Tell me why I don't like Widescreen

Discussion in 'Displays' started by esboella, Apr 8, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. esboella

    esboella Extra

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  2. Ralph B

    Ralph B Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2003
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Cameron Yee

    Cameron Yee Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,602
    Likes Received:
    601
    Location:
    Since 2006
    Real Name:
    Cameron Yee


    [​IMG]
     
  4. esboella

    esboella Extra

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Ralph B

    Ralph B Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2003
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  6. esboella

    esboella Extra

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Jason Adams

    Jason Adams Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  8. esboella

    esboella Extra

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  9. Craig

    Craig Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 1999
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    0


    Well, it's certainly hard to argue with logic like that.
     
  10. Ralph B

    Ralph B Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2003
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol
     
  11. Brian Gi

    Brian Gi Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    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![​IMG]
     
  12. DanielKellmii

    DanielKellmii Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. Toby_R

    Toby_R Auditioning

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  14. Michael TLV

    Michael TLV THX Video Instructor/Calibrator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2000
    Messages:
    2,909
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    Real Name:
    Michael Chen
    Greetings

    Troll ...

    Regards
     
  15. Neil Joseph

    Neil Joseph Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 1998
    Messages:
    8,332
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Neil Joseph
    Esboella, is your initial post a joke?
     
  16. Ronald Epstein

    Ronald Epstein Administrator
    Owner

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    46,619
    Likes Received:
    4,487
    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.
     
  17. RickER

    RickER Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    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!!!
     
  18. esboella

    esboella Extra

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  19. ChuckSolo

    ChuckSolo Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!!![​IMG]
     
  20. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page