This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Full screen v. Wide screen

edited January 2009 in Flamewars
Which is better or which do you prefer?

I am a Full screen fan but I don't understand why they don't just put both options on the DVD. OK I understand that it's to make more money.
«134567

Comments

  • Really? Jesus! I thought I knew you :-p
  • I prefer whichever Buybacks has on the rack for $3.
  • edited January 2009
    My man, you have a lot to learn about aspect ratios.

    You always want to watch any video in the same aspect ratio in which it was originally created. If that means black bars across the top and bottom of your TV, then so be it. It's better than the alternative, which is pan and scan. This image explains it all.
    image

    With HDTV problems of aspect ratio are actually getting pretty bad. Many HD channels are trying to pass of standard definition content as HD content using "stretch-o-vision". It's one thing to use a proper up-scaler, but not a stretcher.

    Also, remember that even if you have a widescreen TV, which has a 16:9 aspect ratio, the movie theatre has a 21:9 aspect ratio. That is unless of course, you wait for these bad boys to hit the market.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • Which is better or which do you prefer?
    I prefer to watch things in its original intended form of viewing without any formatting of it, which is most of the time wide screen.

    Overall, it really doesn't matter too much, however watching something full screen on a wide screen tv is a bit annoying.
  • Monday show topic!
  • Monday show topic!
    Huzzah! Too bad that's in two weeks.
  • edited January 2009
    Isn't it kind of silly to insist on 21:9 purism if you can only focus on two degrees of your range of vision anyway? I mean, it would be different if screens wrapped around so movies had peripheral vision (which would be an awesome idea for computer monitors and FPSes), but they don't. Really all you're cutting off when going from wide to full screen are the ends of the loaf of bread, which nobody eats anyway. Those parts of the screen aren't where the action is.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • edited January 2009
    in the 70s, you ended up watching lots of movies on broadcast TV. Sometimes when the movie ended and the credits started running, any picture left on the screen would suddenly stretch up and down like Mr. Fantastic. This was my first experience with different aspect ratios. Then, in the 80s, some bands would use "letterbox" format for their videos on MTV. That was pretty cool, since you didn't see it very often. However, it soon outlasted its welcome. It's to the point now where it's hard to find full screen DVDs. My wife bought me DVDs of the original Star Wars trilogy, but their aspect ratio is even smaller than the regular "letterbox" format. The viewing area is just a little sliver on the screen. I guess if you want to have a viewable area, you have to get a 73" TV.

    Scott, the pan and scan technique doesn't bother me at all. It follows the center of the action. Usually the stuff happening at either of the extreme ends doesn't matter. I'd rather be able to actually see an image and lose some of the information contained on the sides than have to sit twelve inches from the screen so I can see what's happening in the little sliver in the middle of my screen.

    . . . which is just a way of saying I agree with Jason, who really said it better.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • if you have broken eyeballs, video entertainment isn't going to work for you in any aspect ratio.

    And a 73" TV is a little silly. They make 16:9 aspect ratio televisions in all sizes these days. You can a 19" widescreen LCD for less than $200. If you are sitting too far away from the screen, or the screen is too small for the room you are sitting in, those problems have nothing to do with aspect ratio.

    And while you might suggest that only the panned/scanned part has the action, I say this to you. Would you read a book with words taken out? Why don't we just cut up the Mona Lisa so you only see her face. That's the important part right? I guess we'll just read these comics with all the panels that don't have words cut out. Man, too bad my viewing range is limited, I guess those IMAX movies I saw didn't blow my brains out like I thought they did.

    Aren't we all here in agreement that censorship is wrong? I mean, you'll complain if someone edits a violent or sexual scene out of a movie or something, but you won't complain about this? It's the exact same thing. Someone is modifying a piece of artwork. Anyone who truly appreciates art does not want to experience a work in any modified fashion. Even if the original creator is the one doing the modifying *cough*Lucas*cough*, it's still not cool.
  • Aren't we all here in agreement that censorship is wrong? I mean, you'll complain if someone edits a violent or sexual scene out of a movie or something, but you won't complain about this? It's the exact same thing. Someone is modifying a piece of artwork. Anyone who truly appreciates art does not want to experience a work in any modified fashion. Even if the original creator is the one doing the modifying *cough*Lucas*cough*, it's still not cool.
    Straw man.
  • edited January 2009
    Straw man.
    Absolutely not. It's the same thing. It's an undue modification of art. Whether it's for format or content makes no difference. Modification is not ok.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited January 2009
    Censorship and editing and not the same thing. Or perhaps you would be angry at DaVinci for using his canvasses multiple times? What treasures lie beneath the Mona Lisa that he "censored?" You can't censor your own content because censorship is the unwilling, forcible use of editing by authority. Movie studios do not censor their films, they edit them. The MPAA forces a kind of censorship, but that's for another discussion.

    Editing for format to fit a screen is not censorship.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • edited January 2009
    if you have broken eyeballs, video entertainment isn't going to work for you in any aspect ratio.
    My eyes aren't broken. My only problem is that I'm about twenty to thirty years older than you. Does that mean I can no longer watch TV or movies? Now, I know you think you're superhuman, but you will age. When you age, your visual acuity will decrease, among many other things. This is unavoidable. It happens to all of us, even you.
    Would you read a book with words taken out?
    Don't they publish Reader's Digest Condensed Books anymore? Have you never read an abridged or edited book or story, or do you always read the original manuscript in the author's longhand?
    Aren't we all here in agreement that censorship is wrong? I mean, you'll complain if someone edits a violent or sexual scene out of a movie or something, but you won't complain about this? It's the exact same thing. Someone is modifying a piece of artwork. Anyone who truly appreciates art does not want to experience a work in any modified fashion. Even if the original creator is the one doing the modifying *cough*Lucas*cough*, it's still not cool.
    We're not talking about editing out important scenes. Look at the example you placed in your first post. It wouldn't bother me at all losing the information beyond the "pan and scan" boundaries. It's not exactly high art. Most movies can lose this information without any tears from me.

    How do you feel about watching movies edited for length on commercial TV? Is that unacceptable to you?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Isn't it kind of silly to insist on 21:9 purism if you can only focus on two degrees of your range of vision anyway?
    Yes, your eyes can focus only on a very small region at once. However, rapid tiny motions of the eyeball (saccades) build up an internal representation of "what you're seeing" that covers a considerably larger arc. So giving the eye a larger expanse of imagery to roam over most definitely has an effect.

    You also are getting data from your peripheral vision, even when the screen is not wrapped around. Whatever the exact arc of sensitivity is, it still applies, and unless you're sitting really close to a gigantic screen that arc is enough to encompass the whole thing.

  • Don't they publishReader's Digest Condensed Booksanymore? Have you never read an abridged or edited book or story, or do you always read the original manuscript in the author's longhand?
    I never read the abridged version of any book. I also weep over what is lost in translation when I read translated foreign works.
    How do you feel about watching movies edited for length on commercial TV? Is that unacceptable to you.
    It's horrible. Notice how I don't watch commercial TV anymore?
  • edited January 2009
    And while you might suggest that only the panned/scanned part has the action, I say this to you. Would you read a book with words taken out? Why don't we just cut up the Mona Lisa so you only see her face. That's the important part right? I guess we'll just read these comics with all the panels that don't have words cut out. Man, too bad my viewing range is limited, I guess those IMAX movies I saw didn't blow my brains out like I thought they did.
    I am with you 100%. Directors and cinematographers included that "extra information" or full visual to enhance the story, scope, or visual beauty of a piece. While this might not matter so much in a TV sitcom, it makes a huge difference in films like LotR, Mirrormask, Pride and Prejudice, etc.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • edited January 2009

    Don't they publishReader's Digest Condensed Booksanymore? Have you never read an abridged or edited book or story, or do you always read the original manuscript in the author's longhand?
    I never read the abridged version of any book. I also weep over what is lost in translation when I read translated foreign works.
    Do you think that the book or story you receive and read was not edited in any way before you consume it? How about movies? Where do all those "Deleted Scenes" on DVDs come from? There's undoubtedly a lot of footage from Duck Soup that ended up on the cutting room floor. Is that movie worthless now because some of the original content is no longer preserved?

    No. Stuff ended up on the cutting room floor because it was unimportant. Similarly the stuff on the edges of the "pan and scan" boundaries is unimportant and can be discarded.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited January 2009

    Don't they publishReader's Digest Condensed Booksanymore? Have you never read an abridged or edited book or story, or do you always read the original manuscript in the author's longhand?
    I never read the abridged version of any book. I also weep over what is lost in translation when I read translated foreign works.
    Do you think that the book or story you receive and read was not edited in any way before you consume it? How about movies? Where do all those "Deleted Scenes" on DVDs come from? There's undoubtedly a lot of footage fromDuck Soupthat ended up on the cutting room floor. Is that movie worthless now that some of the original content is no longer preserved?

    No. Unimportant stuff ended up on the cutting room floor. Similarly the stuff on the edges of the "pan and scan" boundaries is unimportant to the story and can be discarded.
    It is edited and polished to make a complete final product, not making a slimmed down version of an existing product. Pan ans scan cuts out a lot from musicals, epics, and movies with strong visuals that the film makers intended to be there to add to the spectacle, drama, visual metaphors, and moods of films
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • edited January 2009

    Don't they publishReader's Digest Condensed Booksanymore? Have you never read an abridged or edited book or story, or do you always read the original manuscript in the author's longhand?
    I never read the abridged version of any book. I also weep over what is lost in translation when I read translated foreign works.
    Do you think that the book or story you receive and read was not edited in any way before you consume it? How about movies? Where do all those "Deleted Scenes" on DVDs come from? There's undoubtedly a lot of footage fromDuck Soupthat ended up on the cutting room floor. Is that movie worthless now that some of the original content is no longer preserved?

    No. Unimportant stuff ended up on the cutting room floor. Similarly the stuff on the edges of the "pan and scan" boundaries is unimportant to the story and can be discarded.
    It is edited and polished to make a complete final product, not making a slimmed down version of an existing product.
    Respectfully, I'm not with you on this. If you want to talk about the director's intent, most directors for most movies know that their movie will be eventually altered to fit on TV screens, or at least they used to know that.

    I just don't think enough is lost in altering to the 4:3 ratio to justify using the smaller aspect ratios, especially the 2.39:1 ratio. That's the one I really hate.

    Now, a real art movie might be different. I might tolerate Kurosawa's Dreams in 2.39:1, but I want Star Wars to be in at least 1.85:1.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • There's a difference between editing that is done pre-release and the editing done post-release.

    The editing that goes on in the cutting room is part of the creative process. Whenever you create any work of art, you produce a large amount of footage, scuplture, paint, etc. But much of the art lies in deciding what parts of it to keep, and what parts not to keep. In writing you have drafts. In software you have revisions. In painting you have coats. At some point the artists decide they are done, and they produce the finished work.

    The editing you are talking about is not the same kind of editing. It is modification of the finished work by a third party. Let's say I make a sculpture of a big naked greek guy. It takes me a few tries before I get it right. I don't present the tries to the world. I present what I feel is the final sculpt. Now imagine if when my sculpture goes in a museum, the curator takes one of the legs off and keeps it in the back room. That's basically the same as pan and scan. Oh, the leg isn't the important part, the head is. You know what, let's just put the head on display and keep the rest in the closet.

  • Respectfully, I'm not with you on this. If you want to talk about the director's intent, most directors for most movies know that their movie will be eventually altered to fit on TV screens, or at least they used to. I just don't think enough is lost to justify the smaller aspect ratios, especially the 2.39:1 ratio. That's the one I have a real problem with.
    Based on my film study work, this simply isn't true. This is and has been a major concern for filmmakers. For some old movies the "pan and scan" versions are the only versions left as the original film has been damaged or lost. Some of these films included large dance scenes, sweeping vistas, and cinematography techniques that are lost to the world. There are massive programs to locate and restore these old films so that they can be preserved and shown in their full glory. Old musicals are painful to watch in "pan and scan". You lose so much of the wonderful choreography, sets, costumes, and action that make those spectacle films so fantastic. Moreover, now that technology can provide the correct ratio to show the entirety of film, current and up-and-coming film makers and most modern audiences hate it when a film is cropped. They only keep "full screen" as an option for older televisions and older television viewers. My parents are legally blind without their glasses and they have a 24 inch TV in the living room and a 19 inch TV in their bedroom, and they have no problem viewing wide screen/letterbox movies.
  • The differences are that:

    1) You don't have a right to partake in the art.
    2) The studio sold broadcast or display rights to the broadcaster or displayer with the understanding that the content will be modified, which is the studio's right.
    3) You don't have ownership of the art.
    4) You can choose to watch it in another format if you want.
  • I for one don't mind the letterboxes either vertical or horizontal. Now, I predict that with the sad move from film over to digital things like 21:9 and "Full screen" will fade and the current HD standard 16:9 will prevail, it's just a matter of time just like analog TV, VHS, etc. So a 21:9 TV seems kinda foolish as in the future it will probably standardize.

    Pan and Scan is stupid, just letterbox the thing.
  • The differences are that: 1) You don't have a right to partake in the art. 2) The studio sold broadcast or display rights to the broadcaster or displayer with the understanding that the content will be modified, which is the studio's right. 3) You don't have ownership of the art. 4) You can choose to watch it in another format if you want.
    These are all true, but why would anyone want to view only half of a film?
  • edited January 2009
    My parents are legally blind without their glasses and they have a 24 inch TV in the living room and a 19 inch TV in their bedroom, and they have no problem viewing wide screen/letterbox movies.
    Well, I'm telling you that I have a 32" TV and a 21" TV. If I want to watch a film in 2.39:1 ratio and actually see what's going on, I have to sit no less than two feet from my 21" TV. That sucks.

    If it comes to a questions of losing information or ability to easily see, I'd rather be able to see. If I can't see the screen, I'm going to lose the information anyway. It can be very, very pretty, but I won't know because I can't see it!
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • The differences are that: 1) You don't have a right to partake in the art. 2) The studio sold broadcast or display rights to the broadcaster or displayer with the understanding that the content will be modified, which is the studio's right. 3) You don't have ownership of the art. 4) You can choose to watch it in another format if you want.
    These are all true, but why would anyone want to view only half of a film?
    Why would anybody want to not use 1/3 of their screen by going with letterbox?
  • I'm sorry it gives you such a lot of trouble. You can see where people without that affliction would choose the optimum format, right?
  • edited January 2009
    The differences are that: 1) You don't have a right to partake in the art. 2) The studio sold broadcast or display rights to the broadcaster or displayer with the understanding that the content will be modified, which is the studio's right. 3) You don't have ownership of the art. 4) You can choose to watch it in another format if you want.
    These are all true, but why would anyone want to view only half of a film?
    Why would anybody want to not use 1/3 of their screen by going with letterbox?
    Very true. I paid for a 32" TV. I want to see 32" of viewing area.
    You can see where people without that affliction would choose the optimum format, right?
    No, for all the reasons stated before.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited January 2009
    The differences are that: 1) You don't have a right to partake in the art. 2) The studio sold broadcast or display rights to the broadcaster or displayer with the understanding that the content will be modified, which is the studio's right. 3) You don't have ownership of the art. 4) You can choose to watch it in another format if you want.
    These are all true, but why would anyone want to view only half of a film?
    Why would anybody want to not use 1/3 of their screen by going with letterbox?
    You also paid for that DVD, why would you only want to see part of the film? One point of having anything over a 24 inch is for visual quality and having enough screen to watch films in the correct ratio. Why would you miss 1/3rd fo the movie unless you have an unusal vision issue?
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • edited January 2009
    image
    I am missing curtains. I am missing the bookshelf in the background. I am missing immobile characters. I am missing walls and dark spots. These are not big losses.

    What I am gaining is better cropping, a more tightly-focused area of action, and the use of the full screen instead of blacked-out letterbox bars.

    These are pretty equal trade-offs, and it's why I originally said I prefer whichever format is least expensive at the used video store.
    Post edited by Jason on
Sign In or Register to comment.