Blockbuster's Widescreen Education Effort for Employees (1 Viewer)

[Neil Joseph]

I don't even know what to say!!!

 

[Carl Johnson]

I spent a few years as a projectionist at a megaplex followed by a year selling home theater equipment and I didn't know much about widescreen so its understandable that a Blockbuster employee wouldn't know much about it. Your average consumer who watches movies at home on either HBO or VHS doesn't even know that part of the picture is missing in P&S.

 

[JasonKrol]

funny..before i was all into HT, it used to boggle my mind what the hell P&S was. Like I noticed it in movies (Multiplicity stands out in my mind the most) but I never knew what it was. I thought it was like a special computerized camera they used while filming..instead of a human moving the POF etc.

hahah! Im retarded.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

A friend of mine just bought a DVD player, wanna know why?

"I'm always the last to get things, not I finally have a DVD like my friends."

I'm like, it's a dvd player, dvd's are you play in them.

The worst part, is that she HATES widescreen. She knows you see more, but she wants her screen filled.

"Hey guess what, I know how to get rid of the bars when I'm watching movies now."

She watched Moulin Rouge in fullscreen and stretched the image and zoomed in to make it fullscreen!!!

"I made sure I could get rid of the black bars when I bought it. I asked the guy at the store."

This is all we need, even more people that make it worse.

And she actually said. "Why do we need widescreen? why do I need to see some guy pissing on the side of the screen. I'm paying for the movie, not extra space."

No matter what I do I can't get her to listen, so I gave up. Hey, at least I converted my mom, dad, grandma, and soon, the rest of my family (aunts, uncles).

 

[Ryan Wright]

Why is 1.33:1 OAR material less important to maintain than 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 material?

Because, 99% of the 1.33:1 material we watch is broadcast television. IMHO, it's not a masterpiece to behold like a movie is. It's just a half hour show.

There is a bigger reason I stretch my 1.33:1 viewing, however: Burn-in. It's a legitimate concern. If I were watching a 1.33:1 OAR film, I'd put the TV in 4:3 mode. However, to do that every time I wanted to watch broadcast television would eventually cause harm to my $5500 television set and I'm not willing to do that.

Further, I'm not chopping the image or losing any content. Just distorting it a little, and, quite frankly, you can't even tell unless you have a 4:3 TV side by side.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I know we're supposed to refrain from making excessively disparaging remarks about the J6P Syndrome, but I once had a dimwitted co-worker whose husband got bitten by the home-theater bug. She told me that they are now buying lots of "DVD tapes."

There's such a deep-seated resistance to widesreen presentations that people are refusing to listen to explanations.

The only reason I don't think this is an entirely lost cause is because the future of home video is widescreen. The philistines can resist all they want.

 

[george kaplan]

Because, 99% of the 1.33:1 material we watch is broadcast television.

Speak for yourself. More than half of the 1.33:1 (actually 1.37:1) material I watch are movies filmed that way. And they are masterpieces like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Gold Rush, The African Queen, Rebecca, The Ghost & Mrs. Muir, Lifeboat, The Thin Man, To Be or Not To Be, Notorious, Snow White, M, Duck Soup, The 39 Steps, The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, To Have & Have Not, The Third Man, Adam's Rib, Strangers on a Train, High Noon, Stalag 17, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Neil Joseph]

When I got into home theatre years ago, I was like your average j6p and I did not like widescreen either. However, because most of the films LD's and DVD's were in widescreen, I had to give in and purchase widescreen movies or do without my favourite movies. The choice was clear, I would buy widescreen movies. Eventually I was converted to appreciating widescreen, and then loving it, then loathing pan&scan.

Today, it is becoming harder to convert j6p's because it seems the studios and retailers are giiving into j6p's demands for p&s. So now there is a larger and larger base of p&s movies to choose from.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

My 27" inch, non-widescreen WEGA has a 16X9 enhanced mode which just squeezes a regular picture of any format, including regular old TV, into a widescreen ratio. Pretty pointless, but whatever.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Pointless? Hardly. Andrew, do this: Play part of an anamorphic DVD with the player outputting to 4:3 and with the WEGA's picture set at 4:3. Then play that same part of the DVD with the player outputting at 16:9, and with the WEGA in 16:9 mode. You'll never want to go back.

 

[MickeS]

funny..before i was all into HT, it used to boggle my mind what the hell P&S was. Like I noticed it in movies (Multiplicity stands out in my mind the most) but I never knew what it was. I thought it was like a special computerized camera they used while filming..instead of a human moving the POF etc.
hahah! Im retarded.

We were both retarded then... I was the same way. I noticed it in "Ghostbusters", but for some reason, although it annoyed me, I just figured "well, that's how it is", and it filled up the screen.
It wasn't until I started getting more interested in movies that I really becamse aware of P&S and what it is, and the benefits of widescreen.
And for me to understand what the hell anamorphic was... that took a while, phew.
Some people don't care, but many are just like you and me; they just need a little (well, for me a lot ) education.
/Mike

 

[Damien Montanile]

Wow..those are both the 2 movies that I totally reference when telling people about truly bad and obvious p&s. I guess its just that bad I guess these are REALLY obvious
-Damien

 

[Will_B]

About this "Blockbuster: Try Widescreen" animated GIF that is going around...

It doesn't convey its meaning very well.

It looks like Blockbuster is promoting itself. Blockbuster: Try Widescreen. The message is "you can rent widescreen at Blockbuster, give us a try!"

It is supposed to convey the idea that Blockbuster does NOT have widescreen. Instead, it looks like a promo for the store.

It doesn't work and should be redone.

 

[Ryan Wright]

Will, I agree about the Blockbuster image.

My 27" inch, non-widescreen WEGA has a 16X9 enhanced mode which just squeezes a regular picture of any format, including regular old TV, into a widescreen ratio. Pretty pointless, but whatever.

This is a 16:9 squeeze mode. When watching a 16:9 movie in normal mode, you're wasting scanlines by drawing the black bars above and below the image. If you use your squeeze mode, and also go into the config on your DVD player and tell it you have a 16:9 TV, then you're no longer wasting these scanlines. Instead, they're used to produce the picture.

The end result? You get a MUCH better looking picture.

As Jack said, try it. You'll never go back.

 

[John_Berger]

Now that's very intersting!
I went to my local BB recently and saw all of the full-frame JP3s as well, but they had the widescreen version for SALE, not rent.
I went up to the cashier and said to the effect of "What's with the full frame JP3 DVDs?" He just shook his head and said, "I know, I know, but that's what they sent us."
My eyebrows shot up and I said, "So, I take it that I'm not the only one to complain about that?"
He said, "No, not by a long shot."
Me like. Me like. The question is ... is that information getting sent back to Blockbuster? (rhetorical -- I'm sure that we know the answer.)

 

[GaryM]

Sadly, the world is not as simple as we would like. One of the last movies Blockbuster stocked in both "Widescreen" and "Fullscreen" versions was the re-release of Silence of the Lambs, which they stocked up on for the initial DVD release of Hannibal last year.
There are, generally speaking, two ways of making Widescreen films.
One way is to use a very expensive film camera with elliptical lenses, that fills the film frame with tall skinny people. Then in the projection step we use other expensive elliptical "anamorphic" lenses to restore the proper aspect ratio, stretching those people out again. This is the best way to make a film with a really wide aspect ratio higher than 2.0:1 - and the most common AR's used for such films are 2.35:1, 2.39:1, and 2.4:1.
The other way involves using a simpler, cheaper camera with spherical lenses, and filming in real 1.33:1. Then when you distribute the film, you specify a sperical projection zoom lens and a projector "aperture plate" that blocks off the top and bottom of the film frame, and the projectionist zooms the picture to fill the screen. You have lost some resolution and made the film grain more visible, but you saved a bundle in photography, and the film exhibitors love it because they can use the older cheaper projectors. This method is commonly used for films in the "intermediate" aspect ratios of 1.78:1 and 1.85:1, and you still advertise a "Widescreen" movie.
Remember I mentioned the two recent Silence of the Lambs Special Edition DVDs? That movie was in fact filmed in 1.33:1 and the original aspect ratio for theatrical exhibition was 1.85:1 via those projector aperture plates. The original 1998 DVD release was 1.33:1 AR with black letterbox bars to make 1.85:1. However, the two Special Edition Silence of the Lambs DVDs of 2001 were atypical. The "Widescreen" DVD was anamorphic 1.85:1. The "Fullscreen" DVD was created by unmasking the full film frame, and it contains MORE picture elements than the "Widescreen" version - and it happens to be my favorite of the three DVD versions of SOTL.
Yes, I KNOW it's not the original theatrical aspect ratio - but the 1.33:1 Cinematography is superior! Note that some Cinematographers actually use framing sights (those lens thingys they hang around their necks) that have both 1.33:1 and the Widescreen aspect ratio they have selected marked on them, knowing that the movie will be broadcast one day over television, and not wanting any of the frame to be lost. (Such a framing sight has the widescreen aspect ratio marked INSIDE the 4:3 frame, allowing you to make sure no vital picture elements get cropped by the aperture plate during theatrical film exhibition.)
But lest you think Blockbuster got something correct by mistake - never fear - they printed covers for the "Fullscreen" SOTL DVD and labelled them "Pan and Scan"!
Gary

 

[John_Berger]

Yes, I KNOW it's not the original theatrical aspect ratio - but the 1.33:1 Cinematography is superior!

By all means, do show us your "proof" to back up this statement. There are a large number of instances where the full-frame 1.33:1 was blatantly incorrect. Two that come immediately to mind are "A Fish Called Wanda" and the original VHS release of "The Princess Bride".

Both of these are 1.85:1 soft matted, so by your statement the full-screen versions would be superior than the soft-matted pseudo-widescreen mode. {buzzer}

Thanks to the removal of the mattes in the full-screen "Wanda", the viewer can see John Cleese's underwear in one of the funniest scenes in the movie -- a scene where he's supposed to be caught nude. Even MGM has talked about this little faux pas.

In "Bride" during the forest scene between the Prince and his henchman, a huge grey boom mike is hanging over Christopher Guest's head. For those who are looking the scene is exactly when Tyrone says "Wesley's got his strength back. I'm putting him on the machine tonight." I have only seen it on the original VHS release. Apparently, Castle Rock fixed that scene in subsequent releases.

I know that you were referring specifically to SOTL and I went on a bit of a tangent; however, your statement that the full-screen version of a movie is "superior" is ludicrous. The "superior" version of ANY movie is the aspect ratio for which the movie is filmed. If SOTL was intended to be shown at its best in 1.33:1, then it should never have been released in a "widescreen" format to begin with.

 

[GaryM]

You might re-read my message. I didn't attempt to generalize by stating that I always prefer the "Fullscreen" version of a film - I stated only that I preferred one film Silence of the Lambs in it's "Fullscreen" aspect ratio.
I quite agree that many "Fullscreen" film versions are inferior. I guess I've never seen the version of A Fish Called Wanda you are referring to - but I have often noticed a boom mike in the top of a "Fullscreen" frame, I think it's the most common such gaffe. It's good for a laugh on late night TV.
But if you haven't seen the "Fullscreen" SOTL you've missed part of the film. It's the exception case, and I'm not suggesting anything other than the SOTL Cinematographer was unusually talented.
Gary

 

[John_Berger]

But if you haven't seen the "Fullscreen" SOTL you've missed part of the film. It's the exception case, and I'm not suggesting anything other than the SOTL Cinematographer was unusually talented.

Whether I've missed something or not is not the issue. If the film makers wanted the movie to be at its best in 1.33:1, then it should only have been released in 1.33:1, like Kubrick's last few films. But if the intended AR for SOTL is acutally 1.85:1, then I am not missing anything -- you are seeing more than you should.

 

[David Lambert]

I guess I've never seen the version of A Fish Called Wanda you are referring to

Then let me help you:

As you can see, it was his pants, not his underwear...but the point is the same. The scene is ruin with "Open Matte" presentation.
OAR = Widescreen for this film, and all other soft-matted films. I want to see it in my home exactly the way it was shown in the theaters.
That's why they call it "Home Theater".