-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Tell me why I don't like Widescreen


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
62 replies to this topic

#1 of 63 esboella

esboella

    Extra

  • 19 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2004

Posted April 08 2005 - 10:38 AM

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?
regards E.S Boella

#2 of 63 Ralph B

Ralph B

    Supporting Actor

  • 583 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 27 2003

Posted April 08 2005 - 10:57 AM

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 of 63 Cameron Yee

Cameron Yee

    Executive Producer

  • 10,325 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2002
  • Real Name:Cameron Yee
  • LocationSince 2006

Posted April 08 2005 - 11:00 AM

Quote:
now however, many people have Widescreen TV's so there is absolutely no reason for the film industry to continue using that format


Posted Image
One thing leads to another at cameronyee.com

#4 of 63 esboella

esboella

    Extra

  • 19 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2004

Posted April 08 2005 - 11:05 AM

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.
regards E.S Boella

#5 of 63 Ralph B

Ralph B

    Supporting Actor

  • 583 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 27 2003

Posted April 08 2005 - 11:28 AM

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 of 63 esboella

esboella

    Extra

  • 19 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2004

Posted April 08 2005 - 11:49 AM

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.
regards E.S Boella

#7 of 63 Jason Adams

Jason Adams

    Supporting Actor

  • 631 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 30 2002

Posted April 08 2005 - 11:54 AM

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 of 63 esboella

esboella

    Extra

  • 19 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2004

Posted April 08 2005 - 12:12 PM

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?
regards E.S Boella

#9 of 63 Craig

Craig

    Second Unit

  • 469 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 20 1999

Posted April 08 2005 - 12:24 PM

I am not against the OAR I just think it would be betterfor 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.


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

#10 of 63 Ralph B

Ralph B

    Supporting Actor

  • 583 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 27 2003

Posted April 08 2005 - 02:08 PM

lol

#11 of 63 Brian Gi

Brian Gi

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 122 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 20 2003

Posted April 08 2005 - 03:28 PM

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!Posted Image

#12 of 63 DanielKellmii

DanielKellmii

    Supporting Actor

  • 524 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 05 2004

Posted April 08 2005 - 03:47 PM

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 of 63 Toby_R

Toby_R

    Auditioning

  • 4 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2004

Posted April 08 2005 - 04:33 PM

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 of 63 Michael TLV

Michael TLV

    Screenwriter

  • 2,909 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 2000
  • Real Name:Michael Chen
  • LocationCalgary, Alberta

Posted April 08 2005 - 04:55 PM

Greetings

Troll ...

Regards
Michael @ The Laser Video Experience
THX Video Systems Instructor/ISF Instructor
Lion A/V Consultants Network - TLVEXP.com


#15 of 63 Neil Joseph

Neil Joseph

    Lead Actor

  • 8,338 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 1998

Posted April 08 2005 - 11:08 PM

Esboella, is your initial post a joke?
Click on above image to enter " T H E . H O L O D E C K "
---------------------------------------------------------
The Holodeck. My DIY Screen. DIY Subwoofer: The MaxCaliber
My humble collection of DVD's. HTF Beginner's Primer and FAQ

#16 of 63 Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul

  • 39,203 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted April 09 2005 - 12:38 AM

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.

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#17 of 63 RickER

RickER

    Producer

  • 5,130 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 04 2003
  • Real Name:Rick
  • LocationTulsa, Oklahoma

Posted April 09 2005 - 03:45 AM

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 of 63 esboella

esboella

    Extra

  • 19 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2004

Posted April 09 2005 - 03:54 AM

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?
regards E.S Boella

#19 of 63 ChuckSolo

ChuckSolo

    Screenwriter

  • 1,160 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 26 2003

Posted April 09 2005 - 04:10 AM

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?

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


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!!!Posted Image

#20 of 63 Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer

  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted April 09 2005 - 04:21 AM

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.





Forum Nav Content I Follow