Thread: The Technology Vent and Rant Thread
View Single Post
Old 05-09-2022, 11:00 AM   #1076
John F
Grand Sorcerer
John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.John F ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,971
Karma: 71261339
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Kobo Clara 2E
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsunami View Post
I hate movies and their crappy screen standards.

Back in the 90's and earlier, we had 4:3 televisions. Sometimes a movie would be in widescreen, which rendered part of the top and bottom of the screen useless. (My father always called them "mailbox movies", because they looked as if you were looking at them through the slit of a mailbox.)

Then widescreen TV's started becoming popular. But then, the 4:3 movies showed with black bars left and rigth; to me, that is much preferable than wider movies with bars on the top and bottom.

At around 2008-ish flatscreen/widescreen TV's were the norm in The Netherlands; all 16:9, most DVD's and early blu-rays were 16:9, TV-broadcasts were 16:9; life was good. We could actually use the entire screen.

Yesterday I watched a movie on a blu-ray disc (first in a long time, because it's not on Netflix or Prime and I wanted to see it) and it is SO widescreen that it is a mailbox movie on a 16:9 TV; so much so that it renders about 1/3rd of the 55 inch TV useless.

So it is actually 16:6, or 24:9.

...
What was the movie? I thought that most modern movies were 2.35 or 1.85.
John F is offline   Reply With Quote