Fullscreen vs. Widescreen

[quote name='Demolition Man']Let me bet... they had the Widescreen version stacked at the BOTTOM of the display too right?[/QUOTE]

Yes. The biggest side of the display facing the aisle was FS on top and WS on bottom. Then each smaller side of the display had either full or wide.

[quote name='DJ K8E']That's probably what will happen for me. Except then, anything shot in 4:3 (TV shows and such), are going to have bars on the sides of them. So... bars if I do, bars if I don't. :cry: Je déteste la vie.[/QUOTE]

Most tv shows now are converted to widescreen for dvd. if you buy older shows i.e anything from before 2003 or so its 4:3.
 
[quote name='CitizenB']Most tv shows now are converted to widescreen for dvd. if you buy older shows i.e anything from before 2003 or so its 4:3.[/QUOTE]

There have been a number of shows produced in 16x9 prior to 2003. Examples include The X-Files from season 5 onwards and Millennium Seasons 2 and 3. The DVD releases for Millennium Season 2 and 3 are stunning in fact.

Season 3 however sucked ass.
 
[quote name='PhreQuencYViii']OART does beat all. Isn't that the name of a crappy band too....?[/QUOTE]

You mean OAR and yes its the name of a crappy band.
 
i don't see why the hate for people who like fullscreen, especially if they don't yet have a widescreen ready tv. a story is a story, it's not like watching a fullscreen disrupts the story in a major way. in shot for shot comparisons yeah but for those of us who aren't film nerds with sticks shoved up our asses it makes no real difference. we just want the story and we can get it the same from fullscreen as from widescreen along with having the image fit our whole screen.

what may i ask is so f'ing wrong with that?

that being said i do use whatever the correct ratio is for what i'm watching. in the meantime people shouldnt be looked at as a criminal for watching fullscreens. because like i said a story is a story and despite a lot of the image being cut off the story stays intact. it didn't seem broke all the years i grew up watching movies at home and on tv and only until a few years ago no one else seemed to care either except the super nerds. it still doesnt matter to me much but since i now have a widescreen tv, since thats the only option out there almost, i go widescreen just because it fits. if i had an older tv still id be for fullscreen because it fits. thats just how i see it. :cool:
 
[quote name='mscott62']a story is a story, it's not like watching a fullscreen disrupts the story in a major way.[/QUOTE]

but, it often does.....




i can't imagine watching a movie filmed in widescreen as a full screen edit.....if i pay for a movie, i want to see all of it and get my moneys worth....not just a portion of it....

but, for some older movies, Original Aspect Ratio is the way to go......especially since there is not a widescreen version available....
 
[quote name='Demolition Man']I was supporting Widescreen/OAR LONG before I owned a Widescreen TV.[/quote]

then i would be forced to classify you as one of the aformentioned film nerds with sticks shoved up their asses.
 
[quote name='mscott62']then i would be forced to classify you as one of the aformentioned film nerds with sticks shoved up their asses.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry for you.
 
[quote name='tholly']but, it often does.....[/quote]

no, it often doesn't. you provide scientific proof that two people watching the same movie one the widescreen and one the fullscreen will have a completely different viewing experience from each other and i'll believe you. but i think if you put one person in a movie with a fullscreen version and one with a widescreen version, they would both come out with the same exact experience and the same exact story. THUS, there is no real difference or change to the story except in very rare cases and even then only in very isolated parts.
 
[quote name='mscott62'] people shouldnt be looked at as a criminal for watching fullscreens. because like i said a story is a story and despite a lot of the image being cut off the story stays intact.[/QUOTE]

No one is criminalizing anyone for watching FS.

However I would disagree with your story says intact. With some movies the environment is very much a part of the movie.

[quote name='DJ K8E']That's probably what will happen for me. Except then, anything shot in 4:3 (TV shows and such), are going to have bars on the sides of them. So... bars if I do, bars if I don't. :cry: Je déteste la vie.[/QUOTE]

I have an upscaling dvd lpayer and it converts all of my 4:3 to 16:9 HD. It looks good on some dvds.
 
[quote name='CitizenB']However I would disagree with your story says intact. As someone mentioned earlier with Lawrence of Arabia. The Desert is very much a part of the story. You don't see much of the desert in 4:3.[/quote]

but do you think that people would have a vastly different view or experience of the movie from seeing more desert in the frame? it might add a smidge, but i think for the most part that people would know that there is plenty of desert out there, more than what is in the frame if it was presented as fullscreen. i havent seen the movie so i cant speak of it with much confidence but i still doubt there would be a major loss of story from the ratio change.
 
[quote name='mscott62']but do you think that people would have a vastly different view or experience of the movie from seeing more desert in the frame? it might add a smidge, but i think for the most part that people would know that there is plenty of desert out there, more than what is in the frame if it was presented as fullscreen. i havent seen the movie so i cant speak of it with much confidence but i still doubt there would be a major loss of story from the ratio change.[/QUOTE]

You're beginning to sound like you think cinematograpy does nothing to enhance a story. If someone read a book based on a movie and someone else watched movie would they have the same experience?
 
[quote name='mscott62']but do you think that people would have a vastly different view or experience of the movie from seeing more desert in the frame? it might add a smidge, but i think for the most part that people would know that there is plenty of desert out there, more than what is in the frame if it was presented as fullscreen. i havent seen the movie so i cant speak of it with much confidence but i still doubt there would be a major loss of story from the ratio change.[/QUOTE]

The ratio change DOES affect the storytelling for "Lawrence Of Arabia." Trust me. I've seen it both in its OAR and the pan and scan. Its affected enough to give a person a difference experience by not seeing it in its OAR.
 
[quote name='mscott62']but do you think that people would have a vastly different view or experience of the movie from seeing more desert in the frame? it might add a smidge, but i think for the most part that people would know that there is plenty of desert out there, more than what is in the frame if it was presented as fullscreen. i havent seen the movie so i cant speak of it with much confidence but i still doubt there would be a major loss of story from the ratio change.[/QUOTE]

You ever watched a really cheap B movie. You wanna know why that movie sucked. One word like RvB mentioned. cinematography. A still 2 camera movie shoot sucks. The more you can see the better the movie is. It puts you in the environment.

[quote name='Genocidal']Are you reading the same thread I am?[/QUOTE]

I haven't read any flaming. I've read people stating their opinions.
 
[quote name='CitizenB']You ever watched a really cheap B movie. You wanna know why that movie sucked. One word like RvB mentioned. cinematography. A still 2 camera movie shoot sucks. The more you can see the better the movie is. It puts you in the environment.[/QUOTE]

Its more than just cinematography that makes a really cheap B movie suck. Try other fundamentals such as acting, script, directing, and the like as well into that.

It all adds together real quickly. Its not always just ONE thing that brings a film down. Its often times a contribution of many things that does it.
 
[quote name='Tha Xecutioner']this has got to be the dumbest poll, widescreen FTL[/QUOTE]

I can think of 10 dumber polls over this that one can do. At least this one has given us some good discussion. I doubt we can have a good discussion over, say, "how big is your schlong."
 
[quote name='Tha Xecutioner']this has got to be the dumbest poll, widescreen FTL[/QUOTE]
I dunno I thought it was going pretty well. Most people say Widescreen, but its mostly with reasonable backing. The few that went with Fullscreen also said why, so as long as people aren't just saying "WIDESCREEN IZ G0D, FULLSCR33N GO DIE PLOX" its all good.
 
I don't care. Though if the movie sucks I won't watch it.

However, some of my favorite movies are only in FS so I probably watch FS more.
 
[quote name='Demolition Man']Which favorites are those? Curious.[/QUOTE]

Movies that were made before WS was the shitnuts, basically. Meaning they were meant to be watched in FS and WS makes the picture look like my peepee.
 
you can gang up on me all you want if it will make you feel better about yourselves, but it isn't going to change my point.

and here's my point, bolded and underlined for those of you not keeping track and arguing unimportant and unrelated things, the STORY is still not largely changed, by the image being cut down. vader will still be lukes father, rocky will still win, all the lines will remain the same, the ring will get thrown in the pit, the home team will still score the winning whatever, the two people will still get married at the end, the killer will not really be dead, the building will still blow up, the good guys will win, the bad guys will lose, and everyone will still live happily ever after.

that is my point.

that two people watching the same movie in the two different formats are not going to find themselves saying to each other:

oh? vader was lukes father? he wasn't in my version, han solo was.

and on the other side, they aren't going to say this:

idiot 1: say that was a big forest in that one scene, did you see all those trees and crap on the left side of the screen? they had absolutely nothing to do with what was going on but they were pretty!
idiot 2: no i didn't, man i wish i had seen those trees that were completely unessential to the plot, i feel as if my viewing experience has been a complete and total waste now.

they're going to get by and large the exact same thing out of it that the other got, so if someone wants to watch fullscreen because it fits their screen and they like it that way they shouldn't be crucified for it. they just want their screen to be used as fully as possible. like a buddy of mine may get a fullscreen dvd for his 4:3 tv, but when he comes to visit me he wants to watch it in widescreen, because the widescreen better fits my tv. that's just how normal folk think, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it to them, so who cares?

watch and let watch, eh?
 
[quote name='mscott62']then i would be forced to classify you as one of the aformentioned film nerds with sticks shoved up their asses.[/quote]

Any credibility you might have had went right out the window with this clever retort.:roll:
 
Do you mean those movies are filmed in 4:3, or the only home video/nontheatrical release available is "full screen"?
Some things are supposed to be "full screen".
That's actually a misnomer--for a widescreen tv, what was FS is now no longer "formatted to fit your screen."
So, some things are meant to be 4:3, and are filmed that way. I think a lot of older Troma films were. Perfectly ok to view those in 4:3 or "fullscreen", you're not missing anything.
Widescreen [ie, any aspect ratio wider than 4:3]; 4:3 ["true" fullscreen], and P&S, where they take a widescreen program and either pan and scan or zoom/crop to fit 'most' of the image into a 4:3 box.
Anyway. I don't buy pan and scan. I will buy 4:3 if that's the intended ratio. I buy widescreen if that's the intended ratio. Have ever since I realized what the difference was, even back on VHS.
The 'black bars' aren't really there, they're the absence of image.
I remember Roger Ebert saying, If you focus on the black bars, it must not be a very good movie. It was on a 'widescreen home video' episode of At the Moies.
Check out www.widescreen.org for some very obvious screenshots showing why Widescreen is superior to pan and scan.
And just to toss another monkey wrench in the mix, if I watch 4:3 content on my widescreen TV or through my SDVD player, I usually stretch it. Not because I don't like the 'black bars' aesthetically, but because I don't want to risk burn in. And I'm still seeing the 'whole image'. If I watch on my hDDVD player which upconverts, that doesn't stretch, so it's 4:3. However, I try to save 4:3 content to watch on the computer or the upstairs (4:3) tv.

In the case of pan and scan, the "story" may not change, but the interpretation of the story may change. You may miss things that were there in the OAR version.
Check the 2nd and 3rd examples here
http://www.widescreen.org/examples/labyrinth/index.shtml
The WS gives you a much better view of the immensity of the labyrinth.
And example 4, oh, there's two characters talking. Example 7, oh, he's chasing her, not just standing on some stairs
http://www.widescreen.org/examples/musicman/index.shtml
Example 6, what is that, a barbershop duo? Example 8 you're definitely missing something, the scene was a compare/contrast between the two groups of people.

I guess according to your logic, 5.1 or other multichannel audio is "totally nonessential" in 99% of case, but I sure don't want to give it up.
Hell, in most films color is not really necessary for the story.
 
[quote name='Moxio']Movies that were made before WS was the shitnuts, basically. Meaning they were meant to be watched in FS and WS makes the picture look like my peepee.[/QUOTE]

Oh. That explains a lot. #-o
 
Up until some point (in the '50s, I believe) virtually all movies were shot in a 4:3 ratio. Once television became widespread theater owners wanted something to offer patrons that they couldn't get from TV. The studios and manufactureres came up with Cinemascope, 70 mm, etc. to offer the big screen feel that couldn't be matched by a Philco TV that ran on tubes. Psycho is one of the films I can recall that was originally shot in 4:3. This movie should never be viewed in widescreen since it wasn't shot in that format. This brings me to my point. The director picks what aspect ratio to shoot the movie in. This is how the movie should be viewed for maximum effect. If someone chooses to watch a movie in a cropped and/or edited version, that's their choice; however, when people are aware that there is a superior version available they shouldn't be surprised when people strongly recommend to them that they should be watching it. How do I know it's a superior version? Not because it's my opinion but because the ratio the movie is shot in is simply the best way to view it. Why? Because the director said so. How does he know? He's the director!
 
[quote name='Demolition Man']Oh. That explains a lot. #-o[/QUOTE]

:lol: Any more questions I can give extremely vague answers to?
 
I'm OAR 99% of the time (I only get MAR when OAR is not in production. If a store is sold out of OAR I'll wait for it). I feel sorry for people who want fullscreen only.
Has anyone ever seen the fullscreen version of Ghostbusters, where the camera pans between the characters every few seconds in most of the scenes? You could get sick watching that.
 
[quote name='neocisco']Any credibility you might have had went right out the window with this clever retort.:roll:[/quote]

i'd rather have no credibility and be willing to accept people and their alternate ways of doing things or opinions, than to have credibility and force only one way or opinion on everyone else. i just sleep better at night not being a pompous ass and seeing things one way only.
 
Watching the full screen version of a widescreen movie is the visual equivalent of Cliff Notes. You will get the general idea but it kind of defeats the whole purpose.

There are also open matte full screen movies that have more picture on the top and bottom than the widescreen version. These are much better than the zoomed in full screen but they still ruin the compostion of the shots.
 
[quote name='mscott62']i'd rather have no credibility and be willing to accept people and their alternate ways of doing things or opinions, than to have credibility and force only one way or opinion on everyone else. i just sleep better at night not being a pompous ass and seeing things one way only.[/quote]

You also have the whole generalization thing down pat too. Once you figure out how to use the shift key you will have achieved complete enlightenment.
 
The widescreen is terrible when it comes to subtitles. I dont understand why the subs cant be put in the black rectangles, it would be easier to read.

However, widescreen does make the movies appear bigger...
 
[quote name='xeverex18']The widescreen is terrible when it comes to subtitles. I dont understand why the subs cant be put in the black rectangles, it would be easier to read.[/QUOTE]

Because most of the time the black bars on your Anamorphic Widescreen DVDs are generated by the players which is why the subtitles are put over the video itself rather than over the bars. Back in the Laserdisc days it was more common for the subtitles to have been put in the bars since the bars were embedded in the video.
 
[quote name='CitizenB']Why they hell are we auguring about FS or WS. Calm down people were not even arguing about a movie but about how its presented.[/QUOTE]

.... there's arguing in this thread? I've sworn for the most part this has been a well rounded out thread on the matter.
 
[quote name='Demolition Man'].... there's arguing in this thread? I've sworn for the most part this has been a well rounded out thread on the matter.[/QUOTE]

I thought so as well but their is anger behind a lot of the posts in the last two pages.
 
[quote name='CitizenB']I thought so as well but their is anger behind a lot of the posts in the last two pages.[/QUOTE]

That's bound to happen with a subject like this. But I've seen countless threads here on CAG (and other forums) over silly matters that turned into flame wars far faster (and lamer) than this.
 
OAR all the way. Lets hope this cropping crap will end up Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

In the meantime, let the uninformed watch their pan and scan garbage :D
 
[quote name='Moxio']Meaning they were meant to be watched in FS and WS makes the picture look like my peepee.[/QUOTE]

Lol!

How is something that wasn't widescreen convert To WS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top