Matrix Reloaded P&S: more headroom?
10-23-03 | 11:37 PM
#26
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 5,589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Export, PA
Originally posted by talemyn
I don't care if the heads are chopped off . . . those WS captures look soooo better than the FF version.
I don't care if the heads are chopped off . . . those WS captures look soooo better than the FF version.
That is why I love it when shows I like go Widescreen.
10-24-03 | 08:06 AM
#28
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
The shot with Neo in front of the monitors just has more dramatic effect in the widescreen than in the fullscreen. I can't really explain why.
10-24-03 | 04:06 PM
#29
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Mpls, MN
Originally posted by caiman
I couldn't disagree more. The WS shots just look better. Some people say there is nothing inherently better about a wide image. I disagree. Take another look at the screen cap with the Architect. The WS is leaps and bounds better than the FF. It's hard to put my finger on, but it just appeals to my eyes so much more.
I couldn't disagree more. The WS shots just look better. Some people say there is nothing inherently better about a wide image. I disagree. Take another look at the screen cap with the Architect. The WS is leaps and bounds better than the FF. It's hard to put my finger on, but it just appeals to my eyes so much more.
WS is a more natural field of view, humans generally ignore everything just a couple degrees above horizontal from their field of vision. Ever walked into a high cupboard door in your kitchen? Why, your 160-170 deg vertical vision ought to have seen it, right? 1.85:1 is probably the closest to what we typically pay attention to in real life vision. Or perhaps 16:9, a reason why everyone likes this shape so much.
Don't get me wrong, I love 2.35:1, but I find myself turning to see the whole picture, which is unfortunate, although occasionally cool. It's just a bit wider than our eyes/brain see as "normal". On the other side, 4:3 feels like it's taller than it is wide most of the time because it is so unnatural.
10-24-03 | 04:19 PM
#30
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Nashotah, WI, USA
This may be slightly off-topic, but is the DVD actually 2.35:1? It didn't look as "wide" on my TV. Another clue is when Neo swings one of the Smiths into something on the right side of the picture. It seems like I remember it being a light pole, but you can't actually see what he hits on the DVD.
10-24-03 | 04:52 PM
#31
Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that always comes to my mind in the debate of widescreen vs full screen is that almost all physical action in the human world takes place on a two-dimensional plane (the ground, a floor, a street, or something similar), which is best represented in a frame that is wider than it is tall. For shots involving vertical elements, a well-executed camera pan can be more effective than simply having it all in the same still frame.
This is one of the reasons I think the widescreen shots always seem to look better than the full screen shots. Or maybe it makes no sense at all, and I'm delusional. Who knows :P
This is one of the reasons I think the widescreen shots always seem to look better than the full screen shots. Or maybe it makes no sense at all, and I'm delusional. Who knows :P
