Hacker News Reader

Comment by Yawnoc2 | Hacker News Reader

I'm a bit incredulous at the existence of these knuckle-draggers. There's a big difference between boxing out the sides of a 40+" screen to 4:3 and boxing out the top and bottom of a smaller screen to 16:9 (or 2.35:1). You really had to be a dedicated film buff to watch Lawrence of Arabia letterboxed on a 32" TV. I watch 4:3 content on my TV all the time (e.g., I've been watching poorly deinterlaced Star Trek: TNG via Netflix) and I hardly even notice.

View on HN

"I'm a bit incredulous at the existence of these knuckle-draggers. "

I've met many people who will not watch any film - no matter how good its reputation -- if it's in black and white. The first time I heard someone say "I can't watch this - it's in black and white" I thought it was a joke. That was 22 years ago, and he was a post-grad student. He was utterly serious. Since then I've met others like that.

I guess SD is the new black (and white).

Many films originally printed in color for theaters had their delicate color internegatives lost or destroyed or decayed. Often only archive mono prints manages to survive, because of better or more stable chemistry.

Ted Turner wasn't all crazy. He had history on his side, for some movies. But then he also got a huge upsurge in viewing, of the films he colorized. I think there's fair argument that more distribution, more viewing, of a art form, is a good thing.

Also, what's dismissed as SD is so often truly awful SD, not clean and heavily compressed.

Like the commented above, I often wish for just a decent SD copy. Really well transferred DVDs are pretty good to watch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com