What's the big deal? Pan and scan is fine for small stuff on your TV that you'd throw on in the background. If you're going to a cinema or making time to watch a film then original aspect or slight zoom would be preferable. Is it an objective matter?
Obviously people are free to watch their movies and TV however they wish. But if you're going to argue that pan and scan is superior or just as good as the original format - that all that stuff that gets cut out is "useless" anyway - then you lose respect points from me and I will take future art recommendations from you with a grain of salt.
I would hate for some non-original format to become THE standard but that seems to be how things are going. T_T
Pan and Scan is just bad in general, just look at the perspective from Apreche's. Although if you're just throwing it into the background and not paying attention to the TV, then I guess pan and scan is alright. This is why when most shows are filmed in widescreen, the main action is near the center, thus eliminating the pan and scan. I just watched 90210 just for the hell of it (don't ask why), flipping between the 4:3 SD and 16:9 HD signals, and they kept the action in the center. While the show looked good in 4:3, it felt more alive in 16:9; not because it's in HD, but it showed more of the background activity (best in scenes with a crowd).
Actually, this annoys me equally or more, PANORAMIC mode on HDTVs!
If you are that shallow that you can not understand the difference, then I have genuine pity for you. It is truly a sad human being who is unable to appreciate the arts beyond an incredibly slim understanding.
Yes! Pity me! Dress me in sackcloth and give me a shard of pottery with which to scrape my pustulating boils! I don't know how important the punk kids and the dumpster off in the background of the extreme right are to the composition of this great work of art! Oh, woe is me! Oh fie! That it should come to this! The shame and the black sorrow of it are like unto a mortal sin, most rank, vile, and unnatural.
Shame, eternal shame, nothing but shame! Oh, sin as black as night! Henceforth, sorrow and shame will be my only friends since I could not appreciate the artistic merit of the dumpster. Not only that, but the punk kids as well! How shall I abide, now that my inadequacy has been revealed?
Pan and Scan cuts out a substantial amount of a work. The creation of a "fullscreen" version of any work effectively creates a new work derivative of the original, as would any edit, remix, or remastering. This fact is not in dispute.
The question, then, is why one would prefer such a derivative work to the original. The reasons I have seen presented are thus:
Poor eyesight
Watching throw-away media
Utilizing all of the screen
Aesthetic improvement
In the case of item 1, the proper solution would clearly be to purchase a larger television: "pan and scan" is definitely a shoddy work-around at best. Beyond that, most vision problems can be resolved to nearly 100% by proper glasses.
In the case of item 2, this is a reasonable rationale. If you're watching something with such little artistry or value, or care so little about the work as a whole, then you can watch it in whatever format you like. You just have to be aware that you are in fact experiencing a derivative work.
Item 3 is pathetic, and warrants no further discussion. All modern televisions have reasonable aspect ratios and high enough resolution to make this the concern of fools and brigands.
Item 4 would be a rare case indeed. Pan and scan tends to reduce a film to several close-in shots of faces talking, removes ambiance and atmosphere, introduces artifacts, changes still shots into panning ones (artificial camera movement), and so forth.. Unless the director himself oversaw (and approved of) the transition, I would be highly dubious of any claim along these lines.
In the case of item 1, the proper solution would clearly be to purchase a larger television: "pan and scan" is definitely a shoddy work-around at best. Beyond that, most vision problems can be resolved to nearly 100% by proper glasses.
Age-related problems can't always be solved by glasses. You will age too.
Item 3 is pathetic, and warrants no further discussion. All modern televisions have reasonable aspect ratios and high enough resolution to make this the concern of fools and brigands.
That's hardly an argument, although you have correctly inferred that I am, in fact, a brigand.
It's very simple. I bought a 32" TV. I want to view a 32" picture. I'm not pleased that I have to purchase a larger television in order to view such a picture, especially when prices for TVs larger than 32" are so high.
You've got to remember that the FRC is a collection of almost equal parts scientists and artists: we take both art and science very seriously.
Oh, you take art seriously? That must be why you guys are so enamored of a genre known mostly for stories featuring pre-pubescent girls that morph into giant robots. Sure, I can understand why you'd need to be able to view all of that precious artwork in its purest form.
I bought a 32" TV. I want to view a 32" picture. I'm not pleased that I have to purchase a larger television in order to view such a picture
So, you're misunderstanding a metric used to sell televisions and then complaining about said misunderstanding. It's no different than the fact that CRT manufacturers for the longest time reported physical size as screen size, including the plastic bezel.
The '32"' metric is useless in the modern era, where aspect ratios are not all the same. Comparing a 32" 16:9 to a 32" 4:3 will make this obvious. Your 32" television is showing you a 32" image at its specific aspect ratio. If you want your image to actually be 32 diagonal inches, then you need to purchase a television that has a higher value for this metric. Why do you expect more than your television physically allows for? You bought it at this size, and it's displaying exactly what it said it would.
Oh, you take art seriously? That must be why you guys are so enamored of a genre known mostly for stories featuring pre-pubescent girls that morph into giant robots. Sure, I can understand why you'd need to be able to view all of that precious artwork in its purest form.
I think they have been quite clear that they dislike those kind of shows, like most of us, you can't make that kind of general argument over a sample of the whole, you are just a degree above "I am rubber you are glue".
The '32"' metric is useless in the modern era, where aspect ratios are not all the same. Comparing a 32" 16:9 to a 32" 4:3 will make this obvious. Your 32" television is showing you a 32" image at its specific aspect ratio. If you want your image to actually be 32 diagonal inches, then you need to purchase a television that has a higher value for this metric. Why do you expect more than your television physically allows for? You bought it at this size, and it's displaying exactly what it said it would.
When I bought the TV, they didn't have all this 16:9 nonsense. If I watched a video, it filled my whole 32" screen. I measured it while it was playing a video, and it was 32 inches. I measured it when the TV was playing Matlock, and the viewable area was . . . 32 inches.
It irks me no end that, once widescreen (16:9) screens became more common in homes, cinemas decided they needed to be just that bit different by making cinemascreen (21:9 or 7:3) aspect films. If you want me to watch your film in it's intended format, could we at least meet half way.
That said, this thread is too serious. Just get a widescreen display. If they start releasing cinemascreen blu-rays or DLMs, they deserve all the editing they get.
Edit: It seems cinemascreen is just a word I made up to cover a range of cinema aspect ratios. Not that relavent. I just have a thing against any abundance of standards.
When I bought the TV, they didn't have all this 16:9 nonsense. If I watched a video, it filled my whole 32" screen. I measured it while it was playing a video, and it was 32 inches. I measured it when the TV was playingMatlock, and the viewable area was . . . 32 inches.
The world has passed you buy. You are a grumpy old man clinging to your old obsolete ways. What was once right is now wrong. Either stay in the past and remain ignorant, or face the facts and move forward. There are plenty of other people your age and older who do not have the same problems you do, it's because they adapt to the changing world. Don't blame the world for your personal failings.
Also, just to make my point again, compare these two sentences.
I see a cat wearing a hat.
I spy a feline adorned with a cap.
Oh, those two sentences are the same, right? Let's just rewrite every book to make it easier to read. It's ok if the sentences still have the same meaning, right?
I'm finding more and more people who seem to be generally intelligent, yet are revealed to be effectively retarded when it comes to understanding art. I think we need to make art appreciation and art history required classes in school right along with technology courses.
When I bought the TV, they didn't have all this 16:9 nonsense. If I watched a video, it filled my whole 32" screen. I measured it while it was playing a video, and it was 32 inches. I measured it when the TV was playingMatlock, and the viewable area was . . . 32 inches.
So, you have an obsolete television and demand that content providers continue to accommodate you.
It irks me no end that, once widescreen (16:9) screens became more common in homes, cinemas decided they needed to be just that bit different by making cinemascreen (21:9 or 7:3) aspect films. If you want me to watch your film in it's intended format, could we at least meet half way.
They were using aspect ratios much wider than 16:9 long before wide screen televisions exited. Off the top of my head, Star Wars and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly were both about that wide. It's not some plot to screw you with your 16:9 TV. It's an artistic decision. The fact that you can't understand it doesn't make it less true.
The fact that you can't understand it doesn't make it less true.
Lies and the classic Scott people skills in evidence.
I'm kind of intruiged as to what this 4:1 (that's four times wider than tall) film would look like. The problem with going so wide is that you then are either loosing so much to peripheral vision or have to cut so much into the top and bottom.
But with both of them it becomes an odd shape. This isn't that important due to the matter of your eyes moving around if something happens in the corner. Also, when are we going to get the home IMAX projectors?
But with both of them it becomes an odd shape. This isn't that important due to the matter of your eyes moving around if something happens in the corner. Also, when are we going to get the home IMAX projectors?
Never. What you will see is some sort of glasses-based display that occupies the entire FOV.
Seriously? Its not the most important thing in the world. I just think it kinda dicks the DP after they put in the effort to set up the shot, or the animator that lovingly slaved over the composition of an animated film. This is my opinion.
Here, I'll leave you with a story about why I decided which format I prefer. When I was younger, like 14, my father bought me back a raw widescreen tape of My Neighbor Totoro from Japan. I had seen the movie many times, dubbed, in a pan and scan version. The thing that got me was all the little detail action that got lost around the edges, like kids goofing off with their cleaning rags in the corner of the school window, or the little beasts that run into the shadows when Mei goes through the tunnel. It's not art that was VITAL to the story, but it added that extra layer of charm to the film. Although the movie was good in pan and scan, the shots had much more impact in their original theatrical format. I think many movies, animated features in particular (Beauty and the Beast come to mind as another one I've compared), benefit aesthetically from a wide screen release.
P.S. Aww, Joe, don't knock my taste in movies. Just because I enjoy me some ay-nimes doesn't mean we don't watch a good variety of films. (Just never bring Rym to a Fassbinder screening. It appears he's not a fan of the German New Wave.)
When I bought the TV, they didn't have all this 16:9 nonsense. If I watched a video, it filled my whole 32" screen. I measured it while it was playing a video, and it was 32 inches. I measured it when the TV was playingMatlock, and the viewable area was . . . 32 inches.
The world has passed you buy. You are a grumpy old man clinging to your old obsolete ways. What was once right is now wrong. Either stay in the past and remain ignorant, or face the facts and move forward. There are plenty of other people your age and older who do not have the same problems you do, it's because they adapt to the changing world. Don't blame the world for your personal failings.
I'm finding more and more people who seem to be generally intelligent, yet are revealed to be effectively retarded when it comes to understanding art. I think we need to make art appreciation and art history required classes in school right along with technology courses.
I'm actually hesitant about writing this. I thought it was clear that this was a light-hearted deal in general and so I was trying for laughs, writing about Matlock, and so forth. I don't even really disagree with the general premise that movies shouldn't be altered. I was just trying to have some fun. Then you come up with this? If you don't agree with Scott, then you're retarded?
So, you have an obsolete television and demand that content providers continue to accommodate you.
He has an obsolete brain and body and demands the world accommodate him.
That's nice. Bring it to a personal level. Who was it that can't do one push-up? I have news for you friend: If you can't do one push-up at your age, you'll be way more broken down than me when you're my age.
If you really want to go for the personal thing, I'll pit my obsolete body in any physical contest against yours any time. I'll pit my obsolete brain against yours in a contest regarding understanding of art, literature, math, or science (excluding technology, as I would imagine law should be excluded as well) any time.
I'm just playing you at your own rape-kit game you blind old man.
You have given me a reason to live. My will to live has been reinvigorated. I vow this day to live until you are my age so that I may then scoff at your physical problems, and if you can't do one push-up now, you're gonna have many physical problems by then, so there will be many things at which I'll be able to scoff.
I'm just playing you at your own rape-kit game you blind old man.
You have given me a reason to live. My will to live has been reinvigorated. I vow this day to live until you are my age so that I may then scoff at your physical problems, and if you can't do one push-up now, you're gonna havemanyphysical problems by then, so there will be many things at which I'll be able to scoff.
Don't go giving me a reason to go to the gymnasium.
Comments
I would hate for some non-original format to become THE standard but that seems to be how things are going. T_T
Actually, this annoys me equally or more, PANORAMIC mode on HDTVs!
Shame, eternal shame, nothing but shame! Oh, sin as black as night! Henceforth, sorrow and shame will be my only friends since I could not appreciate the artistic merit of the dumpster. Not only that, but the punk kids as well! How shall I abide, now that my inadequacy has been revealed?
Steven Seagal's Letterbox 2000 is the way to go!
Pan and Scan cuts out a substantial amount of a work. The creation of a "fullscreen" version of any work effectively creates a new work derivative of the original, as would any edit, remix, or remastering. This fact is not in dispute.
The question, then, is why one would prefer such a derivative work to the original. The reasons I have seen presented are thus:
- Poor eyesight
- Watching throw-away media
- Utilizing all of the screen
- Aesthetic improvement
In the case of item 1, the proper solution would clearly be to purchase a larger television: "pan and scan" is definitely a shoddy work-around at best. Beyond that, most vision problems can be resolved to nearly 100% by proper glasses.In the case of item 2, this is a reasonable rationale. If you're watching something with such little artistry or value, or care so little about the work as a whole, then you can watch it in whatever format you like. You just have to be aware that you are in fact experiencing a derivative work.
Item 3 is pathetic, and warrants no further discussion. All modern televisions have reasonable aspect ratios and high enough resolution to make this the concern of fools and brigands.
Item 4 would be a rare case indeed. Pan and scan tends to reduce a film to several close-in shots of faces talking, removes ambiance and atmosphere, introduces artifacts, changes still shots into panning ones (artificial camera movement), and so forth.. Unless the director himself oversaw (and approved of) the transition, I would be highly dubious of any claim along these lines.
It's very simple. I bought a 32" TV. I want to view a 32" picture. I'm not pleased that I have to purchase a larger television in order to view such a picture, especially when prices for TVs larger than 32" are so high. Oh, you take art seriously? That must be why you guys are so enamored of a genre known mostly for stories featuring pre-pubescent girls that morph into giant robots. Sure, I can understand why you'd need to be able to view all of that precious artwork in its purest form.
The '32"' metric is useless in the modern era, where aspect ratios are not all the same. Comparing a 32" 16:9 to a 32" 4:3 will make this obvious. Your 32" television is showing you a 32" image at its specific aspect ratio. If you want your image to actually be 32 diagonal inches, then you need to purchase a television that has a higher value for this metric. Why do you expect more than your television physically allows for? You bought it at this size, and it's displaying exactly what it said it would.
That said, this thread is too serious. Just get a widescreen display. If they start releasing cinemascreen blu-rays or DLMs, they deserve all the editing they get.
Edit: It seems cinemascreen is just a word I made up to cover a range of cinema aspect ratios. Not that relavent. I just have a thing against any abundance of standards.
Also, just to make my point again, compare these two sentences.
I see a cat wearing a hat.
I spy a feline adorned with a cap.
Oh, those two sentences are the same, right? Let's just rewrite every book to make it easier to read. It's ok if the sentences still have the same meaning, right?
I'm finding more and more people who seem to be generally intelligent, yet are revealed to be effectively retarded when it comes to understanding art. I think we need to make art appreciation and art history required classes in school right along with technology courses.
I'm kind of intruiged as to what this 4:1 (that's four times wider than tall) film would look like. The problem with going so wide is that you then are either loosing so much to peripheral vision or have to cut so much into the top and bottom.
Hmmm.. what is the aspect ratio of the human eye?
Seriously? Its not the most important thing in the world. I just think it kinda dicks the DP after they put in the effort to set up the shot, or the animator that lovingly slaved over the composition of an animated film. This is my opinion.
Here, I'll leave you with a story about why I decided which format I prefer. When I was younger, like 14, my father bought me back a raw widescreen tape of My Neighbor Totoro from Japan. I had seen the movie many times, dubbed, in a pan and scan version. The thing that got me was all the little detail action that got lost around the edges, like kids goofing off with their cleaning rags in the corner of the school window, or the little beasts that run into the shadows when Mei goes through the tunnel. It's not art that was VITAL to the story, but it added that extra layer of charm to the film. Although the movie was good in pan and scan, the shots had much more impact in their original theatrical format. I think many movies, animated features in particular (Beauty and the Beast come to mind as another one I've compared), benefit aesthetically from a wide screen release.
P.S. Aww, Joe, don't knock my taste in movies. Just because I enjoy me some ay-nimes doesn't mean we don't watch a good variety of films. (Just never bring Rym to a Fassbinder screening. It appears he's not a fan of the German New Wave.)
If you really want to go for the personal thing, I'll pit my obsolete body in any physical contest against yours any time. I'll pit my obsolete brain against yours in a contest regarding understanding of art, literature, math, or science (excluding technology, as I would imagine law should be excluded as well) any time.
Edit: Day-yum Scott, you are trolling up a storm on your own forum today.