anti wide screen rant\vent\whatever

[KnowItAll]

in the above examples, I am fine with full screen. However, looking at my in-laws tv, they can make their picture in about 4 or 5 different looks, and in all of them the people change size. None of them have the people look right except for I think it is pan? format that makes look like reg tv, but they say they were told it was bad for their screen to do that too much.

Also, I bought my 36in so as to have a bigger screen both horizontal and vertical, when they broadcast in wide screen on my tv, my vertical view is shrunk again. I think vertical is one I mean. And if I want to buy a wide screen tv where the vertical is as much, then I have to get a really wide one that doesnt fit good in my living room. aaaarrrrgggg :x :x :x

[sj-roc]

here are some examples. inside the yellow box is the fullscreen image and you can get an idea what youre missing when the image is cropped for the fullscreen version of the dvd....

More examples from the Letterbox and Widescreen Advocacy Page can be found here.

[MacNews]

I do feel for you KIA. You would've paid handsomely for the 36" beauty and now you've got stupid black bars telling you your TV is too small! :no:

[Rammer]

I do feel for you KIA. You would've paid handsomely for the 36" beauty and now you've got stupid black bars telling you your TV is too small! :no:

So now we come down to the nuts and bolts of this complaint......and just for the record, it isn't so much a sheep mentality, as opposed to desire for improving as a whole on what we want. This latest 'trend' is more about what consumers want, otherwise they wouldn't purchase it. Just have to think of a few electronic technology improvements that never got going due to the consumer not willing to pay for it, or even want the difference it makes. This boils down to the dramatic improvement one cas see in the new widescreen format vs the old standard cropping of movies that occured.

Since most of us enjoy going to a movie theatre a little more often than KIA, the closer we can simulate our own living area to what is somethnig that people are actually willing to pay money for, the more likely we are to cocoon. Of course since KIA is already comfortable with his 36" TV, his cocooning has already begun and has no need for improvement.

[Soundy]

in the above examples, I am fine with full screen.

There are plenty of other "examples" where it doesn't really work out so well. A favorite of mine is Die Hard - in the "fullscreen" version, when Mclane is riding in the limo at the beginning and the limo driver is chatting him up, the cropped version cuts Mclane out entirely, except for the occaisional glimpse of the tip of his nose. Many films have important characters, objects, or text, missing entirely. The way around this in some is to leave the full width, and simply "stretch" the view vertically to fit, making everything very tall and thin. This, by you, is "better"?

It's simple: don't like it, don't buy it, don't watch it. :P

My own rant is people who set up their widescreen TVs improperly because they don't know what they're doing. Most default to stretching standard 4:3 image horizontally, making everything look squashed, instead of having black bars at the ends of the picture. In one Bread Garden we hang out at, they have it set to "zoom" the picture to fit, so it crops the top and bottom off a normal image, thereby losing a lot of text in the form of subtitles, crawl bars, etc.

[BBBob]

What about dem bastards that forced electricity down our throats?

Do you think I can go out and buy a house that doesn't have electrical hookup? Not bloody likely.

you people are being (not very smart). Everyone has the choice not to buy something, or use something. Nobody forces anyone to watch wide screen, one can alway choose no tv, or no electricity, etc. It is different when something is being taken away, something that has been around for 5 decades, something that we have invested money in.

To equate Rammer bringing up tv in the first place, it would be only valid if it were something along the line of people invest in phonographs, then all the record producing companies decide they are going to stop making records and do tV instead, yet even that is not quite the same.

To equate to electricity, it would only be valid if everybody invested in gas furnace then were told there would be no gas, have to use electricity instead, or freeze.

As to the Beta VHS wars, it would only be a valid point if Beta had been the one used for 50 yrs, then for some reason everybody decided to go VHS instead.

Take the horse and buggy, are we still allowed to use horse and buggy on city streets, or were people forced to give that up for cars?? That must have ticked many people off back then, justifiably.

It is not that one is forced to use the new thing but when the old thing is taken away that is so bad. When the new can co exist with the old, then I have not much problem, except when I go to my in-laws.

I will not use wireless keyboards and mouse but I have no problem with their existance, until they are forced on me by the dissappearance of wire.

I have both wireless and wire phones, but I will be some pissed if I am ever forced to go totally wireless. For one thing, the wired ones are the only onces that still work in power outage, besides cell phones. I also have two cell phone, but will be some pissed if I am ever forced to only have cell phones. It is all about the right to choose to be "old fashioned" and stick to that which you are used to for many yrs and like. If I wanted, I should always still be able to use rotary phones.

For those that love your suv, big trucks, etc, how would you like to find out that all you can get now is smart cars. Yet at least with that, there would be good environmental benefit and reason.

As for the sheep thing, anyone who has any understanding of human nature knows that while many choose wide screen because they really like it better and have been waiting yrs to be able to see it on TV, many more just are going along with the trend. Sheep. Latest "in" thing. In many circles, if you dont soon go wide screen, it will be like "whats wrong with you", ect. Also, it allows people to brag about their new tv at the office, etc. Sheep.

Sheep sheep sheep

I point to Disco as proof. When it was new, it was so popular, you were a minus if you were not into it. Then some idiots came along and bashed disco, had a big disco record breaking event at a baseball stadium, and low and behold, the same people loving disco were now dissing it, and continue to be ashamed of their enjoyment of it. Why, because it became unpopular, they were told it was bad and they were a minus to like it, so they "crossed over". Sheep

Sheep sheep sheep

Are you for real or is this some kind of weird exercise?

I had a lot to say on this ridiculous rant, but I'll let a sentence sum it up.

My Dad has a saying that you ought to follow:
"Don't worry about your neighbor's sheep, just worry about your own sheep."

I'm sure you get the meaning of that saying.

[KnowItAll]

What about dem bastards that forced electricity down our throats?

Do you think I can go out and buy a house that doesn't have electrical hookup? Not bloody likely.

you people are being (not very smart). Everyone has the choice not to buy something, or use something. Nobody forces anyone to watch wide screen, one can alway choose no tv, or no electricity, etc. It is different when something is being taken away, something that has been around for 5 decades, something that we have invested money in.

To equate Rammer bringing up tv in the first place, it would be only valid if it were something along the line of people invest in phonographs, then all the record producing companies decide they are going to stop making records and do tV instead, yet even that is not quite the same.

To equate to electricity, it would only be valid if everybody invested in gas furnace then were told there would be no gas, have to use electricity instead, or freeze.

As to the Beta VHS wars, it would only be a valid point if Beta had been the one used for 50 yrs, then for some reason everybody decided to go VHS instead.

Take the horse and buggy, are we still allowed to use horse and buggy on city streets, or were people forced to give that up for cars?? That must have ticked many people off back then, justifiably.

It is not that one is forced to use the new thing but when the old thing is taken away that is so bad. When the new can co exist with the old, then I have not much problem, except when I go to my in-laws.

I will not use wireless keyboards and mouse but I have no problem with their existance, until they are forced on me by the dissappearance of wire.

I have both wireless and wire phones, but I will be some pissed if I am ever forced to go totally wireless. For one thing, the wired ones are the only onces that still work in power outage, besides cell phones. I also have two cell phone, but will be some pissed if I am ever forced to only have cell phones. It is all about the right to choose to be "old fashioned" and stick to that which you are used to for many yrs and like. If I wanted, I should always still be able to use rotary phones.

For those that love your suv, big trucks, etc, how would you like to find out that all you can get now is smart cars. Yet at least with that, there would be good environmental benefit and reason.

As for the sheep thing, anyone who has any understanding of human nature knows that while many choose wide screen because they really like it better and have been waiting yrs to be able to see it on TV, many more just are going along with the trend. Sheep. Latest "in" thing. In many circles, if you dont soon go wide screen, it will be like "whats wrong with you", ect. Also, it allows people to brag about their new tv at the office, etc. Sheep.

Sheep sheep sheep

I point to Disco as proof. When it was new, it was so popular, you were a minus if you were not into it. Then some idiots came along and bashed disco, had a big disco record breaking event at a baseball stadium, and low and behold, the same people loving disco were now dissing it, and continue to be ashamed of their enjoyment of it. Why, because it became unpopular, they were told it was bad and they were a minus to like it, so they "crossed over". Sheep

Sheep sheep sheep

Are you for real or is this some kind of weird exercise?

I had a lot to say on this ridiculous rant, but I'll let a sentence sum it up.

My Dad has a saying that you ought to follow:
"Don't worry about your neighbor's sheep, just worry about your own sheep."

I'm sure you get the meaning of that saying.

I have no idea what you are saying??? You seem to be in disagreement with me, but have made no point to that end.

[Gerry]

I really liked the old TV screens from my Dad's era, you know, the round ones that look like a porthole on a ship, and in black and white only. We may still have it somewhere.

Hey KIA, I'll trade you for the 36". That way you can really live in the past.

[D]

damn ..... I almost feel guilty about what Santa (my gift to me) brought me

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. ... id=3757030

I said almost

[Soundy]

So... Canucks PPV tomorrow night at D's place?

[KnowItAll]

That way you can really live in the past.

I realize you trying to be insulting for some reason, but it is a common misconception that whats newer is better and that it is for some reason a minus to continue to appreciate something that has been around for a while. I am proud that I stick to my tastes and dont jump from one new thing to the next with the rest of the sheep.

New doesnt always = progress
Progress doesnt always = good

It is a young persons mentality that not going with the new is a minus.

[Grandmaster C]

in the above examples, I am fine with full screen.

There are plenty of other "examples" where it doesn't really work out so well. A favorite of mine is Die Hard - in the "fullscreen" version, when Mclane is riding in the limo at the beginning and the limo driver is chatting him up, the cropped version cuts Mclane out entirely, except for the occaisional glimpse of the tip of his nose. Many films have important characters, objects, or text, missing entirely. bars, etc.

Here's a good example of that, using the James Bond movie, Moonraker...

[D]

So... Canucks PPV tomorrow night at D's place?

I don't do PPV ..... I don't like to encourage them .... if they can charge to watch the games then eventually they won't be on for free

[Canuck_4_Life]

I have no idea what you are saying??? You seem to be in disagreement with me, but have made no point to that end.

Basically, if I understand him correctly, why should you care what your neighbour has?

If you want to continue on with your 65lb (or whatever they weigh) 26" TV, so be it. Good luck finding parts for it when it craps out, or the quality goes to hell.

Let me get this straight, you're against widescreen tvs (advancement of technology and TV manufacturers ultimate direction) and you will be until it gets forced on you and yet you have 2 cell phones (hopefully one of which was forced on you by your occupation), when the average person has 1. It seems to me that you resist change in certain aspects (widescreen tv) and willingly accept change in different aspects (cell phones) both of which are becoming mainstream to the point where widescreen tvs are just considered "tvs" and some people don't have a landline and use their cell phones instead.

[Soundy]

So... Canucks PPV tomorrow night at D's place?

I don't do PPV ..... I don't like to encourage them .... if they can charge to watch the games then eventually they won't be on for free

They make far more money selling the broadcast rights to the various networks than they would ever get from PPV, especially when you consider the extremely limited (by comparison) audience the PPV is available to. People outside the "home market" can't get the PPVs; people without *digital* cable or satellite can't get the PPV.

Besides, you ARE paying for the "free" games: that's what the commercials are for. Your $10 buys you a complete lack of them.