhttp://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/05/wider-widescreen/#comment-6868 B.Greenway Fri, 05 May 2006 18:33:00 +0000 http://www.hometheaterblog.com/?p=384#comment-6868 I knew I was forgetting something when I wrote this! http://www.panamorph.com/ Another anamorphic len's supplier. I knew I was forgetting something when I wrote this!

http://www.panamorph.com/

Another anamorphic len’s supplier.

]]> By: B.Greenwayhttp://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/05/wider-widescreen/#comment-538 B.Greenway Tue, 02 May 2006 16:02:14 +0000 http://www.hometheaterblog.com/?p=384#comment-538 Hi tribster, Sure you can stretch 4:3 source material to fit into a 16:9 display but this destroys the original aspect ratio thereby making it something I’d never want to view. But sure its always an option I guess. However, there is no other way to properly format 2.35:1 source material into a 16:9 display without introducing formatting bars, at least not one that maintains the original aspect ratio. Just to be clear, the article is about properly displaying 2.35:1 source material, not just the removal of the formatting bars. It’s just a simple matter of display real-estate, 16:9 is simply to narrow to display 2.35:1 source material at full screen height. Hi tribster,

Sure you can stretch 4:3 source material to fit into a 16:9 display but this destroys the original aspect ratio thereby making it something I’d never want to view. But sure its always an option I guess.

However, there is no other way to properly format 2.35:1 source material into a 16:9 display without introducing formatting bars, at least not one that maintains the original aspect ratio.

Just to be clear, the article is about properly displaying 2.35:1 source material, not just the removal of the formatting bars. It’s just a simple matter of display real-estate, 16:9 is simply to narrow to display 2.35:1 source material at full screen height.

]]> By: B.Greenwayhttp://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/05/wider-widescreen/#comment-6867 B.Greenway Tue, 02 May 2006 16:02:00 +0000 http://www.hometheaterblog.com/?p=384#comment-6867 Hi tribster, Sure you can stretch 4:3 source material to fit into a 16:9 display but this destroys the original aspect ratio thereby making it something I’d never want to view. But sure its always an option I guess. However, there is no other way to properly format 2.35:1 source material into a 16:9 display without introducing formatting bars, at least not one that maintains the original aspect ratio. Just to be clear, the article is about properly displaying 2.35:1 source material, not just the removal of the formatting bars. It’s just a simple matter of display real-estate, 16:9 is simply to narrow to display 2.35:1 source material at full screen height. Hi tribster,

Sure you can stretch 4:3 source material to fit into a 16:9 display but this destroys the original aspect ratio thereby making it something I’d never want to view. But sure its always an option I guess.

However, there is no other way to properly format 2.35:1 source material into a 16:9 display without introducing formatting bars, at least not one that maintains the original aspect ratio.

Just to be clear, the article is about properly displaying 2.35:1 source material, not just the removal of the formatting bars. It’s just a simple matter of display real-estate, 16:9 is simply to narrow to display 2.35:1 source material at full screen height.

]]> By: tribsterhttp://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/05/wider-widescreen/#comment-537 tribster Mon, 01 May 2006 22:47:04 +0000 http://www.hometheaterblog.com/?p=384#comment-537 There is a way around this problem Kind of-A Projector with adjusting properly(HDTV or Standard). There is a way around this problem Kind of-A Projector with adjusting properly(HDTV or Standard).

]]> By: tribsterhttp://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/05/wider-widescreen/#comment-6866 tribster Mon, 01 May 2006 22:47:00 +0000 http://www.hometheaterblog.com/?p=384#comment-6866 There is a way around this problem Kind of-A Projector with adjusting properly(HDTV or Standard). There is a way around this problem Kind of-A Projector with adjusting properly(HDTV or Standard).

]]>