Widescreen vs. Fullscreen

Churafairy · Post by **Churafairy** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:58 am

you guys lost me with your big words...

i did watch some disney moovies that weren't pixar, they didn't look too difffrent. they did a little but not enough to make up for the annoying black bar thingys

Sekaino Jasmine · Post by **Sekaino Jasmine** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:17 am

I feel like a moron for saying this, but I really do prefer fullscreen. All I really care about in a movie is the story, so I don't really care if I'm losing some of the picture. I just find widescreen annoying.

Churafairy · Post by **Churafairy** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:36 am

yup yup it's annoying

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:16 am

Think about it like this Churafairy and Sekaino:

Do you buy the Harry Potter books and only get Chapter 1-30 but not 31-50?

Do you read a magazine with an incomplete article?

Do you go to the store and buy half a loaf of bread?

Do you go to the pizza parlor and order a medium pizza, but only get four of the eight slices?

Do you watch television, but are treated to half the show?

When you go to a movie theater, do you like to see the whole movie, or get up and leave about halfway into it?

The same thing goes with widescreen/pan and scan. Widescreen is giving you the whole picture, while pan and scan can only give you about 50%. The black bars are just unused space on a standard television, and if/when you have a widescreen television, they usually go away or are much smaller than on a standard television.

Escapay

Lars Vermundsberget · Post by **Lars Vermundsberget** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:26 pm

It's quite simple, isn't it?

Movies come with different shapes (aspect ratios) which are in many cases not the same as the shape of your TV screen. If so, some sort of compromise will have to be made.

Either: Show the movie to its best advantage by adding empty space (black bars) on the screen.

Or: Show the TV screen to its best advantage by mutilating the shape of the movie to make it fit into the screen.

Ask yourself what's more important: Are you a fan of the movie or are you a fan of your TV screen?

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 2:55 am

Escapay wrote:Think about it like this Churafairy and Sekaino:

Do you buy the Harry Potter books and only get Chapter 1-30 but not 31-50?

Do you read a magazine with an incomplete article?

Do you go to the store and buy half a loaf of bread?

Do you go to the pizza parlor and order a medium pizza, but only get four of the eight slices?

Do you watch television, but are treated to half the show?

That's not quite the same metaphor. Churafairy and Sekaino have already said that they care more about the story than the picture and watching a P&S movie does not mean you end up with half a story or an incomplete narritive. Although sometimes some of the fine detail or spacial relationships between characters and/or objects are lost which could make the storytelling suffer.

A better metaphor is to say: Would you pay to go to an art gallery of famous pictures and only want to see 66% of the paintings? I'm sure American Gothic would be such a well regarded icon on American painting if you could only see half of the man's and woman's faces as the left and right edges had been cropped off.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:19 am

a even better way to put it. would you buy a chopped up movie? mmmmm $20 + for a movie that's been cut with scissors to fit a shape that it wasn't created in. or.... I can spend the $20 on the real shape and get the expansiveness of the picture and keep the director's view of the movie just like I saw it in the theater.

Sekaino Jasmine · Post by **Sekaino Jasmine** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 12:49 am

I'd prefer to be called Jasmine over Sekaino, first of all. Sekaino kind of means nothing on its own. 'Sekai' means 'world', and 'no' is a possesive particle. Therefore, 'sekaino' just means 'World's' which kind of sounds incomplete.

Anyway, I wouldn't care if I only saw 66% of paintings either because I'm not into that kind of stuff. I could just listen to the story of Aladdin and be happy with it. I don't need to see it, I just want the story.

And MMB, as long as it fits the screen, I am fine.

Sully · Post by **Sully** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:35 am

Does anyone know of a website that lists movies that are full-frame when initially filmed, and are therefore kinda backawards, in that the widescreen version (a la Back to the Future) is actually the hacked up one?

Post by **Luke** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:52 am

Sully wrote:Does anyone know of a website that lists movies that are full-frame when initially filmed, and are therefore kinda backawards, in that the widescreen version (a la Back to the Future) is actually the hacked up one?

For <i>Back to the Future</i>, widescreen is not the hacked-up one. It was filmed for 1.85:1 all along, but as with just about all 1.85:1 films, filmed in full 4x3. For theaters, most shots were simply matted at 1.85:1. The fullscreen open matte home video transfer opens the mattes for the most part, but shots with special effects are cropped. Many 1.85:1 films these days offer open matte transfers for home video, but this generally involves a) seeing more than you were intended to see and b) still cropping some of the sides.

Hope this helps.

Ciaobelli · Post by **Ciaobelli** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:27 am

As Ebert said: anyone who is OK with FOOlscreen shouldn't be allowed to operate a dvd player. THose are sacred words, just get an audio cd if the visuals don't matter. Or even better get a widescreen tv.

I mean, when you go to the theater what shape is the screen?? Think about it.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:06 am

Ciaobelli wrote:As Ebert said: anyone who is OK with FOOlscreen shouldn't be allowed to operate a dvd player. THose are sacred words, just get an audio cd if the visuals don't matter. Or even better get a widescreen tv.

I mean, when you go to the theater what shape is the screen?? Think about it.

:::Raises hand:: oh pick me! I know!

It's a fullscreen not a FOOLScreen!

Sully · Post by **Sully** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:48 pm

Luke wrote:Many 1.85:1 films these days offer open matte transfers for home video, but this generally involves a) seeing more than you were intended to see and b) still cropping some of the sides.

That was my real question, as most fullscreen DVDs are hacked up versions, while editions like Back to the Future (which is interesting to watch on FS) was actually purposefully filmed in 4:3 (without extraneous things like booms, etc.) and then matted for theatrical release. The vast majority of movies could never be shown full-frame, regardless of how they were filmed.. unless you like watching a boom mic float in and out of the picture.

So, to put the question a bit clearer, do you know of any lists or resources where the FS full-frame DVD editions (encompassing original 4:3 film) like Back to the Future are listed?

I find these interesting to rent/view out of curiosity.

karlsen · Post by **karlsen** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:41 am

MickeyMouseboy wrote:It's a fullscreen not a FOOLScreen!

You could not be more wrong. If a movie is shot in widescreen and it gets presented in any other ration on your DVD then it is FOOLScreen just because only FOOLS would accept to se a movie that has been destroid just to fit your TV.

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:26 am

Sully wrote:
Luke wrote:Many 1.85:1 films these days offer open matte transfers for home video, but this generally involves a) seeing more than you were intended to see and b) still cropping some of the sides.
That was my real question, as most fullscreen DVDs are hacked up versions, while editions like Back to the Future (which is interesting to watch on FS) was actually purposefully filmed in 4:3 (without extraneous things like booms, etc.) and then matted for theatrical release. The vast majority of movies could never be shown full-frame, regardless of how they were filmed.. unless you like watching a boom mic float in and out of the picture.

So, to put the question a bit clearer, do you know of any lists or resources where the FS full-frame DVD editions (encompassing original 4:3 film) like Back to the Future are listed?

I find these interesting to rent/view out of curiosity.

Wait...so...the Back to the Future Full Screen is just as good as Wide Screen, and the only thing P&S'ed are any special effects shot?

I have the widescreen version, because I originally thought the full screen was P&S, not open-matte. Should I just double-dip and get the FS as well?

Escapay

PixarFan · Post by **PixarFan** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:09 pm

Actually, even Pixar sometimes loses part of the picture in the full screen version. For example, in A Bug's Life, when Hopper is running around screaming because of Flik's bird, in one shot Molt is next to him when he screams and Molt nearly throws up. In the widescreen Molt is seen, however in the full screen he isn't in the picture at all and you just hear him. So, for all movies, even if they claim that you don't lose any of the movie in full screen, you sometimes do, so I just stick with widescreen to make sure I don't lose anything. Plus, widescreen looks much better than the square shape of a full screen version...unfortunately, I'm the only one in my family who thinks so.

karlsen · Post by **karlsen** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:54 pm

Escapay wrote:Wait...so...the Back to the Future Full Screen is just as good as Wide Screen, and the only thing P&S'ed are any special effects shot?

That's not correct at all. Everybody should be able to undertand that when you press a widescreen movie into 4:3 then you have to lose something of the picture or else you have to press it together and thats not the case here. So if the movie was shot in widescreen then it must be cut to fitt a 4:3 TV.

PixarFan wrote:Actually, even Pixar sometimes loses part of the picture in the full screen version. For example, in A Bug's Life, when Hopper is running around screaming because of Flik's bird, in one shot Molt is next to him when he screams and Molt nearly throws up. In the widescreen Molt is seen, however in the full screen he isn't in the picture at all and you just hear him. So, for all movies, even if they claim that you don't lose any of the movie in full screen, you sometimes do, so I just stick with widescreen to make sure I don't lose anything. Plus, widescreen looks much better than the square shape of a full screen version...unfortunately, I'm the only one in my family who thinks so.

That's perfectly true, ofcause you do lose something when they cut the movie to fit your screen.

Lets say that I want one of my 8x10 pictures to fit into a 8x8 frame, then I have to cut something out either all on the top or all on the bottom or a little on both sides. But I do have to cut away something from the photo to manage this.

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:03 pm

karlsen wrote:
Escapay wrote:Wait...so...the Back to the Future Full Screen is just as good as Wide Screen, and the only thing P&S'ed are any special effects shot?
That's not correct at all. Everybody should be able to undertand that when you press a widescreen movie into 4:3 then you have to lose something of the picture or else you have to press it together and thats not the case here. So if the movie was shot in widescreen then it must be cut to fitt a 4:3 TV.

I'm probably gonna get more confused, but is this what's going on with BTTF?

The film was shot in 4:3, and they matted it for widescreen and so...the full screen presentation is unmatted at the top and bottom, but they cut off a bit at the sides to fit in a 4:3 screen?

Escapay

Post by **Luke** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:13 pm

Back to the Future is mostly open matte, yes. Except for effects shots and ones where unsightly equipment would have crept into the 4x3 frame. But I wouldn't waste money on a reformatted Fullscreen edition for any reason. You're seeing more, but that's not what the director intended, it was framed for 1.85:1 exhibition in theaters. As is the case with any reformatted open-matte 4x3 transfer.

chamfer · Post by **chamfer** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:45 pm

Another example of that is Titanic. In fullscreen the sides are chopped off but you get extra picture on the top and bottom so that not as much of the wide view has to be sacrificed to fit in the tv screen.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Widescreen vs. Fullscreen