Widescreen versus Fullscreen

strawberryshortcake

strawberryshortcake

CAGiversary!
Can someone please tell me whether or not DVDplanet or Deepdiscount DVDs come exactly as specified on their website with respect to the aspect ratio of the movies including anime and animation DVD?

I personally would only buy widescreen versions unless of course the film was never ever released in widescreen. But I tend to see fullscreen versions flooded throughout deepdiscount DVD.

Is this always accurate? In other words, do you receive the same format as that listed on their website?

Is there anyway to ensure that when I order, I get the exact version (i.e. widescreen) that I want?


Example:
Ratatouille: only listed as fullscreen
http://search.deepdiscount.com/search?p=Q&uid=948427294&ts=custom&w=ratatouille&isort=score&method=and&af=cat1:dvds

Surf's up: only listed as fullscreen
http://search.deepdiscount.com/search?w=surf's%20up&af=cat1:dvds
*one picture actually shows the widescreen version but is listed as fullscreen

Shrek: all listed as fullscreen (except one)
http://search.deepdiscount.com/search?w=shrek&af=cat1:dvds
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote name='xeno']WIDSCREEN FTW!!!! thats all[/QUOTE]
Objection! It's all about the Orignal Aspect Ratio. The intended way the film was meant to be seen.
 
If you're buying anime dvds, they're generally in full screen, if they were TV broadcasts. Movies can be either. Newer shows are coming out in widescreen however, as that is the new broadcast standard.
 
I pretty much lose all respect for a person when I find they prefer fullscreen over wide. Nothing to do with this topic per se, just throwin' it out there.
 
I've purchased DVD's from DeepDiscount that were marked as widescreen (I'm a widescreen snob, I'll freely admit it) and have only received widescreen.
 
[quote name='RaidenMGS3']I pretty much lose all respect for a person when I find they prefer fullscreen over wide. Nothing to do with this topic per se, just throwin' it out there.[/QUOTE]


I've found it's generally the older folks who are still watching movies on their 13" TV from 1953 and don't want the picture "smaller" with the letterboxing :)
 
[quote name='RaidenMGS3']I pretty much lose all respect for a person when I find they prefer fullscreen over wide. Nothing to do with this topic per se, just throwin' it out there.[/QUOTE]

This speaks volumes about your character, or lack thereof
 
[quote name='Demontooth']This speaks volumes about your character, or lack thereof[/QUOTE]

Well he does have a Paris Hilton avatar.
 
[quote name='DreamSymphony']I've found it's generally the older folks who are still watching movies on their 13" TV from 1953 and don't want the picture "smaller" with the letterboxing :)[/QUOTE]

Or Johnny 6-Pack rednneck at Walmart who also thinks he is losing picture with letterboxing...
 
zman73 I just realized you have a Ron and Fez avatar...you man deserve to go into the Big-ass-prize closet =) Man, I love that show too. I have thought about getting rid of my XM subscription (because I use it basically just for channel 202) but I just can't lose my daily dose of them.
 
[quote name='goomba478']zman73 I just realized you have a Ron and Fez avatar...you man deserve to go into the Big-ass-prize closet =) Man, I love that show too. I have thought about getting rid of my XM subscription (because I use it basically just for channel 202) but I just can't lose my daily dose of them.[/QUOTE]

I have loved R&F since the days they were syndicated from Florida (then the Ron and Ron show). Bennington is a comedy god... I will always remember the talk they had on the show about how many 9 years old boys could you beat up if given the chance... it was crazy
 
[quote name='RaidenMGS3']I pretty much lose all respect for a person when I find they prefer fullscreen over wide. Nothing to do with this topic per se, just throwin' it out there.[/quote]

I personally would lose respect for someone if they were, say, a child molester or a rapist or a con artist or someone who likes to use the race card as both a sword and a shield -- fullscreen watcher would have to be much much lower down the list.

The real idiots are the people who get the HD widescreen TVs and then proceed to stretch their 4:3 TV shows (or buy fullscreen movies for a widescreen TV) to fill the whole screen.
 
"I pretty much lose all respect for a person when I find they prefer fullscreen over wide. Nothing to do with this topic per se, just throwin' it out there."

So you'd rather be duped into wasting TV screen area you paid for? There's nothing wrong with fullscreen. It's the people with normal TVs that flip out if something isn't widescreen that are the idiots. 99% of the time there is zero reason to need to see outside of what is centered on the screen.

I've got a DVD player that lets you cut off edges and movies look much better because the picture is bigger and you don't really need to see the edges anyways.

It's pretty stupid to care because you aren't missing much with fullscreen and actually get to use your TV.

Fullscreen is only bad with panning.

I can't believe how many stupid people out there really got tricked into thinking they really need to see the sides of the movies. The only reason the dimensions are different is because back in the day the movie studios didn't want TV to be able to steal from their market by broadcasting their pictures. It's not that that format was superior.
 
Err or it could be the fact that everything is going widescreen and that's the original theateratical ratio. I personally like being able to see what's happening on the edges. But each to their own I guess
 
[quote name='Bleybley2']"I pretty much lose all respect for a person when I find they prefer fullscreen over wide. Nothing to do with this topic per se, just throwin' it out there."

So you'd rather be duped into wasting TV screen area you paid for? There's nothing wrong with fullscreen. It's the people with normal TVs that flip out if something isn't widescreen that are the idiots. 99% of the time there is zero reason to need to see outside of what is centered on the screen.

I've got a DVD player that lets you cut off edges and movies look much better because the picture is bigger and you don't really need to see the edges anyways.

It's pretty stupid to care because you aren't missing much with fullscreen and actually get to use your TV.

Fullscreen is only bad with panning.

I can't believe how many stupid people out there really got tricked into thinking they really need to see the sides of the movies. The only reason the dimensions are different is because back in the day the movie studios didn't want TV to be able to steal from their market by broadcasting their pictures. It's not that that format was superior.[/QUOTE]

The things on the side of the picture may not be important for storyline purposes but the picture was framed for a different aspect ratio and therefore can not look great with 25-40% of the picture cut off. There is nothing wrong with something being originally designed for 4:3 but you can't just go cutting off the picture.

The main reason TVs were made 4:3 is because CRT technology is more efficient with a more square picture.
 
anyone who thinks that the parts you're missing by watching a FS version is merely "stuff on the sides" should have their DVD collection confiscated

then their rug should be micturated upon vigorously

p&s
sw5_p.jpg


WS
sw5_l.jpg


p&s
fotr_06p.jpg


WS
fotr_06l.jpg



p&s
crusade_6p.jpg


WS
crusade_6l.jpg
 
[quote name='Indiana Jones']The real idiots are the people who get the HD widescreen TVs and then proceed to stretch their 4:3 TV shows (or buy fullscreen movies for a widescreen TV) to fill the whole screen.[/QUOTE]


My ex-father in law did this. He was a real moron. He got the same model widescreen projection tv as I had too, just the next size up so he could say his was better - but then he never calibrated the thing and everything had a green tint to it. :applause:
 
[quote name='zman73']I have loved R&F since the days they were syndicated from Florida (then the Ron and Ron show). Bennington is a comedy god... I will always remember the talk they had on the show about how many 9 years old boys could you beat up if given the chance... it was crazy[/QUOTE]

I remember when they put...I forgot who it was now, two of their workers on a date in central park (was it Eastside Dave?) and had I believe Bronx Johnny running around trying to catch them and scare them or something.


I'm more of an O&A fan, but I have respect for R&F.


HOOO-AH!
 
Keep in mind any film before 1954 is full-screen. Don't bother hunting for a "widescreen", because the film aspect ratio didn't exist before then.
 
"The main reason TVs were made 4:3 is because CRT technology is more efficient with a more square picture."

And the main reason the movies were made longer was because of a format battle between the two.

Loving longer pictures is a sign of being a stupid consumer and nothing more. That's fine if you want to buy stuff like that, but it's not something to be proud of.
 
[quote name='Bleybley2']"The main reason TVs were made 4:3 is because CRT technology is more efficient with a more square picture."

And the main reason the movies were made longer was because of a format battle between the two.

Loving longer pictures is a sign of being a stupid consumer and nothing more. That's fine if you want to buy stuff like that, but it's not something to be proud of.[/quote]

sigh*, whatever you wish to believe. loving a longer wider image that is more natural on the eyes (the eyes are spaced as a rectangle across our face not a square) is a stupid thing and we're being stupid consumers by liking it???? now your ignorance is showing through.
 
Actually you can tell how brainwashed you are. It's funny to see people's minds so wiped.

There's nothing wrong about liking a longer screen, but if it's something you're trying to defend, they advertised it to you correctly. I just think it's stupid that people are so uneducated they don't really understand why they want things they don't actually need.
 
As someone who actually works in the movie industry, I've got something of an authoritative perspective on this:

OAR is what's important. Most often it's 1:85, but sometimes it's even 2:35. This is what the director intended. If you take the Mona Lisa and reduce the frame to shoulders and up, is that the Mona Lisa? Yes, it still is, but it's not the whole thing, and you'd have to be retarded to prefer that version because it fits better in your bathroom.
 
Let's not forget that most directors are hardly artists. And people that work in the industry aren't any more insightful on this issue. Plus for all we know you get people their coffee.

It's all about selling new TVs and if you're getting hyped on the issue you're a sheep. That's all there is to it.
 
[quote name='Bleybley2']Let's not forget that most directors are hardly artists. And people that work in the industry aren't any more insightful on this issue. Plus for all we know you get people their coffee.

It's all about selling new TVs and if you're getting hyped on the issue you're a sheep. That's all there is to it.[/quote]

We get it, you really want that "Troll of the Year" badge. Congrats, as far as I'm concerned, it's yours.

You really are an idiot though if you think PS is better. Why the hell you wouldn't want to watch what the cinematographer wanted you to see is your idiotic choice.
I think Rippers post pretty much summed up why your arguement is retarded. I know your mom said you're "special" but I dont think you quite understoood what she really meant.

The stuff on the sides helps to enhance the atmosphere and feel of the movie. Thats why you dont have movies with just face shots talking to each other. Although I'm sure you would probably enjoy that since it's easier for your tiny mind to comprehend.
 
The bottom line is that caring about sides on the screen is a new trend only HS kids and younger and nerdy adults care about. Many people like full screen, and there are many cons of wide screen on a regular TV, so the little kids and nerds that make such a big deal out of why people that like full screen are stupid are just brainwashed by PR.

Don't forget: the world we live in is setup to just constantly make unnecessary new products so that you can constantly replace everything you buy every few years. That isn't because the world is helping you live a better life, but because it wants you to mindlessly consume.

Very few people are intelligent enough to understand public relations and marketing for some reason. I don't see why as it's pretty basic stuff, but your average consumer isn't well educated so these kind of arguments about new formats always gets made by the bottom of the barrel.
 
[quote name='thoughtmecca']As someone who actually works in the movie industry, I've got something of an authoritative perspective on this:[/QUOTE]

And yet you're wrong.

The original OAR of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Matrix trilogy and a ton of other big-budget movies is Super 35, which is matted to produce a widescreen picture.

Check out how much the widescreen is missing in this example from Terminator 2:

termsuper35ako2.jpg


Are you going to watch it in "narrowscreen" on your new hdtv to get all of the picture you're missing out on?

FULLSCREEN, FTW. :applause:
 
Dude, just what in the fuck is your major malfunction? WS is for high schoolers and young nerdy adults? You've got to be kidding me. I agree that Ripper's post is the only one that makes sense.

Personally, I'll take WS over foolscreen anyday. Me being a movie buff, I like to see as much as possible. fuck, I hardly watch a movie on TV unless its widescreen.

Also, WS and FS have absolutely nothing to do with PR at all. You are retarded if you think it is. What makes you think you're such an "authority"? If you say that WS is for "young nerdy adults and teenagers", then you sound as if you haven't hit puberty yet and your balls haven't dropped
 
[quote name='chemical']And yet you're wrong.

The original OAR of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Matrix trilogy and a ton of other big-budget movies is Super 35, which is matted to produce a widescreen picture.
[/quote]
Actually, it's you who is wrong, and on more counts than one.

First of all, Super 35 is not an aspect ratio. It's a film format.

Second, the term Original Aspect Ratio refers to the ratio for which the film was framed, and in which it is theatrically presented (the intended ratio), not the ratio in which it was actually shot (the negative ratio).

Third, the fact that some movies are still shot in open matte 1:1.37 ratio does not mean that they are supposed to be watched that way. The image is still composed for widescreen presentation, and just because in these occasional cases you can technically see MORE when the image is not matted, does not neccessarily mean that what you see is, from the aestetic point of view, better.
 
Haha yeah I've heard all about the Ron and Ron show, though living in Connecticut I didn't hear much of it. I've heard that one discussion about the 9-year-old boys though and it was indeed quite insane haha. Love that show =) Do you know if they have archived "Unmasked" interviews anywhere for purchase online? I've only heard the Bob Saget one :)
 
[quote name='unholy']Third, the fact that some movies are still shot in 1:1.37 (although, as far as I know, neither LotR nor the Matrix trilogy were) does not mean that they are supposed to be watched that way. The image is still composed for widescreen presentation, and just because in these occasional cases you can technically see MORE when the image is not matted, does not neccessarily mean that what you see is, from the aestetic point of view, better.[/QUOTE]

"Lord Of The Rings" was shot Super35 since Peter Jackson found it easier to create the illusion of the height of the hobbits using Super35. However the film itself was shot and is intended to be 2.35:1 all the way since the framing was done at that. The "fullscreen" version still has a lot of typical pan and scanning going on.

"The Matrix" trilogy was done with Super35. I don't know offhand what the reasoning was behind it. However I can confirm that the "fullscreen" is pan and scan.
 
[quote name='RaidenMGS3']I pretty much lose all respect for a person when I find they prefer fullscreen over wide. Nothing to do with this topic per se, just throwin' it out there.[/QUOTE]

this is pretty funny. I pretty much lose all respect for someone who wants all of their tv on dvds in widescreen. The picture was shrunken down to widescreen from its original aspect ratio and is far inferior. The only reason that the dvd companies shrink down the size and make it inferior is because fullscreen is en vogue.

edit
But for films, yeah widescreen is better.
 
[quote name='dracula']this is pretty funny. I pretty much lose all respect for someone who wants all of their tv on dvds in widescreen. The picture was shrunken down to widescreen from its original aspect ratio and is far inferior. The only reason that the dvd companies shrink down the size and make it inferior is because fullscreen is en vogue.[/quote]

So in other words show that are shot in Widescreen shouldn't presented in their intended Widescreen format? I mean I got no problem with "Family Guy" being 4x3 since that is the intended format. But I would have a problem with, say, "Smallville" being 4x3 since its done fully in mind to be seen in Widescreen.

But for films, yeah fullscreen is better.
Click to expand...

Only for pre-1954 films. If its intended to be Widescreen however.... then leave the format alone. End of debate.
 
[quote name='Demolition Man']So in other words show that are shot in Widescreen shouldn't presented in their intended Widescreen format? I mean I got no problem with "Family Guy" being 4x3 since that is the intended format. But I would have a problem with, say, "Smallville" being 4x3 since its done fully in mind to be seen in Widescreen.



Only for pre-1954 films. If its intended to be Widescreen however.... then leave the format alone. End of debate.[/QUOTE]

there is no debate, i just want my dvd in the way it was originally filmed, whether wide or fullscreen.

as far as smallville supposed to be in widescreen, ive seen it on tv, and i dont think it was in widescreen, of course i could easily be wrong.


edit
and I am convinced that peopel will disagree with this: for dialogue driven pieces, or for really really old ass films(chaplin or Eisenstein) I will watch in vhs with no problem- if it is cheap, or easier to get on the cheap, then yeah i have absolutely no problem with vhs
 
[quote name='dracula']as far as smallville supposed to be in widescreen, ive seen it on tv, and i dont think it was in widescreen, of course i could easily be wrong.[/QUOTE]

Its 1.78:1 since episode 1. The CW even airs the new episodes in Widescreen on the standard def channel too.
 
[quote name='dracula']there is no debate, i just want my dvd in the way it was originally filmed, whether wide or fullscreen.

as far as smallville supposed to be in widescreen, ive seen it on tv, and i dont think it was in widescreen, of course i could easily be wrong.


edit
and I am convinced that peopel will disagree with this: for dialogue driven pieces, or for really really old ass films(chaplin or Eisenstein) I will watch in vhs with no problem- if it is cheap, or easier to get on the cheap, then yeah i have absolutely no problem with vhs[/QUOTE]

On tv shows. Yah if it's shown on tv (even today) they frame for 4x3. The sides are pretty much extra unless they show it on sdtv with black bars.
 
[quote name='BULL_Ship']On tv shows. Yah if it's shown on tv (even today) they frame for 4x3. The sides are pretty much extra unless they show it on sdtv with black bars.[/QUOTE]

True true. Most sitcoms filmed at 16x9 aren't going to use the extra width since most of the time the focal point (ie: the actors/actresses) are in the 4x3 area. However a show like "Smallville" and "Enterprise" the extra width (even if its only 33%) is used.
 
This thread got unspeakably funny after my post. With the level of animosity and backhanded insults, you'd think I'd said American beer was better than Canadian beer or something!
 
[quote name='unholy']Third, the fact that some movies are still shot in open matte 1:1.37 ratio does not mean that they are supposed to be watched that way.[/QUOTE]

Oh no! But I want to watch the movie as the camera operator originally intended...

just because in these occasional cases you can technically see MORE when the image is not matted, does not neccessarily mean that what you see is, from the aestetic point of view, better.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Which is why when I'm watching a fullscreen movie, I don't mind that a marginal amount of background or group of extras is being cut out of frame. Because from the aesthetic point of view, what I see is better. :D
 
[quote name='chemical']I couldn't agree more. Which is why when I'm watching a fullscreen movie, I don't mind that a marginal amount of background or group of extras is being cut out of frame. Because from the aesthetic point of view, what I see is better. :D[/QUOTE]

Okay let me see here....

Exhibit A - Star Wars: A New Hope
sw5_p.jpg

sw5_l.jpg


Exhibit B - Star Wars: A New Hope
sw9_p.jpg

sw9_l.jpg


Exhibit C - The Never Ending Story
neverending_5p.jpg

neverending_5l.jpg


Exhibit D - Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King
rotk_01p.jpg

rotk_01l.jpg


Exhibit E - Disney's The Three Musketeers
musk_5p.jpg

musk_5l.jpg


[/thread]
 
[quote name='fraggedbylaggers']IDK why Shrek HD DVD is fullscreen...

is there a setting maybe?[/QUOTE]

Strange. Check your player settings to make sure its outputting at 16x9. My HD-DVD copy plays perfectly fine on both Toshiba HD-A2 units I own.
 
[quote name='Bleybley2']Let's not forget that most directors are hardly artists. And people that work in the industry aren't any more insightful on this issue. Plus for all we know you get people their coffee.

It's all about selling new TVs and if you're getting hyped on the issue you're a sheep. That's all there is to it.[/QUOTE]

This was just too awesome, so I have to say something. Based on this logic, in about 15 years when everyone has purchased widescreen TVs, "standard" TVs will make a comeback? Man, I can't wait.

The fact is that anyone who cares about film wants to see the original aspect ratio. Citizen Kane was filmed and shown in theaters at 1.37:1, and that's how it should be presented. The Godfather was filmed with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio and that is how anyone who respects film should want to see it.

For a more recent example, look at 300. This was presented in a very wide 2.35:1 aspect ratio. If you pan and scan it for a regular TV, you are going to miss a whole lot of picture, eliminating the scope of the battles. You'll also see a lot of fake camera sliding to the left and right to follow conversations and action.

But I do want to return to your original point about trying to scam people into buying new TVs. You don't have to have a widescreen tv to watch a widescreen DVD. It's true. I watched widescreen films on my standard TV for quite a while. Not once did I wish I had a fullscreen DVD. I wanted the full scope of the picture. I doubt there's a filmmaker consipracy to sell TVs. After all, they don't make any money on TV sales, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc. do. Filmmakers film in the aspect ratio that best represents their ideas. If it was about selling TVs, you'd think they would at least agree on one widescreen aspect ratio, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top