Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 12 May 2000 07:03:11 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I have come to agree with Roger Ebert when he wrote
that seeing films on video is a completely different
experience than in the theater.
Although I like to see most films in the letterbox
format, sometimes, because of the issues discussed
here, it makes the experience uncomfortable, or even
laughable. If one sees a film at home, certain
adjustments, or sacrafices, unfortunately must be
made.
David Ezell
NYC
--- Mark Wolf <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In this debate about letterboxing, little has been
> said about the issue of
> resolution; while video is of course much resolution
> whether letterboxed or
> not, letterboxing (and I usually prefer it) can be
> quite a bit lower
> resolution than pan-n-scan. So it becomes a
> trade-off between composition
> versus resolution; do you want your lost detail to
> be removed from the ends
> of image, or uniformly from the entire image? And
> then there's the issue of
> color resolution; the delicate cinematography in
> Tarkovsky's films, for
> example, become rather murky on video. And there's
> plenty of other examples
> in which resolution makes a big difference.
>
> MJPW
>
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication &
> Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=====
David Ezell
Director of Research
Site59.com
New York, NY
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
|
|
|