Originally Posted by carrolls:
“You are only getting half the definition of your HD tv by having the movie in full widescreen. Thats why its rubbish.”
“You are only getting half the definition of your HD tv by having the movie in full widescreen. Thats why its rubbish.”
Arguing somewhat against Libretio

, I'd say you're not losing any definition when 2.35 films are shown in OAR. If the image is cropped at 16:9 you will get extra *height*, and if the original was soft matted you may not lose any definition in the process. But you're not gaining any either. But if it was hard matted, as with e.g. Cinemascope and Panavision, then you *will* lose definition as it gets blown up to fill the screen. And in either case, as Andy2 has already said, if the director shot with the widescreen version as the chief focus of interest it will often look awkward as the framing goes to pot. Die Hard is a good example of both these phenomena (to take a semi-random example).Showing films in OAR does give the audience a choice. They can watch them as intended, or if they don't care about the composition of the image and want to fill their TV real estate they can zoom in at their end, although with a loss of definition.TVs are pretty good at doing this these days so the end result probably won't be as bad as it sounds. And everyone is happy.





? Absolute Power in 2.35:1 on BBC One on the + side....