Just why is widescreen not accepted in the U.S.? (2 Viewers)

[Larry Bevil]

Col:

I what way is PAL better than NTSC? I hadn't heard any info along those lines before.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I what way is PAL better than NTSC? I hadn't heard any info along those lines before.

It totally butchers running time and soundtrack speed, as I mentioned above. But on the flipside, it does offer superior resolution than NTSC.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Yeah, talk about OPEN-matte huh!?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

oops, double post.

 

[Thomas Newton]

While the metric system makes more sense, I prefer NTSC because it allows the preservation of the original soundtrack, and the ability to restore playback of films to 24 fps through progressive scan.

Regular NTSC uses 60 interlaced fields; progressive scan "NTSC" uses 60 non-interlaced frames. Neither is ideally suited to display of 24fps-source material, although you can preserve the soundtrack timing while you are doing the 3:2 pulldown.

What you really want is a multi-frequency display that can run in either 60 Hz (progressive or line-doubled video) or 72/96 Hz (progressive film) mode -- and a DVD player smart enough to generate the appropriate signal.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Why is it okay for you to refuse my demands that you change your property to suit my tastes, yet filmmakers are just expected to allow you to change their property to suit your tastes?

Well, the DVDs are his property.

If he wants to buy a DVD player that will take a widescreen OAR disc as input, cut off the sides of the picture, and blow up the middle of the picture to fill his 4:3 or 16:9 screen (without the aid of any hints on the disc itself), more power to him.

 

[John_Berger]

If he wants to buy a DVD player that will take a widescreen OAR disc as input, cut off the sides of the picture, and blow up the middle of the picture to fill his 4:3 or 16:9 screen (without the aid of any hints on the disc itself), more power to him.

That doesn't necessarily make it right, but he certainly can do that if the player supports it.
However, you are talking apples and oranges. He owns only the piece of plastic and reflective material that makes up the DVD. He does not own the contents that are encoded on that disc; therefore, it is not his place to force the filmmakers to change the contents to suit his tastes, regardless of his tastes or preferences. That is up to the filmmakers to decide, and if they want their movie - their property - to be shown in OAR, that is their perogative and must be respected, even if someone disagrees with it.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

You've gotten off track. The producer may film a movie in any OAR that they want to, but the studios control the MAR and/or OAR releases.

Glenn

 

[Rafael M]

I understood and accepted widescreen the first time I ever saw it...why can't others?

they simply just don't care? (for widescreen, oar, etc.)

 

[John_Berger]

The producer may film a movie in any OAR that they want to, but the studios control the MAR and/or OAR releases.

No, they do not have total control over all movies. HTF is loaded with threads that mention how this director or that director refuses to let their movies be released on DVD in any format other than widescreen.

 

[Thomas Newton]

However, you are talking apples and oranges. He owns only the piece of plastic and reflective material that makes up the DVD. He does not own the contents that are encoded on that disc; therefore, it is not his place to force the filmmakers to change the contents to suit his tastes, regardless of his tastes or preferences. That is up to the filmmakers to decide, and if they want their movie - their property - to be shown in OAR, that is their perogative and must be respected, even if someone disagrees with it.

The content of a published movie is the public's property, to the extent that it can be said to belong to anyone. Since you cannot be referring to property, I am guessing you must be referring to copyright, where the public temporarily refrains from exercising some of its inherent rights.

The copyrights of most Hollywood films belong to the studios, not to the filmmakers.

If the studios want to distribute the films in MAR -- even against the wishes of the director -- they can legally do so. Once the studio gets a copyright transferred to them, or assigned to them via "work for hire", nothing in the law forces the studio to respect the filmmaker's wishes.

This is a potential problem because the studio is the sole source for copies of the work. If someone wants to display a picture of the Mona Lisa with the top and bottom chopped off in their house, they're free to buy a print and mutilate it that way. They may even find a local poster store that will mutilate a print for them as a convenience. But their actions are unlikely to jeopardize the supply of non-mutilated prints. With Pan-and-Scan VHS and DVD, demand for mutilated versions is a threat or a potential threat to the availability of OAR versions -- and the institutions that hold the legal rights over the supply of copies do not necessarily have the same institutional interest in preserving the integrity of the art.

 

[Mike McNertney]

While I agree with the posters here that widescreen is ideal, I think you guys are missing part of the point. Some people, probably most, watch movies to be entertained. They are not necessarily concerned with the artistic merits of the film they are watching. In some cases, watching a bigger picture can be more entertaining than watching a wider. By this I mean that for the average person, I can understand the idea that losing part of the picture is a worthwhile tradeoff for making the part they see bigger. Most people don't have big-screen TVs, and sitting far away from a small TV can make widescreen movies painful to watch. In a sense, it is a matter of preference. Do I want to see the entire picture, or part of the picture shown in higher detail (larger)? Some people will choose to lose part of the picture to see the rest at higher detail

That said, I do think these people are in the minority, and most people who want fullscreen movies just don't realize that they are losing so much of the picture.

Again, I agree that widescreen is the best way to watch movies for me. But that doesn't mean it is the most entertaining way for everyone, and watching a movie is about being entertained, after all.

Oh and as for the Mona Lisa question, here is a different twist on it to give another example... Say you are given two options. View the Mona Lisa from 50 feet away, so you can see the general outline of the picture, but very little detail. Or, stand right up in front of it, but you can only see a little bit at a time. Which do you choose? Personally, I would probably look at it from afar at first, but then go up close to see the detail. From watching people at art museums... most people tend to view paintings up close

The point I am trying to make is that while you are right that OAR is "right," that doesn't mean that people can't prefer "more detail but less picture".

 

[Josh Lowe]

what happened to the mission statement of this forum?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Josh,
our mission statement is alive and well, didn't you see Ron's warning? This is the first time in awhile that we've had to contend with someone who doesn't share our passion for OAR.

I think that our mission statement is very effective.

 

[Robert Wainwright]

Alright, I've got to stop lurking for a minute..

I remember as a kid watching Ben-Hur, my father telling me "I can't even watch this. Most of the picture is missing." He told me all about a theater in Philly that was three screens wide to show the "real" movie.

I have been hooked ever since...

Grinell, you music comparison is awful. As a muscian who would run sound for any other local band who asked, I would laugh at any one who would even use the word "treble" when talking about sound. Greenhorn.

As far as educating the masses here in the US... Well my wife has had to endure my movie (and OAR) passion, but when given the choice, she'll watch full-screen. It's her preference. I can live with it as long as she understands I can't watch it when the true presentation is readily available.

One last thing - we had a group over to watch the Superbowl, (with a 60 inch TV they always call then) a wide-screen ad came on and someone blurted out "Oh, how artsy!"
Ladies and Gentleman, Welcome to Florida!

 

[Thomas Newton]

Or, stand right up in front of it, but you can only see a little bit at a time.

Point taken. However, in this situation, the painting is not mutilated -- and by shifting your viewpoint over time, you could view a lot of the total area.

No matter how many times you view a Pan-and-Scan-only DVD, it will never reveal to you the parts of the picture that were hidden the first time around.

 

[steve jaros]

John_Berger:

Yes, some Directors either own a film outright, or have the contractual right to veto any effort by a studio to release a film in an aspect ratio they don't approve of.

But of course most directors are not in that position - the producer (a studio) usually owns the film and can release it in any format they want, in which case, the home consumer who buys it in pan-scan format cannot be said to be "mutilating" the owner's property, since the owner has "mutilated" their own property!

Also, of course, there are those cases when the director actually approves of a pan/scan video release of a film that was originally released in a widescreen format (we're all familiar with the James Cameron examples).

Finally, while i am personally 100% OAR/director's intent when it comes to viewing (i was paying through the nose for widescreen lasers and the few available widescreen VHS tapes 10+ years ago) and agree that pan/scan is completely unacceptable, i do respect other people's right to have another preference. If someone else prefers pan/scan, that is their prerogative, and while i will try my best to persuade them of the superiority of OAR (i succeeded with my dad!), if in the end they prefer pan/scan, that preference *is* a preference, like vanilla vs. chocolate ice cream, and can't be logically invalidated.

That said, i definitely appreciate the efforts of your Advocacy Page, and of the HTF as strong voices in favor of OAR video formats...

 

[Brian W.]

Okay, I've got to defend Grinnell just an teeny bit here.
I am certainly very pro-OAR. I own a 27" television, and, while I hope to buy an HDTV in the coming year, I have never found it disturbing watching widescreen films on my set. I never even thought about it -- I mean, that's the whole image, that's what you want to see, right?
I have berated friends for complaining about "those black bars," even called them ignorant (something I regret). I have never bought a full-frame DVD in my life -- until recently.
I pre-ordered "The Lord of the Rings" in the hopes that it would arrive before the street date. On the chance that it didn't, I HAD to have it at midnight on August 6th. Not wanting to be stuck with two identical copies, I thought, "Well, I'll order the fullframe, then if it comes early I'll still be able to play with it for a couple days, then I'll just buy the widescreen on Tuesday." I saw the film eight times in the theater and I just had to see it again as soon as possible. Plus, I was mildly curious to see how the film was panned and scanned.
I'm almost ashamed to say this -- I really should be forced to turn in my Home Theater Forum card -- but, after four days of watching the fullframe version, it was really difficult for me to watch the the widescreen edition. Certainly not because of "those black bars." And the composition was definitely more pleasing in widescreen.
But the loss of resolution on my 27" TV was incredible. I can see so much more detail in the fullframe image, the colors seem more vivid, it appears sharper (maybe through edge enhancement, I don't know), and -- Lord, forgive my blasphemy -- I find it much more involving on my 27" monitor than the widescreen version.
There are a handful of shots that really suffer, where an active character is totally cut out of the scene -- Frodo and Galadriel facing each other across her mirror is one that comes to mind -- but, really, very few.
Understand, I saw this film in the theater EIGHT times -- if the image composition of the full frame version were really disruptive to the enjoyment of the film, I would know it. And John Williamson is incorrect about the special effects shots being totally P&S -- I would say 95% of the effects shots are open matte (see this link from one of our members: Link Removed). You are still losing a fair amount at the sides, obviously, but more like what you'd lose in a P&S presentation of a non-matted 1.78 film, not what you lose when, say, "Ben Hur" is cropped.
And of course these films would be preferable on a 16X9 HD set. But, for the first time (and to my great surprise), I understood why many with standard televisions dislike letterboxed movies. (James Cameron was one, by the way, as those of us who have been around since laserdisc days know. He resisted releasing a letterboxed version of "T2" for a long time. Why? He said his films were intended to be seen in a theater and DIDN'T LIKE HOW MUCH THE IMAGE WAS SHRUNK DOWN ON A STANDARD TELEVISION. This is why he personally supervised the panning and scanning on the first laserdisc releases of "T2," and would not initially allow a widescreen edition. This is my recollection of an article published a good decade ago in Douglas Pratt's "The Laserdisc Newsletter.")
I am certainly no Joe Sixpack -- frankly, I was buying widescreen laserdiscs when half the members of this forum were still in grammar school. I also do not consider myself a supporter of P&S or fullframe transfers. I threw a fit when Warner announced "Willy Wonka" in fullframe only. And I know that when I get my HDTV next year I will probably never watch the fullframe version of LOTR again. But I also know that, after eight viewings on a large movie screen, seeing this film shrunk down to an image about 22 inches across and 8 inches high is, to me, slightly unsatisfying.
I understand that Home Theater Forum is pro-OAR, and I want it to stay that way. But belittling members like Grinnell instead of attempting to understand their point of view -- while disagreeing with it -- serves no one.

 

[Bob Tennison]

While they cannot be persuaded, it most certainly is not a matter of preference. It is the intentional mutilation of someone else's work. You are demanding that someone else change what he has done to suit your tastes.

I don't DEMAND anything! However, if the movie's creators demand I pay $20 for their movie they better put out a product that suits my tastes. It they want to give it away for free, they can do it any way they want. The studios, producers, directors, etc. seem to understand this aspect of the free market and put out enough versions of their product to please most everyone.

My real question is why some people are so anal about this issue that they must flame anyone who might have another point of view? Why is anyone concerned about what I pay for and watch in the privacy of my own home? I'm middle aged and I'll bet most of you are slightly younger than that. I mention that because I've heard the younger generation complain about being stereotyped. How unfair it is to be called stupid because you have body/face piercings, different haircut/clothing, listen to different music, use different expressions, etc., etc.. Now here you are calling me stupid or "J6P" because of the aspect ratio of the movies I watch. GET A LIFE!!!

The truth is, I really don't disagree with you on your contention that widescreen is better in that you lose a lot of movie with P&S. What I don't neccessarily agree with is that the director is some sort of God and his original vision is the holy grail. I look at a movie for what I want to see and if I don't like it, I don't buy it. Just because the latest Quentin Tarentino decides his next movie should be shot in the round with a camera stuffed up somebody's nose doesn't mean I'm going to buy it and insist on OAR.

The absolute best argument for widescreen is that the US is converting and within a few years everyone will have black bars on the sides of their P&S movies. But then again, that's their business and none of mine.

 

[steve jaros]

Agree with Brian W on the first and with Brian W and Bob Tennison on the second of these points:

1) The poster who first mentioned 27" screens was on to something - a 2.35/1 aspect ratio film does look *tiny* on a screen that size, meaning that one barrier to wider acceptance of widescreen is getting people to buy bigger TVs. Fortunately, since the price of big TVs has plummetted the past 2-3 years, this is probably happening as we speak.

2) I also agree that belittling people with different preferences is just plain immature. Some WS advocates do seem guilty of that.

However, Bob you are guilty of the same when you call strong defenders of widescreen "anal". That doesn't serve much purpose.

One last point - IMO it *is* fair for WS advocates to worry (in a general sense) about what you watch in the privacy of your home, because your choices as a consumer help determine what the market demands, and market demand influences what companies will make available to everyone.