Bluray owners. Full screen or Zoom?

[techwanabe]

Sure, but then again, it wouldn't be necessary if people just did the right thing and viewed movies as they were meant to be watched.

Well, maybe its just semantics, but I don't see it as a matter of "right" or "wrong". I do prefer OAR like the rest of you, but I don't see it as "holy writ" and "thou must watch OAR and be one of the chosen few. Thats the tone I get overall from intellectual/mental/TV peer pressures in the thread here. In the US and many other countries, we have the freedom of choice to enjoy entertainment on our own terms.

There seems to be almost a moralistic tone from the purists on this topic which doesn't allow for things like, not everyone has wonderful expensive equipment and in the current hard economic times, its not something many can afford. I only joined the bigger screen 16:9 1080P crowed a year ago and like many, I can see things that I was missing and the home entertainment world is 2 orders of magnitude better than my old 27-inc CRT DVD fuzzy picture days.

I have never heard this "the director meant the movie to be watched this way" mantra until here. If thats so important, why aren't directors preaching this "gospel" to the unwashed masses, and putting labels on products or advertising or whatever. Anyway, I generally agree with the OAR sentiments, I just don't elevate it to "holy writ" status - there are too many other things that genuinely deserve that classification.

 

[newnameman]

Well, maybe its just semantics, but I don't see it as a matter of "right" or "wrong". I do prefer OAR like the rest of you, but I don't see it as "holy writ" and "thou must watch OAR and be one of the chosen few. Thats the tone I get overall from intellectual/mental/TV peer pressures in the thread here. In the US and many other countries, we have the freedom of choice to enjoy entertainment on our own terms.

There seems to be almost a moralistic tone from the purists on this topic which doesn't allow for things like, not everyone has wonderful expensive equipment and in the current hard economic times, its not something many can afford. I only joined the bigger screen 16:9 1080P crowed a year ago and like many, I can see things that I was missing and the home entertainment world is 2 orders of magnitude better than my old 27-inc CRT DVD fuzzy picture days.

I have never heard this "the director meant the movie to be watched this way" mantra until here. If thats so important, why aren't directors preaching this "gospel" to the unwashed masses, and putting labels on products or advertising or whatever. Anyway, I generally agree with the OAR sentiments, I just don't elevate it to "holy writ" status - there are too many other things that genuinely deserve that classification.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEPAgNrvZaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJhM3So4y8&feature=related

 

[Tegeril]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDJIhyINWzE

 

[Spicedaddy]

I always watch movies in their OAR.

Zooming a 2.35:1 movie to fit a 16:9 screen isn't that bad. What drives me crazy is people who zoom to fit a 4:3 screen, or even worse, people who stretch and can't notice it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I always watch movies in their OAR.

Zooming a 2.35:1 movie to fit a 16:9 screen isn't that bad. What drives me crazy is people who zoom to fit a 4:3 screen, or even worse, people who stretch and can't notice it.

The one that really gets me now is the "HD" channels that take 4:3 content and apply a weird stretching algorithm that only stretches the sides of the image, but leaves the center intact. It gives the appearance of looking through a fisheye lens, and on sweeps and pans actually makes me physically nauseous as the perspective rapidly shifts on supposedly static objects. Really obnoxious.