Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
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.
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.
Overall, it really doesn't matter too much, however watching something full screen on a wide screen tv is a bit annoying.
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.
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.
Editing for format to fit a screen is not censorship.
How do you feel about watching movies edited for length on commercial TV? Is that unacceptable to you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pan and Scan is stupid, just letterbox the thing.
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!
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.