OT: DVD movies, Widescreen or Fullscreen?

jLp vAkEr0 · Post by **jLp vAkEr0** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:32 pm

I'm pretty sure I'm right in this, but I would like to confirm it with you guys.

If I don't have a widescreen tv, there isn't a reason why I should buy a ws version of a movie over a fullscreen version?

Any details would be appreciated.

mobiggins · Post by **mobiggins** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:37 pm

Yes there is a very good reason. Fullscreen versions are cropped on the sides to accomodate the square aspect ratio of the TV screen vs. the rectangular one of the film screen. It's called pan and scan.

There's no reason if you don't care about compromising the director's artistic integrity, but most directors use the frame like a canvas, and fullscreen versions of their films seriously crop important visuals from the sides, oftentimes ruining the balance of meticulously thought-out compositions. No, widescreen should be the ONLY way to play a film, since that was the way the director intended it to be viewed. The black bars at the top and bottom are to accomodate the sideways stretch and keep things undistorted.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:46 pm

The one example I remember was there was a shot in GhostBusters where all 4 guys are in one shot. In the panned and scanned (full screen) version, only two guys are visible.

If you keep your DVDs instead of selling them after you viewed them, then you may some day get a widescreen or specifically an HDTV with widescreen.

BTW, for a lot of movies, you will still get black bars on HDTVs because they're using 2:35 to 1 aspect ratios, much wider than 16:9.

Jayhawker · Post by **Jayhawker** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:59 pm

One of the reasons I really enjoy the Sundance and IFC movie channels (besides the great flicks) is that they choose to show their movies in widescreen. In this day and age, there is really no excuse for HBO and the others to continue sticking with fullscreen. Even the better TV dramas have been showing up in widescreen lite format for years.

LAking · Post by **LAking** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:08 pm

Widescreen all the way. Mo pretty much summed it all up. Directors will use every inch of the screen to get reach their "vision". Important things can be cut out with pan and scan. I cringe anytime i see a movie like "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" on TV in pan and scan. You miss so much of that film if it's not in widescreen. It can ruin the movie for me. I just bought the Aviator on DVD and was watching it yesterday and i cuoldn't imagine watching in any other way but widescreen, the way Scorsese insteaded it to be.

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:09 pm

wco81 wrote:The one example I remember was there was a shot in GhostBusters where all 4 guys are in one shot. In the panned and scanned (full screen) version, only two guys are visible.

If the two guys cut out of the frame were Harold Ramis and the Black Guy, you're not missing anything.

But I agree with the guys promoting widescreen. It's the only way to go. Much, much better than P&S.

Here's my pet peeve. My kids watch widescreen DVDs with the TV set for fullscreen. Everything appears too skinny; bugs the sh1t out of me which is probably one of the reasons they keep doing it.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:09 pm

I like widescreen because that way, what's on your TV is what was on the movie screen. I also don't like the panning that usually happens on full screen transfers -- it usually looks artificial. However, some people HATE the black bars, so really, it comes down to personal preference.

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:23 pm

This comparison of the widescreen and fullscreen versions of Star Wars should answer your question.

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/starwars/index.shtml

Spooky · Post by **Spooky** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:21 pm

They still make DVD's in 'Fullscreen' or should I say 'Pan & Scan'!?!? Yuck.

jLp vAkEr0 · Post by **jLp vAkEr0** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:22 pm

So in fact, even if my TV ain't widescreen(27" Panasonic 4:3 TV) the wat to go is WS?

It's just a matter of the black bars bothering me or not?

WillHunting · Post by **WillHunting** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:24 pm

I buy movies based on the OAR (Original Aspect Ratio).

Alot of old movies are shot in 1.33:1 so it doesn't matter, as long as the movie is presented in the same ratio, I am fine with it.

TV shows are mostly in fullscreen format, so widescreen are not available and that's acceptable. But if the movie is shot in widescreen (with various widescreen ratio), then I will only buy the DVD with the OAR and not a cropped/Pan and Scanned version of it.

jLp vAkEr0 · Post by **jLp vAkEr0** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:27 pm

Thanx guys.

Airdog · Post by **Airdog** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:29 pm

Widescreen, 100%.

I get into this discussion with customers everyday and I've gotten to the point where I just say, "Get whatever makes you most comfortable."

Artistic integrity, what the director intended, and visual compositions are lost on most of the Wal-mart viewing audience who almost always respond to the inevitable instance of being forced to purchase a widescreen DVD over a fullscreen with, "Ew, that's got black bars on the top and bottom, right?"

Old people are most susceptible to the condition that is known as anamorphobia. It was bad enough convincing them to purchase that thirty dollar DVD player (Canadian dollars, mind you) and attempting to convince them to purchase a widescreen DVD is a task that at times can be monumental.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:54 pm

I'm surprised Wal Mart even stocks anamorphic releases.

Actually, I'm surprised there are as many anamorphic releases available at most retail outlets, given that most people still have 4:3 sets and a decided resistance to black bars on their TVs.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:01 pm

jlp, I have the same setup as you. 27" 4:3 screen.

I started off getting fullscreen movies, but now I only buy widescreen. The "artistic intention" of the director doesn't bother me much. My reasons are this: First, I plan on keeping my DVDs around for a while. I expect that within the next 5 years we'll be buying a new TV, and it will not be a 4:3 screen. Second, even though I hate the balck bars, I also began to notice some movies where, as the camrea pans across the scene, it looks slightly choppy. I only notice it on fullscreen movies, so I assume it's a result of the conversion from WS to FS.

One thing I find funny is that we've all been watching movies on 4:3 TVs for eons, yet all of a sudden people have this massive issue with it. Maybe we just didn;t realize what we were missing. maybe we kept silent since there was no other option. Either way, it's slightly humorous to see so many "experts" (not referring to anyone here, just a generalization) suddenyl appearing on the subject.

WillHunting · Post by **WillHunting** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:37 pm

matthewk wrote: One thing I find funny is that we've all been watching movies on 4:3 TVs for eons, yet all of a sudden people have this massive issue with it. Maybe we just didn;t realize what we were missing. maybe we kept silent since there was no other option. Either way, it's slightly humorous to see so many "experts" (not referring to anyone here, just a generalization) suddenyl appearing on the subject.

I think you hit it on the nail, we didn't realize what we were missing, and even if we did, there was nothing we can do about it with VHS being the predominant format.

I personally never minded the black bars at all (before I got my HDTV), I know I am getting the "full" picture, whereas I have friends who will not buy any widescreen because they feel that full screen gives them the MOST picture. How ironic.

brendanrfoley · Post by **brendanrfoley** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:47 pm

Stupid question time...

All my DVDs are in 16:9. My current set is a 4:3, but I'll be getting a new HD 16:9 set within the next year or so.

My since my collection is full of the black bars on top and bottom, how will they play on a new set?

I know many HD sets have the "Zoom" function. Is that what it's going to be?

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:52 pm

matthewk wrote:One thing I find funny is that we've all been watching movies on 4:3 TVs for eons, yet all of a sudden people have this massive issue with it. Maybe we just didn;t realize what we were missing.

Speak for yourself on that one. Watching movies on TV has bothered me all my life, until the first 'letterboxed' videotapes made the pain go away, or at least made it a little better. The aspect ratio is a critical factor in any motion picture medium.

A little history for those interested:

Before television, movies were shot in academy frame, the trditional 4x3 shape we are familiar with from TVs, the 1.33:1 aspect ratio; it fills the frame of the 35mm negative as it is fed through the gate vertically (as opposed to horizontally on your still cameras). Once TV started to become popular, the movie industry felt threatened, so a lot of new things were tried in an attempt to elevate the movie experience above that of watching Uncle Milty on TV. Color became the standard for all motion pictures, even the dramatic ones which previously weren't considered appropriate material for color film, while the comedies and musicals already had been for years. And several new widescreen formats were tried out; some lasted longer than others. Many of these were anamorphic formats, where the image is compressed (squeezed) on the film by special lenses, to be re-expanded by the projector when exhibited. Even crazy ideas like shooting movies on big, bulky, heavy and expensive 65mm stock, printing them on 70mm to make room for multiple magnetic audio tracks to provde multi-track sound, to be exhibited in special theaters equipped to display 70mm film with fancy sound systems, became a trend for the huge, epic and historical pictures.

As things settled, and TV matured and movies and TV became more comfortable and less antagonistic in their respective niches, we were left with the 1.85:1 aspect ratio that is the standard movie exhibition format in the States. In Europe, it's 1.66:1. A lot of pictures are shot in 1.85:1 these days, and the Cinematographer often has to compose for that and 1.33:1 in order that video transfers can be made full-frame without having to pay for pan and scan (and of course 1.66:1 for the European release). It's called 'TV-safe;' the entire negative is exposed, and the 1.85:1 mask is only put in at the projector. The camera operator has to make sure nothing (no boom mic. etc.) is within the TV-safe frame, while really composing for the 1.85 frame. It sucks for everyone involved, the shooters, the directors, the boom guys, you never know when you see one in the theater if the frame is properly masked, or even centered correctly (don't get me started on projection quality in the multi-plex, platter system days). And then when you see it on TV, everyone has massive head-room and dead space at the bottom of the frame.

A lot of pictures, though, are shot in anamorphic 2.35:1. (John Carpenter for example only shoots anamorphic, he says that's what makes it 'feel like a movie;' nearly all of Spielberg's films, however, are 1.85:1, a fact I refused to believe when told by a friend until I checked it out. I think some later films of his, like maybe Private Ryan, are anamorphic, but I'm not sure. And of course all the SW films are anamorphic, as evidenced by the link Jason posted.) You can't do TV-safe in anamorphic, because the image is squeezed. So video transfers of such films have to be pan-and-scan, and oftentime they will actually add cuts because, for example, a 2-shot in 2.35:1 can be but into 2 singels in 1.33:1 with only a wee bit of overlap. So then you start to get into not only is the film compositionally misrepresented in that it's a 2.35:1 film stuffed in a 1.33:1 box, but the actual editing has been changed, new cuts have been made, by some idiot in a video-transfer house, when you see the movie on TV. Bad news all the way around.

Why 1.78:1 was the choice for the US HDTV format is a mystery that says more about the nature of bureaucracies than motion picture aesthetics. But suffice it to say, DVDs have been a huge boon for those of us who like to see films as they are shot or at least intended to be seen, and who appreciate the visual aesthetics of what is essentially a visual medium.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:15 pm

Zeppo wrote:Why 1.78:1 was the choice for the US HDTV format is a mystery that says more about the nature of bureaucracies than motion picture aesthetics. But suffice it to say, DVDs have been a huge boon for those of us who like to see films as they are shot or at least intended to be seen, and who appreciate the visual aesthetics of what is essentially a visual medium.

My guess is that it's partly related to limitations of CRT displays. Remember, the ATSC standards were developed in the early '90s and things like DLP were only on the drawing boards.

Besides the display, wider aspect ratios would require more bandwidth from the whole chain. Not just the electronics but the frequency allocation (ATSC is mindful of the spectrum requirements for broadcast).

Plus it's hard enough fitting 16:9 TVs into entertainment centers, never mind even wider sets.

jLp vAkEr0 · Post by **jLp vAkEr0** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:52 pm

Thanx again guys.

My dvd collection was born 10 minutes ago with the Star Wars Trilogy Boxset(Widescreen).

TheGamer · Post by **TheGamer** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 8:11 pm

"and the Black Guy"

his name is Ernie Hudson.

PantherFan · Post by **PantherFan** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:08 pm

JLP,
Congrats on your new purchase. I wish I had seen your post earlier...but the guys (as always) told you the best way to go.
WS all the way !!!!

grtwhtsk · Post by **grtwhtsk** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:07 am

Nothing but widescreen for me.