Homemade widescreen vs. P&S examples :-) (1 Viewer)

[Brian Lawrence]

I was very bored today so I created my own little example of widescreen vs. Pan & Scan. It's just a photo that I took and decided to tool around with (I don't have the equiptment to do screen captures of actual movies)

1. As the full (2.35) image would appear projected on a movie theater screen.

2.The image when visual information has been chopped
of the sides to fill a (1.33) TV screen which is more square
shapped than a rectangle movie theater screen.

3.The widescreen/letterboxed version, contains the
whole (2.35) image seen in the above theater screen
example. The black bars are not covering anything up,
they are just filling in dead space.

 

[HenrikTull]

Yup. That's pretty much how it works.

 

[Mike Frezon]

But I would think to be fair about it (if "fair" is the right word), you should 'pan' to the left, while you 'scan' the larger picture, to get the entrance to the covered bridge in the shot. That is likely your focal point.
I had to laugh. While I was channel surfing the other day, I saw a scene from Die Hard 3. Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson were tied back-to-back to a metal pole. The pan-and-scan version I was watching focused on the pole and you could see neither one of their faces during a rather lengthy amount of conversation! Classic.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

But I would think to be fair about it (if "fair" is the right word), you should 'pan' to the left, while you 'scan' the larger picture, to get the entrance to the covered bridge in the shot.

Wasn't trying to be fair. Just trying to come up with something very simple that makes a blunt point
I work at a videostore and trying to explain these things to people is impossible. I made this thing up so I could print out copies to show people when they start bitching about widescreen. I've seen some examples on web-sites with actual movie images. But most of them only show the the first 2 types of pictures, or sometimes the last two.
I have another one I made up with a differant picture showing what happens to the 2.66 ratio when cropped and again I did not play fair. These folks need to be hit over the head with it very hard.
Ah hell take a look

"Full-Frame"

"Widescreen"

I'm not even gonna think about trying to explain "Super 35" untill after they have been converted

 

[Mike Frezon]

Wasn't trying to be fair. Just trying to come up with something very simple that makes a blunt point

I understand completely and applaud your efforts. It's just that I don't think your P&S images reflect reality. P&S usually focuses on the center of the action and crops out everything else in the frame the director intended you to see. In your new example, I'd put the dog and white cone in the P&S example and crop off both sides of the original.
You don't want to give P&S lovers any advantage in the debate--not that there really is any.
Good luck in your efforts!

 

[Veli-Matti Reitti]

Great work Brian but like Mike said they really don't reflect reality.
Try this link for a more accurate comparison:
http://www.widescreenadvocate.com
I remember there being a P&S/Widescreen comparison of the ending scene of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi here at the HTF a while ago. Sorry i can't find it but that comparison really showed the true nature of P&S more than any other i've seen.

 

[Damin J Toell]

With all of the unfair tactics and purposely unrevealed facts here, you'd think being pro-OAR was a deceptive practice.

DJ

 

[Chris M]

I love this comic!

Chris.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Chris,

that is *classic*. Where did you get that?

-dave

 

[soop.spoon]

These examples are more than a little misleading and do not contribute to the OAR cause.

 

[Chris M]

David, can't remember, probably someone's home theater website
Chris.

 

[Ken Garrison]

I have a hard matte panoramic 35 MM camera and I got a picture of what I took. Here are some comparisons.

Here you can see both cats. One eating, and one snoozing. They're sisters BTW

To make that fill the screen, I had to cut Munchkin out, the cat that WAS on the right.
OR

I can cut out Spot and have Munchkin show in the picture.
OR THIS, which won't work.

This doesn't work because the pictures is about the cats and you barely see them at all. You see Munchkin's paw and you're lucky if you can see Spot's stuffing her face at all. I've seen pan and scan films just as bad as this. Sometimes referred as Talking Noses, where you only see the front of their faces on each side of the screen and not the rest of their head. Like I said before, it sucks. OAR all the way!!!

 

[Damin J Toell]

Ken,
Nice example.
DJ
P.S. Cute cats, too.

 

[Ken Garrison]

Thanks. Sorry the pictures are so BIG. LOL

 

[Neil Joseph]

(I don't have the equiptment to do screen captures of actual movies)

Do you have a computer with a DVD ROM drive? If so, you can use Mediamatics DVD player to capture images. I believe there are some DVD's that have the software on them for Mediamatics, as there are some others that have Interactual DVD player software. If not, you could probably download it.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

Do you have a computer with a DVD ROM drive?

Nope. My computer is about 5 years old and the CD drive doesn't even work anymore. :frowning:
Really though the pics are not really intended for anything all that special. As I said above I was bored and starting tinkering around with my scanner and image editing program. I wanted something that would cause a knee-jerk reaction that would get the attention of these people.
These two pics just happened to be the last two photos I scanned. I'm sure I could find something with several focus points. But the crude extreme is what I'm kind of aiming for. I can explain the rest once they get the basic technical point.

 

[Mike Frezon]

that is *classic*. Where did you get that?

Maybe here?

 

[Ken Garrison]

HEY! LET's SEE some MORE EXAMPLES!!!!!!

 

[Brian Lawrence]

Last one.

 

[Eric T]

Here's a 1.78:1 example...