Old movies on blu-ray... Is there ever a point?

[mlyngard]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Puhlease. I'm str8 as a ruler.

Originally Posted by dusty

Originally Posted by imageWIS

Checkmate.

Heh. Yeah, that's pretty much an airtight comeback. He got ya on that one. (sexual orientation aside ;-)

I wouldn't even try with 'str8 as an arrow' either. We've all seen that corny cocktail party gag headgear...

 

[Girardian]

This thread has me looking into motorized 2.35:1 screens. Thanks StyleForum ...

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by Girardian

This thread has me looking into motorized 2.35:1 screens. Thanks StyleForum ...

Motorized screens or masking? I've been reading the CIH forums on avs all night. The Carada masking system is truly a bargain. A lot of a-lens users say they got more perceived PQ from masking than an a-lens. And I was surprised how little difference there was in PQ according to people that had done the comparison and one of the threads there that compared images. One thing I hadn't thought about is that subtitles aren't always visible on a CIH setup because they sometimes put them in the black bars. For me that's not really an issue though.

The big debate I'm having with myself is over screen size and aspect ratio. Since I'm not settled and might move 2-3 more times in the next few years, getting something super-wide doesn't make sense. However, I'd have to think that it shouldn't be too hard to find apartments that have at least 12-13' living room walls so that I can safely put an 8.5ft screen and still have space between the speakers and the walls. Then again 16:9 makes more sense in a way since i could make use of extra height for 16:9 movies and keep the same sized picture for 2.35. But then you get the horizontal black bars and it feels smaller by comparison. It's psychological, but I really think the effect of filling a 2.35:1 screen is worth it. I'd rather fill the screen for epic movies than for silly comdies and dramas (which tend to be 16:9 more often than scope).