The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Why cant there be universal formats for films, when It comes to aspect ratios there is regular 4:3 (12:9), 16:9 regular widescreen, 1:1.85(16.65:9), 1:2.35(21.15:9) for some anamorphic widescreen films, as well as loads of slight variations, Saving Private Ryan is one such example. This means that you get letterbox pictures even on a widescreen tv, which is often annoying, and when you change settings on your tv to correct it all kinds of problems emerge, I was watching the Stargate Directors Cut DVD and that takes up only half the screen, so I stretch the image to make it bigger, and half the subtitles of the alien language gets cut off, so you have to watch it at half screen size, on a widescreen tv.
Then theres sound, theres Dolby Digital and DTS formats for Discs, A DTS decoder will also decode dolby digital but is almost twice as expensive as a plain dolby digital decoder and not all films have a DTS soundtrack.
So whats the solution, universal standards, first off 16:9 is not a good aspect ratio, Movies are not generally shot in this format, so having this as the standard widescreen format and indeed the ratio that widescreen tv's use is stupid. People will say that the problem with going above this ratio is that 4:3 playback is distorted, but that can be overcome by simply not using that format, most tv shows are already 16:9 widescreen, so having larger tvs and stretching the image to fit a wider screen would result in less distortion than stretching 4:3 to fit a 16:9 tv which a lot of people already do. So the ideal standard is 21.15:9, the standard cinema ratio, so why dont we have 21.15:9 ratio tvs? And as for sound the simple answer is including both Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks, and letting people choose what they want to use when they get their sound system.
What does everyone else think?
Then theres sound, theres Dolby Digital and DTS formats for Discs, A DTS decoder will also decode dolby digital but is almost twice as expensive as a plain dolby digital decoder and not all films have a DTS soundtrack.
So whats the solution, universal standards, first off 16:9 is not a good aspect ratio, Movies are not generally shot in this format, so having this as the standard widescreen format and indeed the ratio that widescreen tv's use is stupid. People will say that the problem with going above this ratio is that 4:3 playback is distorted, but that can be overcome by simply not using that format, most tv shows are already 16:9 widescreen, so having larger tvs and stretching the image to fit a wider screen would result in less distortion than stretching 4:3 to fit a 16:9 tv which a lot of people already do. So the ideal standard is 21.15:9, the standard cinema ratio, so why dont we have 21.15:9 ratio tvs? And as for sound the simple answer is including both Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks, and letting people choose what they want to use when they get their sound system.
What does everyone else think?
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Why cant there be universal formats for films, when It comes to aspect ratios there is regular 4:3 (12:9), 16:9 regular widescreen, 1:1.85(16.65:9), 1:2.35(21.15:9) for some anamorphic widescreen films, as well as loads of slight variations, Saving Private Ryan is one such example. This means that you get letterbox pictures even on a widescreen tv, which is often annoying, and when you change settings on your tv to correct it all kinds of problems emerge, I was watching the Stargate Directors Cut DVD and that takes up only half the screen, so I stretch the image to make it bigger, and half the subtitles of the alien language gets cut off, so you have to watch it at half screen size, on a widescreen tv.
Then theres sound, theres Dolby Digital and DTS formats for Discs, A DTS decoder will also decode dolby digital but is almost twice as expensive as a plain dolby digital decoder and not all films have a DTS soundtrack.
So whats the solution, universal standards, first off 16:9 is not a good aspect ratio, Movies are not generally shot in this format, so having this as the standard widescreen format and indeed the ratio that widescreen tv's use is stupid. People will say that the problem with going above this ratio is that 4:3 playback is distorted, but that can be overcome by simply not using that format, most tv shows are already 16:9 widescreen, so having larger tvs and stretching the image to fit a wider screen would result in less distortion than stretching 4:3 to fit a 16:9 tv which a lot of people already do. So the ideal standard is 21.15:9, the standard cinema ratio, so why dont we have 21.15:9 ratio tvs? And as for sound the simple answer is including both Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks, and letting people choose what they want to use when they get their sound system.
What does everyone else think?
Then theres sound, theres Dolby Digital and DTS formats for Discs, A DTS decoder will also decode dolby digital but is almost twice as expensive as a plain dolby digital decoder and not all films have a DTS soundtrack.
So whats the solution, universal standards, first off 16:9 is not a good aspect ratio, Movies are not generally shot in this format, so having this as the standard widescreen format and indeed the ratio that widescreen tv's use is stupid. People will say that the problem with going above this ratio is that 4:3 playback is distorted, but that can be overcome by simply not using that format, most tv shows are already 16:9 widescreen, so having larger tvs and stretching the image to fit a wider screen would result in less distortion than stretching 4:3 to fit a 16:9 tv which a lot of people already do. So the ideal standard is 21.15:9, the standard cinema ratio, so why dont we have 21.15:9 ratio tvs? And as for sound the simple answer is including both Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks, and letting people choose what they want to use when they get their sound system.
What does everyone else think?