What's new

Tell me why I don't like Widescreen (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

esboella

Grip
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
19
I will probably be about a popular as a pig in a Synagogue
for saying this but I think it's time the Widescreen format
was dropped.

Widescreen was only introduced as a format because you couldn't really display it on a TV (to boost cinema audiances) now however, many people have Widescreen TV's
so there is absolutely no reason for the film industry
to continue using that format.

I expect the film industry may switch back to 4:3 once
everyone has a widescreen set, or maybe it will switch to
a really tall format which won't work on any TV?
 

Ralph B

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Messages
584
you need to educate yourself in the benefits or shall I say the reason why WS is used. you obviously dont understand why.

I wanted to but wont get into it, you need to educate yourself.
 

esboella

Grip
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
19
Believe me I know all the benefits of WS, it has none.,
it's a silly format as anyone who looks at a TV twice
as wide as it is tall instantly notices. Then they
require a lenghty explaination of why widescreen is
best which is basically a false explainatuion because
it starts out from the premise that a widescreen picture
is a sensible viewing format in the first place.
 

Ralph B

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Messages
584
tell it to the movie theaters....sure looks like they want to switch to 4x3 to me..lol

you must be just wanting to start a war on a forum. your view is nuts!
 

esboella

Grip
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
19
Well oviously they want to watch the film in format in which
it was filmed, but that doesn't mean the format it was filmed in was a sensible format in the first place.
That the arguement based on a false premise I refered to.

Now we (in the UK) are in the horrible situation where
4:3 television material is being broadcast in 16:9 which
which leads to all sorts of cropping and black bars.

Generally a widescreen film can be panned and scanned
to produce a perfectly adaquate reproduction of the
original film, however it is much more difficult to
pan and scan a 4:3 production with a 16:9 lens because
of the inherent inadaquacies of a 16:9 appature.

I am not trying to start a war, just pointing out the obvious, if films were made in 4:3 you would find them
much more enjoyable because a 4:3 is more efficient.
It would mean you would see more of the action close
up because you wouldn't have to zoom out whenever you wanted
to see something which was not wide.
 

Jason Adams

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 30, 2002
Messages
635
Real Name
Roger Jason Adams
Oooooooh...your gonna get FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMED! And you do realise that being a fan of widescreen (or maintaning the OAR) is a basis for membership for the HTF, don't you?
 

esboella

Grip
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
19
I am not against the OAR I just think it would be better
for all if it was 4:3. its just more efficient which means better films which take up less space on a DVD (less wastage) and similarly waste less bandwidth when broadcast, which means you can have more channels and hence more choice.

Is that a bad thing?

The efficiency of a 4:3 window would become more obvious
with high resolution pictures in particular.

We don't live in a one dimensional world so why film it that way?
 

Brian Gi

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
122
I think the best point he makes is that as soon as all TV's produced are 16:9 they'll change the format so that the CE manufacturers can sell everyine a new TV, Hollywood can sell the same movies for the 4th time, (VHS, DVD, HDDVD, HDnewformat).

Please don't give Hollywood any ideas!:angry:
 

DanielKellmii

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
523
esboella, you have a valid idea from a marketing standpoint, but from an artistic standpoint the validity is ...uhhh... questionable. A typical persons field of vision is wider than it is tall. This explains why many people like the widescreen better than a more square screen. You probably already know this, but the 4x3 ratio is derived from vaudville stages that had the same ratio. That ratio is still a viable artistic tool. Which is what the other ratios are, a tool for the director to use. The 16:9 ratio for TVs is just a standard aggred upon by some regulatory agencies. It is a compromise because directors use a few different aspect ratios. If you really find it bothersome, get a front projector and install a masking system. I have seen some on the web and they look great.
 

Toby_R

Auditioning
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
4
First post on a forum and fly right into flame bait?

Not saying it is so, but the 'troll hairs' on my neck are standing straight.

T
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,561
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Esboella,

You are raising a lot of red flags
here and I seriously hope that your
initial post was supposed to be humorous.

If not, it is not our goal to make you
feel unwelcomed here, but understand that
the membership of Home Theater Forum have
fought to keep widescreen the standard in
DVD presentation.

To start posting anti-widescreen comments
in a community that is pro-OAR (Original
Aspect Ratio) such as this one is only going
fall on deaf ears.

We welcome you to Home Theater Forum.
 

RickER

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
5,128
Location
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Real Name
Rick
Ohhhhhh...if i could lock this thread i would! Saying 4x3 is better is like saying my eyes should be one on top the other instead of side by side. guess what that does it gives me panoramic vision...like widescreen! COOL ME!!!
 

esboella

Grip
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
19
The human field of binocular vision is taller than it is
wide, and the 'camera' of the human eye is actually round
because this is the most efficient shape to pan and scan
with, the eye cannot afford to waste billions of cells.
What matters is we use the best shape to present the image
to the viewer, and that ain't widescreen its too wide to
do it effectively, hence the peering through a letterbox
feel.

I really can't undertand why people defend widescreen, ratios like 2.35:1 are totally laughable when you see
them on a TV that shape.

Why some of you people still want to cling to the format is beyond me, surely you would prefer a fuller picture?
 

ChuckSolo

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Messages
1,160
Methinks esboella just doesn't want to spring for a widescreen TV and is stuck in 4:3 "square" land. Seriously though, the reason that those of us who are widescreen advocates, to me anyway, is that we can enjoy a film in a "theater" like environment. Why is 2.35:1 laughable?



I guess we could ask you the same question. With HD programming being broadcast in 16x9 why in the world would ANYONE want a 4:3 picture. I bought my HD widescreen TV to watch HDTV. Although DVD viewing is important to me, it is secondary to watching HDTV. With so many stations jumping on the HD bandwagon, it just makes sense to get a wisescreen TV. I guess it makes sense except to a few disgruntled Brits!!!:frowning:
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
Look, Home Theater Forum's co-owner has kindly weighed in with his views. My thinking is that this thread is needlessly provocative. Why are we debating this?

As for the starter's most recent post, widescreen films more naturally suit the human field of vision. And a 16:9 native display is the best compromise aspect ratio to suit all of film's many aspect ratios, from 1.37:1 to the mostly wildly widescreen films at 2.55:1 and even wider.

No issue. And unless something worthwhile can be further said here, I am hard pressed to let this thread continue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,789
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top