What's new

Pan and Scam, The UK situation.. (1 Viewer)

TheoGB

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
1,744
I only bought one because of anamorphic presentations but then I couldn't afford the space for a really big one. My 24" w/s Sony is identical in width to their 29" 4:3 TV, which has a 16:9 mode (and is the same price). If I could have fitted it into the corner I would have bought that because 4:3 viewing on a widescreen is annoying.
I would actually rather have a massive 4:3 plasma screen over the whole chimney breast any day. ;-)
However, we do have it better for widescreen in Britain. It is meant to be down to size, I think. Isn't there some set up over here that means BT actually has a better set up for some future dial situations? I can't remember...
Theo
 

mark_d

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 4, 2000
Messages
258
My first thought? GIMME GIMME!
I'm now on my third - first was a rented Philips 28", then a bought Panasonic 28" which I sold a couple of months ago (£150) to put towards my lovely 32" Sony flat screen (50Hz - don't like 100Hz).
But, back in the day that they first arrived many, many years ago, the man who was to become the best man at my wedding got one (he's now on his third, too). He played some of his letterbox Star Trek Movie box set. Having most (but not all, obviously) of the black bars removed really brought out the picture. Even though the image was not much bigger than that of a 29" 4:3 set, it looked a lot bigger.
My reasoning for buying was that for "normal" TV watching, size was not an issue, so I'd live with a smaller set for that sort of thing so that my letterbox tapes and LDs (can't remember the last time I bought non-OAR) would benefit. I can count on the fingers of no hands how many pre 1954 movies I own...
A couple of weeks ago, a colleague just picked up a 32" wide. He didn't want it but his wife did. His complaint? "Everyone looks fat on those widescreen TVs". I put his mind to rest, but it doesn't help that retailers have no clue how to demonstrate WS TVs. Sometimes I'm amazed that they ever took off.
Mark
 

DannyS

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
328
do you mean ADSL? Video on demand? Or local loop unbundling? (I work for em)
------------------
Panasonic TX-21M2T TV
Sony DVP 536
Old Panasonic Stereo! :)
 

Jan Strnad

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 1, 1999
Messages
1,004
I believe that at least half of the American population is composed of morons.
Test out this hypothesis for yourself. Think of some absolutely inexplicable aspect of American life. You've scratched your head over it, pondered it, and you still can't believe what you're seeing.
Now, imagine that at least of the American population is a moron. Did this puzzling situation suddenly make sense?
This little exercise can be a real eye-opener.
------------------
http://www.mindspring.com/~atombrain/risenintro.html
Jan Strnad
author of Risen and
"The AtomBrain Guide to Letterboxing"
 

Ben_J_L

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 3, 2001
Messages
52
Well I live in the UK and am very much a widescreen purist, I will never buy another pan & scan product.
It was the re-release of Star Wars (in 97')which made me aware of widescreen (having owned the Panned and scanned Star Wars trilogy videos) I used to watch them avidly, and knew every single inch of the screen.
When I saw them at the cinema, i was like "whoa, I don't remember him being there" and "wow, whats that new thing at the side of the screen" - you get the idea.
I must admit though, that I prefer films shot in 2:35.1 rather than 1:85.1, I just prefer the wider image - all action films should be shot in 2:35.1 in my view.
 

TheoGB

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
1,744
Oh I am TOTALLY in favour of widescreen. I learned of widescreen through Star Wars (but that was in '92/'93 time when the first widescreen versions were released (I've bought them in w/s a further three times; I balked at the last time).
I couldn't care less about the black bars. I'd rather watch widescreen on a 14" mono TV than fullscreen on a 29" 4:3 in 5.1.
That aside things like early Buffy seasons, Red Dwarf (1-6) Blackadder, and Kubrick's stuff is all in 4:3 and therefore I'd still like a big 4:3 for that matter. Simpsons are 4:3 too.
 

PhilipG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2000
Messages
2,002
Real Name
PhilipG
We in the UK are getting pan/scam season 1 of Angel. Thanks a bunch, Fox.
furious.gif

And let's not forget the Sopranos season 1 debacle.
Well, at least my R2 DVD of Rugrats The Movie is OAR widescreen, unlike Paramount's R1 release.
 

Adam_S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2001
Messages
6,316
Real Name
Adam_S
I think like many others that the reason widescreen hasnt'taekn off here in america is becasue the prices have remained high, and I've yet to see a widescreen set smaller than fifty inches (though i know they might exist smaller than that here).
You see I come from a joe six pack family, to give you an example, here's my dad's attitude on email "Of course I'm going to open every attachment on every email i get, even if i don't know who it is, the virus scanner will catch it, and i might be missing something interesting." "but dad, the virus scanner is two years old, nad you've never upgraded it, it's not going to catch any new viruses." "Yes it is, it's a virus scanner, it knows what viruses look like, and it scans all teh files, and they come out as clean..." ohh and some of my favorites are "the internet connenction is slow, better do that defrag thing." or "the internet is runnign really slow, you think reformatting the harddrive would help?" or "the internet is running really slow, and if you hadn't filled up the harddrive with all those mp3s it'd be running much faster."
never mind that he won't upgrade to dsl b/c what we have is plenty fast enough, and don't even bother tryign to explain that our phone lines are so old and shitty, that the best connection we can get is 28.8.
sigh, at least i'm gotten him to accept widescreen (actually wasn't too hard. So my point was, my parents have never bought a tv set greater than 27 inches. bigger sets are too expensive (they've also never spent mroe than 300$ on a set) and so there is no way they will ever buy a tv for 2000 dollars, much less 1000 dollars. and no sense wasting all that money on a big screen, when the one we have is plently big enough. so until ws tvs get down to decent sizes like 25 inches or 27 inches and at comparable prices, I don't expect ws tvs to really take off here
that said about how much would it cost me to have a 500$ ws tv shipped here to the states? :) (because i really want one, just can't afford them at the current ridiculous prices)
 

Glenn Overholt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 24, 1999
Messages
4,201
Adam - I've thought about that too. They are running on PAL, but if your DVD players runs PAL, you might be ok.
What I do find interesting about this whole thing is the import tax here. I believe it is basically a fine telling you that you should have brought US made goods. Since a smaller TV is not available here, there shouldn't be any tax. Someone correct me if I am wrong about that.
In any case, with the weight and dimensions, you could get an answer by calling up any customs house broker. It's too bad that we couldn't get together and order a couple of hundred of NTSC sets and split the cost.
Glenn
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
You are not getting a pan&scan version of Angel. Joss Whedon prefers 4:3 for television shows, and that is their OAR on US TV. He frames 4:3 and only protects for 16:9. It's the only chink in his otherwise infallible armor.
Look at it this way: At least you're GETTING Angel. We have no clue when it's coming to the US
Widescreen TVs are not popular here because they have yet to introduce a non-HDTV widescreen set. If they just made some NTSC tubes, everything would be fine, and a lot more people would buy them
And yes, at least half of the US are composed of morons, probably more. After 5 years of working retail, my motto has always been "Stupid until proven intelligent"
Jeff Kleist
 

TheoGB

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
1,744
Well what Joss Whedon thinks (and lets not forget he's actually in the illustrious company of Kubrick and Cameron there) means bugger all as the BBC have been broadcasting Buffy S4 onwards in 16:9 on digital. Fox can't get away with not producing these two in the widescreen format.
Also all British TVs can decode NTSC or else we wouldn't all be able to view your loverly DVDs on our chipped players, would we?
However, you've got to remember that everything costs loads and loads over here. I'm sure the cost would be as much as a $1000 on your massive U.S. one...And what if it went wrong?
My Sony 24" W/S cost me £450 quid. However if you want to shop around check out the UK area of www.pricerunner.com I suppose and see what comes out!
Theo
 

Dan Brecher

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 8, 1999
Messages
3,450
Real Name
Daniel
quote: formats that don't seem to be being taken up in huge numbers, unlike in Europe. I agree that HD would be great, but one step at a time.[/quote]
The problem is we rushed into digital without looking into HDTV here, there is no way that HDTV will now be considered here anytime soon thanks to the growing userbase of digital because it'd just confuse the consumer. Of course they're not in huge numbers in the states as yet, HD is in its infancy for the consumer, but it will change and eventually we'll be stuck in the slow lane with what we've got, which right now is great (especially with Sky to be outputing some selcet films in 5.1 later this year), but in the not too distant future...
quote: To be fair, broadcasters were always doing this down to 4:3 before, so at least its a step up from that. They never showed OAR before, and I don't expect anyone except dedicated film channels to do it anytime soon, but 1.78:1 is better than 4:3 for most wide aspect movies. If you like the film you'll watch it on DVD anyway.[/quote]
Before they went digital you mean? Not entirely true. BBC2 would stick with OAR in the mid 90s, I remember the first broadcast of Pulp Fiction retained it's original Panavision ratio but would later show it cropped to 1.78:1. Channel 4 always seemed to crop anything above 1.85:1 during prime viewing hours, yet to this day in the daytime you can often catch a good western preserved on terrestrial Channel 4 in it's OAR, no cropping. I noticed this only the other week.
Dan (UK)
[Edited last by Dan Brecher on August 16, 2001 at 03:53 PM]
 

Michael_UK

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 28, 2001
Messages
67
Cool a post with some people in the UK.....
DVD's in the UK has really boomed in the last 6-8 months, LOADS Titles come out to buy and rent every few days.
I think with the price of players coming right down more more people will buy into DVD systems.
I took my DVD setup out of my room and hooked it up to my old AMP and Mission speakers for my mother to show her the quality of sound on DVD compaird to her 2 inch television speaker, I rented Space cowboys for her and pressed play, at the start of the film you here wind and the sound unveloped her small sitting room she shouts "OH MY GOD, WHAT IS THAT OUTSIDE", I say that is here in the room and that it is just part of the film, she was amazed at the amount of sound you loose on a mono television compaired to a Good set of speakers.
I currently have a 20 inch old Television, but I plan to get a Widescreen TV in the next two weeks ;-)
I myself rent and borrow from friends at least 3-6 DVD's a week.
 

Ted Todorov

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2000
Messages
3,706
It is all about cheap widescreen TVs. I am still completely mystified why no manufacturer markets them in the US.
With the 20 million+ DVD players out there (slated to double in the next 12 months), there is a HUGE market for inexpensive widescreen TVs.
To sell the made for Europe TVs in the US, all they have to do is change the voltage and the tuner from PAL to NTSC. (The electronics/tube display NTSC & PAL just fine, only the tuner needs to be altered). How expensive could that possibly be?
I think that $500 - $700 widescreen TVs would FLY off the shelves.
Ted
 

Chris Bardon

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2000
Messages
2,059
Well, look at it this way. I just needed to buy a new TV a month ago, and ended up getting a 32" JVC (non-widescreen) for $1000 CDN. I looked at the widescreen sets, and didn't buy one for 2 reasons: 1)WAY too expensive (min 2500) and 2)even though I use my TV for primarily for DVD, I also watch normal cable and use it for my playstation (which are all 4:3). Widescreen stuff looks absolutely fantastic on this set. I guess my point is, people need a reason to buy widescreen sets, and that won't happen until all of the programming is in widescreen. It's bad enough convincing someone to get into DVD in the first place...
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
The bottom line is that Joss has gone on record with his 4:3 policy, I agree it's wrong, but I'm sure that's why they are 4:3, the way the shots were originally composed(protected for 16:9). YES I want widescreen, and YES, the BBC has been showing it that way, but either AR is acceptable. If you're complaining about prices, I suggest you buy the Australian discs, exactly the same except for region coding, and much cheaper (example- South Park UK-$28US, same disc in Aus- $18US)
Jeff Kleist
 

Jon Robertson

Screenwriter
Joined
May 19, 2001
Messages
1,568
I think what all this boils down to is that we European DVD lovers should be massively grateful for living where we do.
Examples:
80%-odd (probably more) of widescreen discs are anamorphic.
Most players have remote hacks, allowing instant worldwide region coding, seeing as barely any R1 discs are RCE-encoded ( see here )
Nearly all of us can play NTSC discs without any problems - unlike our US counterparts who have to go through hell to get any decent PAL conversions (apart from a new player that Matt Stevens was championing).
Most widescreen televisions have a 14:9 zoom, meaning non-anamorphic 1.66:1 discs can be almost perfectly cropped (depending on your overscan - mine crops at EXACTLY 1.66:1, with thin bars down either side. Which is nice.)
Our widescreen televisions are dead cheap. This is mine and cost me £469 (around $650-700 USD, I would imagine) and does absolutely everything I could ever want it to.
 

mark_d

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 4, 2000
Messages
258
You American/Canadians don't need to worry about the TV standard. I'd be surprised if there's a WS set you can buy that -doesn't- handle a pure NTSC signal. Your problem will be connectivity. Our sets use a 21 pin scart connector (otherwise known as Euro-Peritel?) for A/V input which I understand is not used on your side the Atlantic. Many also have s-video and composite inputs on the front (for easy camcorder connection) but that would obviously look ungainly in a permanent set up. I also think you may have problems with component input as we use RGB instead. I don't know the ins and outs of component but I believe it's more than just an alternative moniker for RGB...
If you can get past the above, the cheapest 28" I've seen was about 250 quid - around 360 USD...
Mark
 

TheoGB

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
1,744
Jeff Kleist: Aussie stuff is cheap, though on the last Buffy set a number of people got done for customs duty which pretty much wiped out their saving.
Also, you only get stuff in Amaray boxes over there. Buffy has come out in cool packaging over in the UK. Of course there has been a problem with the current S2 packaging which is a shame but I keep my discs in a separate holder and the box is still way cool.
 

Iain Lambert

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 7, 1999
Messages
1,345
Component and RGB are doing fairly similiar things, but they certainly aren't the same. The best you could practically do would be to get a scart to S-Video adaptor at the same time and use that. Mind you, an alternative would be to import a cheap (or even expensive) multi-region player at the same time and use the RGB out on that. You could then get access to all those other region discs that some people are after as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,701
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top