Let's drop the term "fullscreen" because it hurts the OAR cause! (1 Viewer)

[William Waits]

I think that the two versions should be called:
Theatrical Version (widescreen)and
Modified TV Version ("full screen")
that would make the most sense.

I think that everyone is missing out on the true meaning of OAR and MAR. We assume that MAR is cut from something larger than 1.33 down to 1.33. That is NOT always the case. Goodtimes released the title Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer a few years back, and released it in anamorphic 1.78 widescreen. Good you say...? Maybe not... The OAR on this flick was 1.33, and it was MAR'd to 1.78. It was definitely noticable in certain scenes. Actually, we need to dispense entirely the verbage widescreen, pan and scan, and fullscreen. [A 1.33 MAR'd hack job of Star Wars is NOT going to be FULLSCREEN on my 16x9 set, now is it?] How long do you think it will take [when 16x9 sets are the norm] for films to be MAR'd from 1.85, 2.20 and 2.35 down to 1.78, and then be "fullscreen" to the uneducated masses? I guess we will have to go over the same OAR battle all over again because the previous "fullscreen" masses still want "fullscreen" movies, and the movie industry will cater to their uneducated needs.

I had proposed previously that in reviews here on this site, and that we request of studios, that we get away from "terminology" to describe the viewing aspect ratio (Pan and Scan, fullscreen, fullframe, widescreen, etc...) of a movie. What we need is something that conveys the true nature of the beast. For instance, if a movie is in OAR (No matter what the AR is), we can list it as such:

OAR 1.33
OAR 2.20
OAR 1.66
OAR 1.85

.... and so on...

Then, for MAR'd releases, we can indicate the difference between the two, original and viewing:

MAR 2.35/1.33
MAR 1.66/1.33
MAR 1.85/1.33
MAR 1.85/1.78
MAR 2.35/1.78

and in the case of Rudolph mentioned above, we would have the following:

MAR 1.33/1.78

This would let customers know if the item OAR or MAR, and if MAR'd, how badly.

Unfotunately, this suggestion didn't garner much support. I still think it has merit, but thats my opinion.

Oh well, and onto our countdown....

Bill

 

[Kimi-R]

Though I think it's moronic that 4:3 HDTV's exist

You couldn't have thought that statement through. I have a 4x3 HDTV-compatible TV. I bought it a couple years ago because I watch 90% broadcast TV, which TO THIS DAY is still 4x3 in my area, and I REFUSE to chop up or stretch 4x3 to fill a 16x9 screen. I was at someone's house the other day, where he was watching a 4x3 broadcast baseball game on his 16x9 TV in stretch mode. Everyone looked un-natrually wide. I HATE THAT! If he zoomed it, the score/time/other text would be cut off the top and bottom of the picture. Why have a 16x9 screen if you watch 90% 4x3 material? BUT my TV does SQUEEZE 16x9 material and accepts 480p, so I can get a beautiful progressive scan DVD image at full resolution WHEN I NEED IT, which is only once a week, or so. AND since the screen on my 4x3 HDTV is 53", I have a better looking upconverted analog signal because I don't have those ugly scan lines that are easy visible on 480i material on an analog 53" RPTV.

 

[MarkHastings]

I was at someone's house the other day, where he was watching a 4x3 broadcast baseball game on his 16x9 TV in stretch mode. Everyone looked un-natrually wide. I HATE THAT!

2 things:

1.) No matter what you think, you get used to it.

2.) If you can get used to strectched 4x3 material than you don't have to be as concerned about burn-in.

I don't know about you, but I watch MANY DVD's and if I had a 4x3 tv, imagine all of the burn-in issues I'd have to worry about by the black bars. At least with a 16x9 tv and streching 4x3 material, I constantly have the phosphors buringing evenly on my tv.

Of course there is the exception to 2.35:1 material, but once you've taken away 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 out of the equation, the percentage of material that can unevenly wear my tv is greatly reduced.

It's all about 'burn-in'.

 

[Jonny P]

What I meant by VCRs needing to have DTV converters is that they will need to have them in order to be able to receive DTV signals...right now they pick up NTSC signals.

That doesn't mean that people won't be able to watch old videotapes, but if VHS is still the "dominant" recording format in 2006-07, then VCRs will need to have DTV decoders inside in order to record DTV channels...

The FCC report also mentioned that DVD recorders that record television channels will need to have DTV decoders installed.

 

[Kimi-R]

I don't know about you, but I watch MANY DVD's

Due to our schedule, we watch MAYBE 1 DVD week. I already said our TV is used for at least 90% 4x3 non-HD broadcast TV. It therefore makes no sense to have a TV with anything other than 4x3 ratio. And when we bought our 4x3 HD-compatible RPTV, the 16x9 versions were still priced MUCH higher than the 4x3 version, unlike today where they are closer in price. A 4x3 TV makes more sense for our situation, and like I previously said, it being HD-compatible and doing the anamorphic squeeze, we can enjoy progressive scan DVD video at the highest resolution short of a HT-PC setup. PLUS it makes analog 480i video look better than a comparable analog RPTV because it has none of the annoying scanlines.

I agree that if all you REALLY watch is widescreen DVD's or HD programming, by all means, GET A 16X9 TV! BUT, if you are like us (and all my friends and family) that watch at least 90% non-HD broadacast TV, a 4x3 HD-RPTV makes perfect sense.
It's all about the programming. Buy the TV that FITS your viewing habits. As stated earlier, no one really knows what the programming will look like in their area in 5 or 10 years. It may all be 1080i 16x9 HDTV, or it could all be 480p 4x3 SDTV. Buying a TV based on a prediction of what you MAY need isn't too wise if the TV's ratio won't work its best with what you have TODAY!

 

[MarkHastings]

Buying a TV based on a prediction of what you MAY need isn't too wise if the TV's ratio won't work its best with what you have TODAY!

Well, if you can afford to buy a new tv whenever the future changes, then all the power to you. I prefer holding onto my 16x9 tv for a LONG time to come and if 16x9 programming is the "Future" than call me a "Visionary", call me "Ahead of my time", call me anything, but please don't call me "Crazy" for buying something that we all know the future of television is heading toward.

That would be like knowing your commute to work was going to increase from 5 miles per day to 200 miles per day within the next few years and yet you go out and buy a gigantic SUV that only gets 5 mpg and then say "well, as of TODAY, I don't put many miles on it so the low gas mileage isn't any concern to me"

I can live with 'stretched' braodcast tv right now if it means that my tv is going to give me the most of my investment in the future. At least I am already getting the most realestate out of my tv with DVD movies so I am already ahead of the game.

Do you know what makes Bill Gates so successful? He plans for the future...his house is currently built to support gadgets that don't even exist yet in the hopes that in the future he can easily add them when they come into being.

Most people in this forum are planning for the 'future'. Haven't you ever heard of a movie coming to theaters and people already talking about the DVD release? How about the people who are gearing up for HD-DVD? Or those who have made purchases knowing that they can add on to them in the future.

I always tell people that when they buy a computer, make sure to get MORE than you need because 3 years down the road, you'll appreciate it.

IMHO, it almost seems silly to buy things with what's available "Today". Planning and purchasing items for the future is what most people on this forum do. Maybe our purchases may not seem 100% viable for the present day, but we are constantly looking toward the future. Just ask anyone here, most will agree that they buy equipment based on what they feel the future will bring.


And p.s. Most will also agree that supporting 4x3 tv's will just mean more reason to continue Pan and Scanning DVD's. If everyone converted to 16x9 than we wouldn't have to listen to J6P wanting movies to "fill" his 4x3 screen and we could convert everything into anamorphic video instead of having to deal with "Fullframe".

So if you think I'm crazy for liking stretched movies on my 16x9 tv because I am trying to join those who will go to any measure to make sure the market knows that I do NOT want any sort of 4x3 material in the future, then call me crazy. I must be nuts!

 

[Jim*F]

As a newbie here, I'm a bit reluctant to respond again in this topic for fear of inciting a riot, but I suppose my opinion is as valid as the others that have been expressed thus far.

I will be in the market for a new TV next summer, and have started thinking about what to get: should it be HDTV compatible (probably, based on what is to come in TV land), type of TV (cathode ray tube, LCD, plasma), what screen size (I'll never have tons of space, so a screen with a 30-32" diagonal for 4:3 viewing is the max), what shape TV (16:9 or 4:3, this is where the problems arise).

I have a long time to examine all necessary information and opinions, so that's exactly what I am doing. I already see 16:9 vs. 4:3 screen shape as "the big question." If all new programming will be HDTV, as most likely 16:9, in several years, then widescreen seems preferable. However, any "old" programs shown in the future would be shown 4:3 (the way they were made), so a 16:9 TV would have side bars. This same situation arises with the many TV programs on DVD.

My main concerns boil down to three comments/questions:

1. It would be nice to have a crystal ball to see several years into the future to know the exact percentage of 16:9 TV programs vs. 4:3 TV programs in a typical 24-hour period. For example, in 5 years, if 50% of my typical TV day is available in 16:9, adding in the amount of TV on DVD I have, a 4:3 TV may be best.

2. Any help regarding the issue of "burn-in" on TV screens would be greatly appreciated. In 5 years, if the only 4:3 programs I'll watch are the TV shows on DVD, then there wouldn't be much burn-in on a widescreen since most of what I'd watch would be 16:9 (but again, this depends on the percentage of TV signals broadcast 16:9). However, depending on the future, a 4:3 HDTV may be best if the amount of 16:9 programs available is not 100%.

3. Now for the riot-inducing comment! When I started reading this forum, I was pleased to see other people "like me" who want to see movies and even TV programs viewed the way they were meant to be viewed (whether the aspect ratio is 2.35, 1.85, 1.78, 1.66, 1.33, or anything in between). As I read this thread, I now see a few people who have "gotten used" to stretching a 4:3 image on a 16:9 to fill the screen. Isn't this that a "pan & scan" version of a "widescreen" movies does -- compromise the image for the sake of "filling your screen?" Again, I don't mean to provoke arguments, I want to watch all movies AND all TV programs the way they were intended to be seen. I can't imagine getting used to a stretched episode of The Simpsons or any other 4:3 TV program.

Thanks for listening. I'm new here, and it is wonderful to see so many people who actually care about how they watch what they watch.

 

[MarkHastings]

I can't imagine getting used to a stretched episode of The Simpsons or any other 4:3 TV program.

Same here, until I started watching it and getting used to it. Again, I have heard from MANY 16x9 viewers who have gotten used to it.

The whole thing boils down to what's more important to you. If you are a hard core broadcast tv fan, than maybe the 4x3 tv is best for you so you don't have to do an 'altering' of the image, but most of us (with 16x9 tvs) are BIG DVD buffs and prefer watching them on 16x9 tvs over 4x3. The fact that we have to strech 4x3 broadcast tv to save burn-in is no big deal. Broadcast tv (IMHO) is basically crap to begin with and stretching it is not as evil as you think. As someone else mentioned, who the hell care if David Lettermans head is a bit stretched? Who cares if the local newscast isn't 'perfect'?

These are a small part of your average 16x9 viewers issues.

I bring up a quote I heard when people are discussing luxury cars - One guy said, "How can you decide between a BMW and a Mercades?" the response "BMW's are great cars, but if you are unsure wether or not you want a BMW, then go for the Mercedes because BMW is made for people who WANT a BMW"

This seems to be the case as well, 16x9 tv's are meant for those who WANT 16x9 tv's. Nothing anyone says is going to make me want a 4x3 tv.

I'd probably say, if you have to ask which is better for you, than you best stick to 4x3. If you are to invest in a 16x9 tv make sure you are absolutely positive you want one.

 

[Kimi-R]

That would be like knowing your commute to work was going to increase from 5 miles per day to 200 miles per day within the next few years and yet you go out and buy a gigantic SUV that only gets 5 mpg and then say "well, as of TODAY, I don't put many miles on it so the low gas mileage isn't any concern to me"

That's assuming you "know" what the future holds. I don't. If you can guarantee me of a date when the programming in my area will be at least 50% 16x9 aspect ratio, I'll start planning my 16x9 TV purchase .
If not, I'll continue to play it by ear and enjoy my TV shows in the proper proportions.

 

[MarkHastings]

That's assuming you "know" what the future holds.

I see you mention broadcast tv a lot. This is why I told Jim that 16x9 tv's are really meant to maximize DVD's and not broadcast tv.

I am not a really big fan of tv and I use my television for watching DVD's so this is why I invested in one.

And since DVD's have been out for over 5 years now and WS VHS's were out even before that, I'd say the future is already here.

 

[Kimi-R]

Buying a TV based on a prediction of what you MAY need isn't too wise if the TV's ratio won't work its best with what you have TODAY!

Since it looks like I'm repeating myself, I'll move on

 

[Dick]

Tony, AMC has totally and utterly sold out. After Bob Dorian left, things went quickly to hell. They claim to be a channel for "People who love movies." What a f**king joke! This is now a channel for people who can't sit still for more than eight minutes at a stretch, who love stupid action thrillers while not having a clue about the classics, and who find some value in dumb skits performed by idiots proclaiming their fondness for this movie or that. I cannot properly express my distain for this once-excellent channel. Just another example of the dumbing-down of American entertainment. Thank God for TCM... let's hope they never stoop so low.

 

[jonathan_little]

Can somebody tell me what's up with FOX Movie Channel? I was at my aunt's house doing some channel surfing this weekend on her satellite and came across How to Marry a Millionaire on FOX Movie Channel. The program started out in its proper Scope ratio with the great Alfred Newman conducting "Street Scene" (damn, I wish it wasn't a 19" set) and main title sequence... Then, to my horror, it suddenly zoomed in to 4:3 at the end of the titles. After about five seconds, the shock had passed and I decided to change the channel. I've never seen FMC before, but is it typical of them to air movies in pan and scan? I did notice TCM was showing a ton of stuff in OAR, which was a great thing to see. Where I live I only get AMC and they're obviously a totally useless channel.

 

[Scott_F_S]

Although we all know that "fullscreen" is bad ...

AARRGHH! "Fullscreen" is not inherently bad. It is a description of an aspect ratio. A film shot in 2.35:1 and shown in 4:3, or fullscreen, is bad. A film shot in 4:3 and shown fullscreen is, of course, good. The term needs context before you can assign a quality to it.

Before you go off on a well-intentioned crusade, please understand the subject and be accurate and precise in airing your view. It's this kind of erroneous thinking that is getting several TV sets released in "good widescreen," in their incorrect aspect ratios. And that's bad.

 

[Clint B]

Good point, Scott. My intention was to say that the actual term "fullscreen" is bad when describing butchered widescreen movies, but I understand that some movies aren't meant to be widescreen, and that's the way they oughta stay. I never thought that this thread, started about inaccurate terminology, would take on such a life of its own, but if it wins the OAR cause some converts, then that's great.

 

[Jim*F]

Clint,

Looks like there are quite a number of widescreen TV owners who need to undergo reverse conversion -- that "stretching" or even zooming of a 4:3 TV program to fit a 16:9 TV is basically the same thing that is done to a widescreen movie that is "formatted" for your 4:3 TV. Both of these modify the original image, and even though many may get used to it, ultimately a viewer that does this is not viewing programs the way they were intended to be viewed.

 

[MarkHastings]

Both of these modify the original image, and even though many may get used to it, ultimately a viewer that does this is not viewing programs the way they were intended to be viewed.

Oh come on now. Enough with the 16x9 tv bashing already :rolleyes

I can't believe the animosity toward people who buy widescreen tv's. I mean, 16x9 tv's are supposed to be the 'future' here and I've heard nothing but crap from everyone.

Considering all the hatred toward P&S movies, you should be glad that people like myself are supporting WS tv's so that we can show there's a need for it in the future. I'd like to think of us as "Pioneers" to the WS future.

You all sound like those old coots who were afraid of computers because they didn't do things the "old fashioned" way.

Again, Who the hell cares if we have to stretch braodcast tv to save burn-in? It's a small price to pay if it shows that people are willing to prepare for WS television. But if you want to keep supporting your 4x3 tv's, then go ahead, but quit complaining about P&S DVD's! Your FULLFRAME tv's are only going to support more need for FULLFRAME material in the future.

So Please! Quit bashing the WS tv owners and embrace us for supporting the WS movement for tht future. :rolleyes

 

[TommyT]

[q]Tony, AMC has totally and utterly sold out. After Bob Dorian left, things went quickly to hell. They claim to be a channel for "People who love movies." [/q}

Yep, they certainly did! I think this was due to Turner Classic Movies becoming so popular & because Turner himself has unlimited wealth to promote the hell out of the channel on other networks he owns. I think it's great he has a channel like this that shows movies in OAR but, as usual, he wants the monopoly (if it can be properly called one) on the market for this type of broadcasting.

All this talk about 16/9 TVs has me a bit concerned tho. I've been considering buying a larger TV for a few yrs now (my 20" Sony just doesn't do it anymore) but all the models I've checked out that have 16/9 capability listed amongst the features are all [rant]too bloody expensive![/rant] Honestly, if the FCC is going to force this format on the public in the next 3-4 yrs then they have to tell the manufacturers that the prices must come down! Of course, then you're getting into govt regulation of business which is supposed to be unconstitutional or something.

 

[Thomas Newton]

I can't believe the animosity toward people who buy widescreen tv's. I mean, 16x9 tv's are supposed to be the 'future' here and I've heard nothing but crap from everyone.

I don't see any animosity here towards people who buy widescreen TVs. I do see people pushing back against the suggestions that:

1. Watching material with a 4:3 OAR in stretched, MAR mode (to fill a 16:9 TV's screen) is a Good Thing.

2. Buying a 4:3 HDTV-ready set is stupid.

Promoting MAR goes against the mission statement of this forum -- having the MAR be 16:9 doesn't magically make MAR good. Most people here would probably agree that the only reason to even consider MARring material to fit a 16:9 screen would be to prevent problems with burn-in. That still doesn't make it desirable -- just a matter of trading off one evil for another.

Why is burn-in more of a problem for 16:9 TVs (showing 4:3 OAR) than for 4:3 TVs (showing 16:9 OAR), anyway?

 

[Jim*F]

I am not "bashing" widescreen TV owners at all. I am simply making the point that movies and TV programs should be viewed the way they were intended to be viewed. If one wants to justify stretching a 4:3 image to fit a 16:9 TV by saying that it reduces burn in (which it does), then fine. But movies are not superior to TV programs -- each medium has good and bad -- so both movies AND TV programs deserve to be seen the proper way.

I guess this bugs me so much because, based on the theory of stretching a 4:3 image to fit a 16:9 TV, people who own a 4:3 TV should buy "full frame" DVD's so they have images that fill the screen, thus reducing burn in. (I don't mean this sarcastically, I'm simply presenting the logical opposite of the widescreen TV stretching issue.)

Think of it this way. I think everyone would agree that the full frame version of The Two Towers is far inferior to the widescreen version because it alters the original image (in fact, you lose about 45% of the true image). By that same logic, a 16:9 stretched version of I Love Lucy is inferior to the original 4:3 version because you have compromised the original image. Could anyone justify stretching (or, heaven forbid, cropping) Citizen Kane to fit a 16:9 screen?

Ultimately, people will do what they have to do. Personally, regardless of the type of TV I own in the future, I will never alter a film or TV program to fill my screen.