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