>You would be surprised at how many people really hate letterboxing and will >not buy the video if they see the term. They feel that instead of getting >more visual information, that they are getting less due to the black bands. >There was even a letter complaining about this to the Bergen Record in New >Jersey this past month. When we get phone calls like this, we explain >letterboxing to them and sometimes it works but many times they are extremely >unhappy. I know your pain. I have often tried to carefully explain the letter- box/widescreen system to people -- and usually to those who are patient and anxious to understand (i.e. viewer relations people who are fielding complaints) -- yet, all-too-often, the look on their faces tell the whole story: They just don't "get it." And what further complicates the issue are the contemporary films (majority of Hollywood and others in North America) that often rely on the 1.85.1 soft-matte process and mostly create the "illusion" of widescreen -- they do, in fact, show you less (a little width is added but nowhere near as much anamorphic 2.35:1). That's what's so odd about the MoviePix promo that's currently running on this pay-tv service in Canada. It starts by doing a good job of showing the benefits of this format by comparing pan-and-scan clips of Lawrence of Arabia with exact same shots in "letter-box" but then shows some contemporary examples that reveal virtually no change -- except for those damn black bars people complain about. Plus, they program the "letterbox" of Beetlejuice (soft- matted at 1.85:1 but also compatible for 1.33:1 TV projection) alongside the pan-and-scan of South Pacific (intended for projection in a 2.35:1 ratio only) This mess has also confused supposedly hard-core film enthusiasts who kick up dust over titles that were made for TV, and never intended for "widescreen" presentation, even at 1.66:1 (i.e my earlier Eyes Wide Shut example, which was intended for a 1.37:1 ratio, much like our 1.33:1 TVs). Try explaining soft-matting to film purists who insist that ALL directors (especially a "genius" like Kubrick) always have a "vision" -- and it's always in widescreen. And is it true that the future standard for digital TV is going to be 1.78:1 widescreen (assuming most of us can afford it)? Good grief, this IS going to be a mess. ---- For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html