1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

Do you hate Fullscreen? Then sign this petition please...

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Scott Weinberg, Feb 7, 2002.

  1. Scott Weinberg

    Scott Weinberg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    7,482
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,512
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    This should be non-OAR.

    Fullscreen is the format used for correctly made transfers of movies such as Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, and Citizen Kane and also for modified transfers of films that should be seen at 1.66, 1.85, 2.35, etc.

    Fullscreen is ok when it's supposed to be 1.33:1 or lower. Bad if it is not.
     
  3. Scott Weinberg

    Scott Weinberg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    7,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very good point, Patrick, but my impetus for writing up this petition was the release of Follow that Bird, so I was in the Fullscreen mindset.
    It just irriates me when ANY movie is presented in FS only. Several people I've talked to say "So what? It's a Sesame Street movie!"
    I simply canot understand this logic. I have friends who consider this one as beloved a film as The Muppet Movie.
     
  4. Jonathan

    Jonathan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 1998
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    When a person says that a movie is in full screen I consider that to mean Pan & Scan. When I am talking about movies Like Gone With The Wind & Wizard of Oz I say Full Frame, because the Full Frame that was filmed is being seen. Where as to me Full Screen just means the screen is filled with picture. Or maybe I'm just weird?[​IMG]
     
  5. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,512
    Likes Received:
    115
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Of course, but we need to show the difference.

    There's people who want widescreen, but they don't realize that 99.9% of the movies made before 1952 are 1.33:1 or lower and meant to be seen that way.
     
  6. Scott H

    Scott H Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fullscreen means nothing to me. There is no negative connotation there. Fullscreen is often ideal, depending on the screen. Patrick's first post was right on, though I would add that in regards to TV fullscreen may also equal 1.78:1 (and 1.85:1) on 16:9 TVs.

    Jonathan, for a 4:3 TV fullscreen means either P&S, open-matte, or OAR. Bad, still bad, or just right.
     
  7. RobR

    RobR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2000
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  8. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,593
    Likes Received:
    0
    I want TAR, Theatrical Aspect Ratio. That can be anything from 1.33 to 2.5:1. However it was shown theatrically is what I want to see, and anamorphic at 1.66:1 or wider.
     
  9. Scott H

    Scott H Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  10. Scott H

    Scott H Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  11. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,593
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no such thing as "can't be projected". I could project 1:1 if I wanted to or 10:1 on 35mm film. It would involve matting or windowboxing the image, but it still could be projected. My wish is for the ratio (or ratios) that was used theatrically to be represented on home video.
     
  12. Scott H

    Scott H Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  13. Scott H

    Scott H Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  14. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,593
    Likes Received:
    0
    We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't want unmatted transfers of films composed and theatrically exhibited at 1.85:1 (ala Kubrick), nor do I want 1.85 or 1.78 versions of films theatrically presented wider. I prefer the image area I was intended to see theatrically, which in some cases, will mean matting slightly to eliminate splices from the full aperature.
    [​IMG]
     
  15. George_Reis

    George_Reis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems that a majority of American films of the past 30 years or so are released 1.85:1 when letterboxed on DVD. If a studio releases the DVDs like this, is that absolutely the way they were shot, rather than the "open matte" theory?
     
  16. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,593
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the film is presented at 1.85, then it is not open matte. 35mm film has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1. To achieve 1.85 requires "matting" the film to that aspect ratio, by blocking off portions that were not intended to be seen in the composition. "Open matte" means presenting films composed for a wider aspect ratio with the mattes removed, thereby showing image that was not intended to be seen, and changing the composition from the theatrical presentation.
     
  17. Scott H

    Scott H Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  18. RobR

    RobR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2000
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. cafink

    cafink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    3,045
    Likes Received:
    36
     
  20. George_Reis

    George_Reis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jeff, thanks for answering my question. Your the second person who said the same thing, so I wanted to get another opinion from an expert like yourself.

    I was mainly concerned with 1.85 films that show more information when they're shown in a standard TV format. But if that picture information is not supposed to be there, then I'm all for matting. Of course altering 2.35 to something less wide than that shouldn't be allowed.
     

Share This Page