Comment You're Really Not Losing Any Picture (Score 1) 518
ATTN: Your DVDs are fine. Its the inserts that are "bad." This isn't really a big deal.
from: http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2005_01_jan .shtml
Before any of you start to worry, the realistic side of me says that this was indeed a frivolous lawsuit - to an extent. MGM misrepresented the facts, but no harm was really done, either mentally or physically, to anyone. The whole idea behind widescreen, regardless of how MGM misrepresented the widescreen examples, is the sustaining of artistic integrity for those who spent a great deal of time making that movie - a hell of a lot more time than someone who sits and watches the final results in the form of a $20 DVD. MGM was a tad too over-zealous in representing 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 movies, but the final result was the same - the aspect ratio of what was seen in theatres. Their widescreen DVDs appear on the TV screen exactly as they should. I don't see that a lawsuit in this case was really necessary.
and http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread .php?s=&threadid=224367
It's just misrepresentation of the difference between Widescreen and Full Screen on the inserts of many of MGMs discs. The comparisons would show a widescreen image of a 1.85:1 open matte film and then place a 4:3 ratio box within that image to show how information would be cropped out. However, since the films are open matte, those representations would be incorrect and misleading.
from: http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2005_01_ja
Before any of you start to worry, the realistic side of me says that this was indeed a frivolous lawsuit - to an extent. MGM misrepresented the facts, but no harm was really done, either mentally or physically, to anyone. The whole idea behind widescreen, regardless of how MGM misrepresented the widescreen examples, is the sustaining of artistic integrity for those who spent a great deal of time making that movie - a hell of a lot more time than someone who sits and watches the final results in the form of a $20 DVD. MGM was a tad too over-zealous in representing 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 movies, but the final result was the same - the aspect ratio of what was seen in theatres. Their widescreen DVDs appear on the TV screen exactly as they should. I don't see that a lawsuit in this case was really necessary.
and http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthrea
It's just misrepresentation of the difference between Widescreen and Full Screen on the inserts of many of MGMs discs. The comparisons would show a widescreen image of a 1.85:1 open matte film and then place a 4:3 ratio box within that image to show how information would be cropped out. However, since the films are open matte, those representations would be incorrect and misleading.
