The Time Is Now For A Nationwide Campaign Called "Why Widescreen" (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

Check out this thread in Studio Feedback that I started. It's great that Vince has taken the time to make the brochure, but I really think more studios need to put a "Why Widescreen" featurette-only 3 minutes in length-similar to the Die Hard "Why Widescreen" Fox put out this year.
They don't even need to tailor the featurette to each film. Just choose a standard film to do it for (hell, re-use the Die Hard example if you have to). And put it on the front menu so people don't have to hunt around for it.

 

[DarrenA]

Is it possible for someone with Pagemaker to convert Vince's brochure to a PDF or similar file? This brochure could very well be placed in the Widescreen FAQ!
------------------
DarrenA
The Academy Home Theater

 

[Patrick McCart]

How about standees in places like Suncoast, Media Play, Tower City, etc that look like this:
Warner Bros. Presents (why? see bottom)
Seeing is believing:
What you're missing from widescreen movies
*P&S frame of Ben-Hur*
*2.76:1 frame of Ben-Hur*
Ben-Hur was filmed with the widest aspect
ratio (picture size) used in a modern film.
The full screen image loses approx. 55% of the image
that was seen in theaters.
*open matte frame from Willy Wonka (prefferebly the one with the hose going up Violet's posterior.)*
*matted frame (same height as OM frame*
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was filmed at the same screen shape as a television show. The movie was actually meant to be seen in the 1.78:1 screen shape as the director intended it to be. Many films made after 1954 were
filmed this way because widescreen lenses that squeezed
*picture of uncompressed CinemaScope frame*
the image that was varied from 2.55:1
*frame from Rebel Without A Cause*
from 2.35:1
*frame from Blazing Saddles (preferrably the scene where Taggart gets hit by Bart with a shovel)*
Even though these films were meant to be seen in widescreen form, most films made before 1953 were filmed in a full frame screen shape not unlike a television screen.
*frame from Gone With The Wind* *frame from Wizard of Oz*
*frame from Casablanca* *frame from Tom & Jerry cartoon*
Warner Bros. offers a multitude of films in their original screen format for sale on DVD including the above films.
Why WB? They have such a large library on DVD and in so many aspect ratios (1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.10:1, 2.20:1, 2.35:1, 2.55:1, 2.59:1, and 2.76:1) and there's at least one film with each aspect ratio.
I think it would help if actual film frames were in plastic sleeves hooked up to cords on the standee so people could see what the films look like on celluloid.
------------------
P.S.: There's no P.S.

 

[Charles Bober]

You guys need to understand that owners of wide-screen or HDTV TVs are a minority and until widescreen TVs are widely available for under $500 you won't convince the rest of America that wider is better.

The misinformation continues. So you're saying that I cannot enjoy a widescreen (letterbox) film on my 4:3 set? I think not. That conception is out there and it is totally false. Once we clear that up, the price issue is a non-factor since J6P can buy a 4:3 set and watch OAR with no problems (other than not being able to enjoy the anamorphic enhancement). A guy at work told me that the only way he can watch widescreen films is to buy an expensive 16x9 set. J6P is so misinformed, it's frightening. The terms widescreen referring to movies and widescreen referring to tv's confuses them. We should use OAR and 16x9 to combat this and explain accordingly. I'm so outraged at this "lowest common denominator" menatality regarding the onslaught of P&S. It's sad that Europeans get it, accept it, and demand it and we don't (that is in no way a knock or slur against our friends across the ocean but rather a demonstration on how stupid Americans are).
I'm all for this campaign. The quicker we can eliminate the butchering of movies, the happier I'll be. There is no rational explanation on why we must be exposed to P&S. If I were a director, I'd have a clause in my contract that states only OAR for home theater releases.
Vince, if there's anything I can do to help fight the good fight, count me in and let me know.
/rant
------------------
DTS Laser Disc. Size Does Matter

 

[DannyS]

In the UK, Pan Scam is pretty much non-existent on DVD, there are a few titles in Pan Scam (feature films) but not many. The new Silence of the lambs disc is ONLY IN WIDESCREEN here, unlike the US with dual versions. The UK distribution have taken this tack. "Widescreen or nothing at all." Amen to that.
Widescreen TV's have taken off in a huge way over here.
you can pick up a 32 inch screen of a budget brand
for only $571
and then get a top quality 36 inch screen for $2,858
The TV's here are excellent, accept PAL and NTSC and the price range varies from the cheap to the ludicrous.
------------------
Panasonic TX-21M2T TV
Sony DVP 536
Old Panasonic Stereo!

 

[Sam Hatch]

I mentioned on another thread that died quickly that we should also try to help people look at their TVs in a different light. How many of us have actually gotten people to understand the artistic concept of letterboxing/widescreen only to reach that insurmountable
mindset of 'the screen is like this, so everything I watch on it must be as well!'?
It hit me when I made mattes and watched them for the first time that those little buggers really made the whole 'black bars' argument moot. My TV was no longer 1.33:1, but a 2.35:1 set. No black bars to speak of. Granted, non-fanatics are hardly going to go through the trouble of mattes, but they do help to demonstrate that a TV can double as a Cable TV AND a multi-ratio movie screen. Jan really hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that so many believe the black bars actually 'hide' image material - that it's the same thing as the Pan & Scan transfer, only cropped for their annoyment.
So when we mention how the presentation of the film is wider in the theaters, etc. we can also mention that audiences happily watch films there with black bars (i.e. 'curtains') all the time. The screen size issue is still a tough one to get past though. Logic would suggest a larger screen would make people worry about image size less, but it seems the more money people spend on a screen, the more they absolutely demand that all of it be filled. "I paid for a big TV, I'm getting ripped off!"
I'm losing my train of thought (been up all night after going to a concert) - but I suppose what I'm getting at is that we could try to expand the notion of what TVs are and promote them to be viewed as a movie screen. A variable tool rather than an absolute.
Or, we can form a matte-making good will association and drive around in big vans handing them out to the tele-needy.
Okay, time for breakfast. Sorry for the rambling and lack of focus.
------------------
"Negative. I am a meat popsicle."

 

[Glenn Overholt]

A few points need some re-ranting. My thought is that with 4:3 TV's, there is a cut off point for watching OAR movies. I think that is part of the problem too. A 19" 4:3 set showing an OAR movie is going to be filled with little munchkins. It isn't that the black bars are there, it is that everybody is just too friggin' small.
As for the black bars, yes they are in theaters, but we never see them because it is pretty dark in there. Most people watch regular TV with at least a few lights on, and that is when the black bars stick out like a sore thumb. This is even more true with sets that are not black/dark gray.
As stated above, the prices do need to come down, along with the screen sizes.
Glenn

 

[DaveF]

Been reading this thread with interest -- there have been many good ideas suggested. But most of the examples have used older movies, movies which most people today aren't familiar with.
I think that using, say "Ben Hur", will come across like, "To best enjoy an ancient movie you've never seen, watch in letterbox" and the consumer will be all, "Ben who?" then go buy "Gone in 60 Seconds" in P&S.
It would be most effective with recent, popular movies: The Matrix, Shrek, X-Men, Titanic, etc.
Just my $0.02

 

[Richard Kim]

Even if widescreen TVs become cheap, it still won't end the cutting up of movies. JSP will be pissed because now there are black/grey bars when watching scope or Academy films and studios will probably accomidate them by butchering films to fit a 16:9 screen. Look at HD HBO cropping scope films. Educating people about the diffrent ARs is the only answer.
[Edited last by Richard Kim on August 15, 2001 at 12:28 PM]

 

[Jan Strnad]

Educating people about the diffrent ARs is the only answer.

I wouldn't say that anything is the "only" answer. Educating people about aspect ratios isn't it (IMHO) because most people, even when educated about AR, don't care. They want their TV screen filled, period.
Regarding these people, the best solution (for us) is for them to buy a widescreen TV.
There's one big negative about letterboxing: the picture is smaller. Subtleties aside, it is smaller. For that reason alone, some people will prefer pan-and-scan.
As more people buy widescreen TVs, the "minority" that wants anamorphic transfers grows larger. I think it'll be easier to sell J6P a bigger (i.e. wider) television than to convince him that director's intent is important, that films are Art, or even to get enough geometry into his head that he understands AR.
------------------
http://www.mindspring.com/~atombrain/risenintro.html
Jan Strnad
author of Risen and
"The AtomBrain Guide to Letterboxing"

 

[Richard Kim]

As more people buy widescreen TVs, the "minority" that wants anamorphic transfers grows larger. I think it'll be easier to sell J6P a bigger (i.e. wider) television than to convince him that director's intent is important, that films are Art, or even to get enough geometry into his head that he understands AR.

I don't think that widescreen TVs will cause an increase in demand for anamorphic transfers. Instead, JSP will want his entire 16x9 screen filled and will bitch and complain when there are black bars or grey bars on the sides.
Here's a frightening thought: what if in the future WB released only non OAR versions of Ben-Hur or Casablanca filling the entire 16x9 screen?

 

[LarryDavenport]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The misinformation continues. So you're saying that I cannot enjoy a widescreen (letterbox) film on my 4:3 set? I think not. That conception is out there and it is totally false. Once we clear that up, the price issue is a non-factor since J6P can buy a 4:3 set and watch OAR with no problems (other than not being able to enjoy the anamorphic enhancement). A guy at work told me that the only way he can watch widescreen films is to buy an expensive 16x9 set. J6P is so misinformed, it's frightening. The terms widescreen referring to movies and widescreen referring to tv's confuses them. We should use OAR and 16x9 to combat this and explain accordingly. I'm so outraged at this "lowest common denominator" menatality regarding the onslaught of P&S. It's sad that Europeans get it, accept it, and demand it and we don't (that is in no way a knock or slur against our friends across the ocean but rather a demonstration on how stupid Americans are).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a grip! I know the difference between letterboxing and anamorphic enhanced.
#1 I agree, movies should always be shown in their OAR and shame on the idiot back in the 50's or 60's who invented P&S so scope films would fill up the TV screen. I have been buying laserdiscs since 1980 and DVDs since 1999 and with only a couple exceptions have consistently refused to buy films not in their OAR.
#2 As far as educating the masses, Roger Ebert has tried for years. I know he has done special segments on letterboxing on past episodes of his various review shows. What's going to have to happen is more networks need to follow NBC's lead and broadcast more shows widescreen (like ER) to get J6P to get used to it. Perhaps that's where a short 3 minute presentation would do the most good. But it still won't convince everyone.
I had a friend back in the 80's whose Dad was the biggest Home Theater nut I knew. He always has to have the biggest TV and most expensive stereo (I remember he had 4 Bose 901 speakers suspended from the ceiling). But he refused to buy letterboxed movies because, he said that since he paid for a big screen TV he wanted the picture to fill the whole screen (he also refused to buy black & white movies because he paid for a color TV). In the 20 years since I have to say that his attitude is typical. That attitude is the reason why I come to HTF, to talk to sane people.
#3 The number one thing that has to happen (and it won't) is that more people who love film need to gain power of the video production houses and television networks. If everyone who made the decisions in releasing product had the heart and brains of Peter Straddon or Martin Blythe we'd be in video heaven. As long as the government (and it doesn't matter if it's Bush or Clinton) allows the AOLisation of America we are going to have less and less choice and are going to have to eat what they feed us.
As far as anamorphic, I stand by my statement that until I can go into a store and buy a widescreen TV for around $500 (I bought a 27" Panasonic CT27SX11 4:3 TV last night for $700) you are going to have a hard time convincing me I need to have all my DVDs in anamorphic (as long as they're letterboxed it's fine by me). If you can demonstrate to me why an anamorphic disc will look better on my 4:3 set than simple letterboxing, I'm ready to learn.
------------------
These chicks know how to party! - MoJo JoJo

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I have stared a grassroots education effort, So please take a look in the thread in my sig.

If you can demonstrate to me why an anamorphic disc will look better on my 4:3 set than simple letterboxing, I'm ready to learn.

When studios do a transfer that is "Enhanced for Widescreen TV's" they will almost always spend the time and money to make sure the transfer is optimized, and digitally re-mastered, whereas a letterboxed transfer will sometimes just be a old transer that may have come from a laserdisc.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Larry, if you can find the service-menu codes for your new Panny, you might be able to compress the raster into a 16:9 window and let your player output at 16:9. Then you'll be clammoring for anamorphic releases!

 

[Shad R]

OK, my friend KNOWS he is missing part of the image when he's watching fullscreen, but he doesn't care. He has a 20 inch TV, and the picture is UNBEARABLY small. I can understand why people don't like widescreen. What fun is it watching a movie that you can barely see? I love widescreen, but I understand why some people don't. As long as DVD's are available OAR, let's live and let be. We can educate till the cows come home, but fact is, some people KNOW they are missing image but don't care. It's their preference. When DVD's are pan-n-scan only, then I will start worrying. You guys are acting like people who prefer pan-n-scan are the anti-christ.

 

[cafink]

[/quote]has a 20 inch TV, and the picture is UNBEARABLY small.[/quote]

Surely you jest! When I was stuck with just a 13 inch TV, I'd never have considered watching a movie in any but it's correct aspect ratio. 2.35:1 films may not have been overwhelmingly huge, but there's no reason I couldn't watch them.

 

[Shane Martin]

I did too on my 20" TV. Even watched Ben Hur a time or 2 which was shot as said on the widest aspect ratio available.

When DVD's are pan-n-scan only, then I will start worrying. You guys are acting like people who prefer pan-n-scan are the anti-christ

They almost are to the film buffs
There are alot of movies on DVD that are P&S only. If they had released a widescreen OAR version along with it I would be as worried as I am now.

 

[Phil Florian]

Another little bit of shinin' hope. First off, don't make fun of me...I was reading Entertainment Weekly this week (it is great bathroom material!) and noticed in their "100 DVD's you must own" article a plug for widescreen. I believe it was for "Stagecoach" or some such flick, but the point was, to see this movie any other way was a waste. EW, though a corporate slave magazine, still manages to give plugs to the whole OAR debate from time to time. In fact, many of their "Best of DVD" section was brimming with Criterion and Special Editions where OAR is king. Maybe we need to support maintstream magazines like this so that many people who read this on the toilet can learn a little. Any way we can get a dig in there? Maybe get a link to their letter's page so that we can swamp them with support of their take on OAR? And contrary to some posters, I have seen bunches of OAR ads on TV (at least Directv) as well as TCM. It is wonderful to see. But that isn't the point of my post, though. Let's support those mainstream mags like EW who, for all their fluff, still stand on the side of OAR.

Thanks!

Phil

 

[Jeff]

It won't be easy since the studios don't care about the acceptance of widescreen. If they did, there would be comparisons on DVD's.

Jeff

 

[Larry Gardner]

The problem I see here (as stated in this post as well by others), is that J6P cares less about lists (EW Top 100 DVDs), director's intent, OAR, anamorphic, bonus features, or even audio in some cases.

All they want is a replacement for VHS, which is becoming more and more difficult to rent in great numbers of newer releases.

What they see here is that they've had a VHS tape that filled the screen for the last 20 years, and cannot understand why when moving to DVD they cannot have the same.

They don't care about 'upgrading to newer technologies', or 'home-theater' watching of films.

Most J6P rent most of their films, so they will probably rent it once and be done with it. So they feel, if they are going to rent a film - why can't they have it the way they had it before.

Now for my input. MGM has the right idea - almost. On the Mad MAX - SE, they have the option for WS or P&S and show you want they look like using a frame from the film. NOW - if they would also provide a option under each picture that when selected explains the difference - that would help in educating the public. In fact they have an article on their web-site that explains all in quite detail. This would take very little space on the disc since it would be primarily text.

However, they should also give advantages and disadvantages for each. For example, when explaining P&S they should point out loss in resolution, and about WS TV and what will happen, even when the stretch mode is used (maybe even displaying a frame in this mode (with bars on the side and stretched) to illustrate the loss of resolution and detail).

I have found the only way to make a point is to have it hit the old pocket book. When a lot of people realize that this 'so-called' permanent film archiving will cause them some discomfort in the future to the point that they may have to repurchase titles again, some (not all) then understand and grin and bear it. There are others that you will never be able to convince - and those we will have to grin and bear it.

Educate J6P about their players. Any film with OAR less than or equal to 1:85.1 does not need to be P&S. Setting the DVD to WS will cause the film to fill the screen (1:85.1 does show some stretching) but not so much that J6P will even care (or in some cases even notice).

Now I am not saying that J6P never purchase DVDs (maybe they should be referred to J6P-II). J6P-II are J6P moving up and understand (when educated) that they are buying for the future and ALSO understand that when they do buy a WS TV, they will be pleased on their foresight.

This happens everytime a new technology starts up:

For example, do you know that studios are thinking about 'talking' pictures! Never happen - just a fad.

Televisions - WHY? we have radio.

Color TV - never happen - can't be done.

CD - just another fad - vinyl has been around all this time and will never go away.

Recordable CDs - record what on them? Useless.

Computers - who needs a computer for home? Never will take off.

People DO NOT LIKE CHANGE. Sometimes you have to force them into change (Fox, Paramount have the right idea. I imagine that they keep their DVD prices down because they don't consider P&S as a viable operating cost).

If Blockbuster is correct in their statements that the studios are forcing them to purchase P&S, maybe it is because that BkBr is getting what they started. They insisted to the studios that people prefer P&S. So if the studios must provide P&S based on BkBr input, then BkBr better 'foot the bill' for the added expense.

The studios are not made of money. BkBr cannot have it both ways. If BkBr is saying that their customers prefer P&S, then they better rent P&S. Why 'force' the studios to provide P&S and then turn around and say we want 50/50 P&S/WS. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! BkBr forced this issue - they should handle the product they forced the studios to provide.

The bad thing here is that ultimately the BkBr customer suffers.