Wait . . . are you saying that you never, never watch crap? You only watch dense, arty films that are full of lofty merit?
I'm Scott Rubin, not Scott Johnson.
If I watch crap, either there is some other factor that makes it worth watching, or I don't watch it for very long. Take for example when we watched "Teenage Catgirls in Heat". It's a famously bad movie, mostly because of its awesome title. We didn't actually want to waste time watching it, but we wanted to see what the deal was. We skipped through most of the movie, something which is easy now that VCRs are dead. It took us maybe 5 minutes to see what there was to see.
Also take for example the Adam West Batman movie. I've already seen it twice in my life, so I never need to see it again. Yet, I know some people who watch it annually. It's terrible crap, but it brings lots of lols, with the shark repellent and such. However, the real reason they watch it is not to enjoy the movie, but to enjoy the people they are with. I will often re-watch something I have already seen, just to see the reactions of the people who are seeing it for the first time. That kind of experience is better than what the vast majority of movies can provide.
It really depends. If it's a monitor, I prefer a widescreen 20"-24" monitor, and if it's a TV, standard is just fine. Size doesn't make that much of a difference to me, unless it is either super big or super small (which is my situation right now).
Wait . . . are you saying that you never, never watch crap? You only watch dense, arty films that are full of lofty merit?
Take for example when we watched "Teenage Catgirls in Heat". It's a famously bad movie, mostly because of its awesome title. We didn't actually want to waste time watching it, but we wanted to see what the deal was. We skipped through most of the movie, something which is easy now that VCRs are dead. It took us maybe 5 minutes to see what there was to see.
It really depends. If it's a monitor, I prefer a widescreen 20"-24" monitor, and if it's a TV, standard is just fine. Size doesn't make that much of a difference to me, unless it is either super big or super small (which is my situation right now).
We're not talking about size, we're talking about aspect ratio.
It really depends. If it's a monitor, I prefer a widescreen 20"-24" monitor, and if it's a TV, standard is just fine. Size doesn't make that much of a difference to me, unless it is either super big or super small (which is my situation right now).
We're not talking about size, we're talking about aspect ratio.
I know that, I just put size there. My monitor has a 16:10 aspect ratio, and my little TV is whatever the default is, 4:3 or whatever 1:xx:x it is.
This is a good point, but it's easy to explain. Lawrence Lessig often talks about the concept of adding value. Look at The Phantom Edit. It's an edit, to be sure, but it unquestionably adds value. It is actually an entirely new artistic work that happens to utilize source material from a previously existing work. The same goes for my Fox Trot comic, and much electronic music.
Pan and scan, squished, or stretched, versions of movies aren't remixes. They don't add value. They are merely damaged editions of the original, like a book with random pages torn out.
If you want to determine if something adds value, start by asking this question. Will the remixed version fetch a higher price on eBay than the original? It's not a perfect test to see if value was added, but it gives you a good idea.
Wait . . . are you saying that you never, never watch crap? You only watch dense, arty films that are full of lofty merit?
I'm Scott Rubin, not Scott Johnson.
If I watch crap, either there is some other factor that makes it worth watching, or I don't watch it for very long. Take for example when we watched "Teenage Catgirls in Heat". It's a famously bad movie, mostly because of its awesome title. We didn't actually want to waste time watching it, but we wanted to see what the deal was. We skipped through most of the movie, something which is easy now that VCRs are dead. It took us maybe 5 minutes to see what there was to see.
Also take for example the Adam West Batman movie. I've already seen it twice in my life, so I never need to see it again. Yet, I know some people who watch it annually. It's terrible crap, but it brings lots of lols, with the shark repellent and such. However, the real reason they watch it is not to enjoy the movie, but to enjoy the people they are with. I will often re-watch something I have already seen, just to see the reactions of the people who are seeing it for the first time. That kind of experience is better than what the vast majority of movies can provide.
Just because the filmmaker puts it there does not mean it's superior. Many films would benefit from heavy editing. Look what happened with Star Wars; A New Hope benefited from heavy studio limitations, while The Phantom Menace suffered without anyone to pull in Lucas' reins. You plebs might not understand that.
There is a BIG difference between skillfully editing a film to make it a better, more enjoyable experience and just hacking off 1/3 to 1/2 with little just because it isn't the center of the action.
Can you really tell me that the LotR movies are equally visually stunning in pan and scan? How about Spirited Away? To me this is equal to taking out cetrain instruments in a song. Lets just take out the cow bell from (Don't Fear) The Reaper or omit all harmonies on every song.
To me this is equal to taking out cetrain instruments in a song. Lets just take out the cow bell from(Don't Fear) The Reaperor omit all harmonies on every song.
I think it's more like seeing two versions of (Don't Fear) The Reaper on Frostwire. One is 3 minutes and 30 seconds long, and the other is 3 minutes and 28 seconds long. The shorter length version doesn't have a blank bit at the end, but it has everything else necessary to fully enjoy the song.
Can you really tell me that the LotR movies are equally visually stunning in pan and scan? How about Spirited Away? To me this is equal to taking out cetrain instruments in a song. Lets just take out the cow bell from(Don't Fear) The Reaperor omit all harmonies on every song.
I would prefer things not be edited. It is a preference not a mandatory requirement for my respect and devotion. Most of you are WAY over-the-top. Certain media is worth consuming even if the form is not in the "perfect" format.
This question will soon be rendered moot as most if not all new TV's are wide screen and more and more companies are cutting down on releasing the two different versions of their films. Besides, most film studios are starting to fully use the wide screen format by including more important pieces of the film in the areas that would be cut off in Full Screen.
I like the movie Real Genius. When it was in theaters, I saw it enough times that I could recite dialogue along with the actors without missing a beat. I was very, very familiar with that film.
When it came out on VHS, I immediately acquired it. When I watched it for the first time in 4:3 aspect ratio, the only thing I noticed missing from the theater version was a minute bit of a single long shot over some carnival roller coaster tracks. That was the only thing. Obviously, the altered version was just as good as the theater version.
Indeed. I just added it to my Netflix Queue. Too bad it's not instant watch. I probably should just buy the damn thing. Seeing Val Kilmer with lipstick/lip gloss kinda sexy.
I just like the widescreen format and make videos in that aspect ratio, because it just doesn't feel claustrophobic like the 4:3 aspect ratio. But from this article I read a couple years ago, shows that some directors filmed their works in 4:3. It's under "Other Options". This lead to some questions as to which is filmed in what, because I would hate to watch a movie then only realize that a good chunk of the picture is gone.
But fromthis article I read a couple years ago, shows that some directors filmed their works in 4:3. It's under "Other Options". This lead to some questions as to which is filmed in what, because I would hate to watch a movie then only realize that a good chunk of the picture is gone.
If you go on IMDB or Wikipedia it is easy to find out the original aspect ratio of almost anything.
For example, Dumbo, one of my favorites, was filmed in 1.37:1. That's only the tiniest bit larger than 4:3 which is actually just 1.3333:1. That's why you never see a widescreen Dumbo.
I can understand people wanting full-screen movies, but what really makes me angry is when a movie is shot in something approaching 4:3, and a version is released with black bars over the top and bottom of the film to create letterbox version. It blew my mind (in a terrible way) when I found out that this happens. From Widescreen.org
WIDESCREEN FOR THE SAKE OF WIDESCREEN
As most of you should know by now, I am not an advocate of widescreen just for the sake of widescreen. I am a fervent supporter of the "original aspect ratio" or OAR. This is the version that the people who matter the directors, producers, cinematographers, and so forth decide is best for their movies.
If film makers want a movie to be shown in 2.35:1, then that is how the movie should be shown. No exceptions. Pan-and-scan supporters be damned. If film makers want a movie to be shown in 1.33:1, then that is how the movie should be shown. No exceptions.
I hear every now and then from those who particularly enjoy Stanley Kubrick's movies. With very few exceptions, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, he framed most of his movies (including The Shining and Full Metal Jacket) for a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Unfortunately, this caused a problem with many because they were shown theatrically at 1.85:1. This is not because he wanted a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Instead, this happened because most modern theaters are incapable of showing a movie in anything less than 1.85:1. As a result, most people thought that the 1.85:1 version is what Kubrick wanted. This is not true.
This means that you should never find a widescreen version of movies like The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and others. I will actually come to the defense of those who say that there should be no widescreen version.
Get ready for me to advocate this position again.
A few months ago, I found out that Kung Fu (David Carradine) will be coming to DVD. I have always liked this show and actually considered buying the sets when they come out (after I finish my Deep Space 9 sets, of course). But according to TVShowsOnDVD.com these DVDs will be coming out in anamorphic widescreen!
As much as I support widescreen, I cannot support this. This TV show was created long before widescreen TV was ever a genuine concept. This show was created even before stereo first appeared in theaters. There is no excuse for showing in widescreen a piece that was not even properly composed for widescreen! I sincerely doubt that the original creators sat around before shooting each episode and tried to figure out the best way for the episodes to be shown in a 16:9 aspect ratio for TVs that would not become popular until 30 years afterwards.
The whole concept of aspect ratios can be a controversial one; but as far as I am concerned, there is no controversy here. The 16:9 aspect ratio of Kung Fu is wrong. This is another type of pan-and-scan in action except that the top and bottom are being cut off instead of the sides.
I hope that this is a trend that does not continue.
I just want to see the media in its original form. I can understand that some people want full screen or widescreen when the original was otherwise but why can't the DVD maker just add a feature to cut off the otherwise unseen parts. It would just make the video the appropriate aspect ratio. I probably wouldn't use the feature but I know that some people might. I am also as against the release of a widescreen-only version of a tv show as I am with a full screen-only movie release. The thing with fullscreen to widescreen that the stretching isn't as bad as widescreen to fullscreen stretching. They could just release an unmodified dvd and everyone that wanted it widescreen that had a widescreen could just set it to stretch. I have it that way for my TV and my PC monitor and you can hardly tell. I have seen a fullscreen video stretched to fit a full screen though, and it looked like crap.
I can understand people wanting full-screen movies, but what really makes me angry is when a movie is shot in something approaching 4:3, and a version is released with black bars over the top and bottom of the film to create letterbox version. It blew my mind (in a terrible way) when I found out that this happens. From Widescreen.org WIDESCREEN FOR THE SAKE OF WIDESCREEN
As most of you should know by now, I am not an advocate of widescreen just for the sake of widescreen. I am a fervent supporter of the "original aspect ratio" or OAR. This is the version that the people who matter the directors, producers, cinematographers, and so forth decide is best for their movies.
If film makers want a movie to be shown in 2.35:1, then that is how the movie should be shown. No exceptions. Pan-and-scan supporters be damned. If film makers want a movie to be shown in 1.33:1, then that is how the movie should be shown. No exceptions.
I hear every now and then from those who particularly enjoy Stanley Kubrick's movies. With very few exceptions, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, he framed most of his movies (including The Shining and Full Metal Jacket) for a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Unfortunately, this caused a problem with many because they were shown theatrically at 1.85:1. This is not because he wanted a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Instead, this happened because most modern theaters are incapable of showing a movie in anything less than 1.85:1. As a result, most people thought that the 1.85:1 version is what Kubrick wanted. This is not true.
This means that you should never find a widescreen version of movies like The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and others. I will actually come to the defense of those who say that there should be no widescreen version.
Get ready for me to advocate this position again.
A few months ago, I found out that Kung Fu (David Carradine) will be coming to DVD. I have always liked this show and actually considered buying the sets when they come out (after I finish my Deep Space 9 sets, of course). But according to TVShowsOnDVD.com these DVDs will be coming out in anamorphic widescreen!
As much as I support widescreen, I cannot support this. This TV show was created long before widescreen TV was ever a genuine concept. This show was created even before stereo first appeared in theaters. There is no excuse for showing in widescreen a piece that was not even properly composed for widescreen! I sincerely doubt that the original creators sat around before shooting each episode and tried to figure out the best way for the episodes to be shown in a 16:9 aspect ratio for TVs that would not become popular until 30 years afterwards.
The whole concept of aspect ratios can be a controversial one; but as far as I am concerned, there is no controversy here. The 16:9 aspect ratio of Kung Fu is wrong. This is another type of pan-and-scan in action except that the top and bottom are being cut off instead of the sides.
I hope that this is a trend that does not continue.
Nobody has yet mentioned the blurring effect that I often spot when the selected 4:3 area pans left or right. If the background was originally motionless and motion is added in the pan and scan process, the image reduces in quality in a very noticeable way. Or it is very noticeable for me.
Nobody has yet mentioned the blurring effect that I often spot when the selected 4:3 area pans left or right. If the background was originally motionless and motion is added in the pan and scan process, the image reduces in quality in a very noticeable way. Or it is very noticeable for me.
My ex-wife was a die-hard fullscreen fan until I broke out two TVs, hooked up a DVD player to each of them, and then ran the fullscreen version of a movie on one and the letterbox on the other. Once she saw them side-by-side, she noticed how jarring the pan-and-scan was and how much of the action she was missing. She never bought another fullscreen movie for the rest of the time we were together, and I'm assuming she still watches the letterbox versions. There's really no reason for the pan-and-scan fullscreen versions of movies these days. Put me squarely in the letterbox camp.
I can't believe some of you guys are preferring the pan-and-scan of that first clip with the dancing. Are you not seeing what you are missing? Seriously! The way she is moving about the room is so much more interesting than having the screen focused on her at all times. You really are missing out on careful composition and atmosphere in that scene. You're really calling that "useless information"? There is more to art (even lowbrow art) than the obvious layer/message and whether they realise it or not people do pick up on the secondary stuff.
Anyway, if you have vision problems couldn't you just zoom the screen in a bit? I've done that with movies before and if you're the kind of person willing to call the stuff on the outer edge extraneous then frankly that'd work just fine for you.
The funny thing is, I wonder what the people who watched these 70mm Cinemascope films originally in the theaters would've reacted to the travesty of pan and scan. Would they be offended, struck to the core by how television toys with these films?
Let me do one more example to drive home this point to people who still think pan+scan is a good idea.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and they are correct. Any visual image communicates an incredibly large number of ideas and feelings to the viewer. The content of that communication varies from person to person, but it is always there. So examine this picture, and think about what ideas and feelings it communicates.
Now compare that to the original.
By cropping the picture you totally change what it means. It's no different than taking words out of a sentence, or notes out of a song. Sure, you can still see the primary subject of the image, but the meaning is totally different.
A movie isn't just one picture. It's hundreds of thousands of pictures. You can see how much is changed when you crop just one picture, think about how much is lost when you crop and pan a full length feature film. It's horrific.
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.
FYI, I got the picture form Flickr, it's Creative Commonsed.
Comments
If I watch crap, either there is some other factor that makes it worth watching, or I don't watch it for very long. Take for example when we watched "Teenage Catgirls in Heat". It's a famously bad movie, mostly because of its awesome title. We didn't actually want to waste time watching it, but we wanted to see what the deal was. We skipped through most of the movie, something which is easy now that VCRs are dead. It took us maybe 5 minutes to see what there was to see.
Also take for example the Adam West Batman movie. I've already seen it twice in my life, so I never need to see it again. Yet, I know some people who watch it annually. It's terrible crap, but it brings lots of lols, with the shark repellent and such. However, the real reason they watch it is not to enjoy the movie, but to enjoy the people they are with. I will often re-watch something I have already seen, just to see the reactions of the people who are seeing it for the first time. That kind of experience is better than what the vast majority of movies can provide.
Pan and scan, squished, or stretched, versions of movies aren't remixes. They don't add value. They are merely damaged editions of the original, like a book with random pages torn out.
If you want to determine if something adds value, start by asking this question. Will the remixed version fetch a higher price on eBay than the original? It's not a perfect test to see if value was added, but it gives you a good idea.
Can you really tell me that the LotR movies are equally visually stunning in pan and scan? How about Spirited Away? To me this is equal to taking out cetrain instruments in a song. Lets just take out the cow bell from (Don't Fear) The Reaper or omit all harmonies on every song.
When it came out on VHS, I immediately acquired it. When I watched it for the first time in 4:3 aspect ratio, the only thing I noticed missing from the theater version was a minute bit of a single long shot over some carnival roller coaster tracks. That was the only thing. Obviously, the altered version was just as good as the theater version.
For example, Dumbo, one of my favorites, was filmed in 1.37:1. That's only the tiniest bit larger than 4:3 which is actually just 1.3333:1. That's why you never see a widescreen Dumbo.
From Widescreen.org
I am also as against the release of a widescreen-only version of a tv show as I am with a full screen-only movie release. The thing with fullscreen to widescreen that the stretching isn't as bad as widescreen to fullscreen stretching. They could just release an unmodified dvd and everyone that wanted it widescreen that had a widescreen could just set it to stretch. I have it that way for my TV and my PC monitor and you can hardly tell. I have seen a fullscreen video stretched to fit a full screen though, and it looked like crap.
Anyway, if you have vision problems couldn't you just zoom the screen in a bit? I've done that with movies before and if you're the kind of person willing to call the stuff on the outer edge extraneous then frankly that'd work just fine for you.
Pan and Scan can go to HELL. It FUCKS the cinematographers original compositions.
Thank you, that is all.
COMPOSITION. Kind of important in films.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and they are correct. Any visual image communicates an incredibly large number of ideas and feelings to the viewer. The content of that communication varies from person to person, but it is always there. So examine this picture, and think about what ideas and feelings it communicates.
Now compare that to the original.
By cropping the picture you totally change what it means. It's no different than taking words out of a sentence, or notes out of a song. Sure, you can still see the primary subject of the image, but the meaning is totally different.
A movie isn't just one picture. It's hundreds of thousands of pictures. You can see how much is changed when you crop just one picture, think about how much is lost when you crop and pan a full length feature film. It's horrific.
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.
FYI, I got the picture form Flickr, it's Creative Commonsed.