He didn't blame it all on Blu-Ray, he just mentioned that it was another negative piece about BD, which is a fair statement.
I'm glad to see that someone here is posting pro-HD DVD/anti-BD news. It evens things out and if it continues I know that I, personally, won't have to call out all the BD fanboy articles all the time. That's all I've been asking for - equal coverage without negative slants on positive news.
Back on topic -- this is the second framing issue I've seen in the past week -- BioShock (game for PC/360) actually cuts off the top and bottom 10% of the picture compared to the 4:3 picture. Yes, if you play BioShock on a 4:3 display you get to see MORE than if you play on a 16:9. Stupid. PotC is similar, except worse since it cuts off valuable information (like his head....), whereas on the game you only lose the ceiling/floor at least...
I guess I don't understand why this stuff is so hard... :(
BD is the bistandard in this issue, it's not the focal point, the focal point is disney, as it may be a fair statement in the points he's making, it's out of context.
Did you actually admit liking to read anti-BD? As I am pro-Blu, I'm not stimulated by anti-HD-DVD articles, rather, just keep up the product news of BD and any other updates.
The game was created with 16x9 in mind, and when it came time to decide how to display it on 4:3 screens, they decided to open up the field rather than crop it.
In other words, 16x9 owners don't lose anything, it's 4:3 owners that gain. You may argue that's just an issue of semantics, but the difference lies in the artist's intent. When you view the game in 16x9 you see what the creators of the game intended you to see, and thereby won't risk missing any important information.
This is basically the same issue as open matte when it comes to films. Some widescreen movies show less than their fullscreen counterparts, but when it was shot the director framed it with widescreen in mind, but kept the matted sections free of booms and whatnot, in order to be able simply open the frame instead of having to pan & scan for TV and fullframe DVD releases.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
He didn't blame it all on Blu-Ray, he just mentioned that it was another negative piece about BD, which is a fair statement.
I'm glad to see that someone here is posting pro-HD DVD/anti-BD news. It evens things out and if it continues I know that I, personally, won't have to call out all the BD fanboy articles all the time. That's all I've been asking for - equal coverage without negative slants on positive news.
Back on topic -- this is the second framing issue I've seen in the past week -- BioShock (game for PC/360) actually cuts off the top and bottom 10% of the picture compared to the 4:3 picture. Yes, if you play BioShock on a 4:3 display you get to see MORE than if you play on a 16:9. Stupid. PotC is similar, except worse since it cuts off valuable information (like his head....), whereas on the game you only lose the ceiling/floor at least...
I guess I don't understand why this stuff is so hard... :(
Xyzzy:
BD is the bistandard in this issue, it's not the focal point, the focal point is disney, as it may be a fair statement in the points he's making, it's out of context.
Did you actually admit liking to read anti-BD? As I am pro-Blu, I'm not stimulated by anti-HD-DVD articles, rather, just keep up the product news of BD and any other updates.
Re: The Bioshock framing "problem"
The game was created with 16x9 in mind, and when it came time to decide how to display it on 4:3 screens, they decided to open up the field rather than crop it.
In other words, 16x9 owners don't lose anything, it's 4:3 owners that gain. You may argue that's just an issue of semantics, but the difference lies in the artist's intent. When you view the game in 16x9 you see what the creators of the game intended you to see, and thereby won't risk missing any important information.
This is basically the same issue as open matte when it comes to films. Some widescreen movies show less than their fullscreen counterparts, but when it was shot the director framed it with widescreen in mind, but kept the matted sections free of booms and whatnot, in order to be able simply open the frame instead of having to pan & scan for TV and fullframe DVD releases.