Posted by sean at threshold6n.jpmorgan.com on May 21, 2002 at 12:41:27:
In Reply to: Well, it was formatted in 1.85:1... posted by Hibernian Psycho on May 21, 2002 at 12:33:40:
: ... so it should fill up the screen fairly well, if it's size that matters here.
I'm not saying there won't be a picture on the majority of the screen, or even that that picture won't be the size of the screen. I'm speaking strictly about the fact that the majority of the stuff with a CGI Spider-Man, he's bouncing all over the screen and flipping and all [which would be impossible to watch p&s, I agree], and that looks great on a big theater screen, but on a twenty inch TV? I dunno...
: I find it hard to watch films in pan-and-scan these days... then again, does ANYONE prefer that format anymore?
There are movies where it bothers me less. But I will say that, yes, there are plenty of people who, due to lack of proper explanation, prefer the image to not be "blocked" by a bunch of black lines. I can't agree with them for the most part, especially now when people who use 2.35 really know how to use it, but there are times when I feel like the TV screen is already small enough without also losing the ability to have image on the top and bottom third of the screen. [But this isn't what I was talking about earlier ... just trying not to spark a debate that's unintended.] I just have to get one of those widescreen TVs is all.