SCREEN-L Archives

May 2000, Week 2


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
David Ezell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 12 May 2000 07:03:11 -0700
text/plain (56 lines)
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

David Ezell

--- 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.
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication &
> Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama:

David Ezell
Director of Research
New York, NY

Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.

For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: