Such ignorant customers just want their screen filled at the cost of demolishing the director's original intention.

here it is not analogous to director's intention of how much image he wants to show to his audience. Here, actually, the entire image is being seen, but distorted as in stretched horizontally to fill up the entire length of the 16x9 TV screen.

I don't know what it is, but the romance and thrill and warmth of DVDs seems totally missing (to me) from BDs

btw, I don't know what it is, but the romance and thrill and warmth of DVDs seems totally missing (to me) from BDs

.... I think the problem is far more prevalent with DVDs of older Indian films, especially with those that are in the 4:3 aspect ratio. In the Mard DVD (take your pick — they all suck), for instance, it is clear that you are watching a 4:3 aspect-ratio (though I'm not sure whether the film was shot this way or not [it is likely that it was, indeed, not, as it is an '80s' film, and those usually used wider framings (even in India)]), yet you sometimes feel that you might be missing part of the picture. Well, anyway, good topic.

The more I see older 4:3 movies on TV, the more I feel Commando303 is right.

Ok... but how are we going to compare the theater print from a dvd? Unless you have two dvds of the same title. The best example will be the two Jaanwar dvds. Here's a link to the old zulm forums...

http://www.zulm.net/of/showthread.php?threadid=860