Resolving myself to this issue of Pan & Scan: Where we stand.... (1 Viewer)

[Qui-Gon John]

Then how come Seas. 1 & 2 were full screen on HBO and then Seas. 3 was letter-boxed? I always thought they went from 1.33:1 for Season 1 & 2, to 1.85:1 for Season 3.

 

[David Lambert]

Then how come Seas. 1 & 2 were full screen on HBO and then Seas. 3 was letter-boxed? I always thought they went from 1.33:1 for Season 1 & 2, to 1.85:1 for Season 3.

That may be true for HBO's broadcasts (I dunno; I haven't had cable since starting a 1200 DVD collection! ). But the DVD's are definately widescreen.
In the first post I made on this subject, I said "Sopranos DVDs are in widescreen, which is how it is broadcast on HBO"; perhaps it IS just S3 broadcast in WS...I was speaking to a co-worker about this a few weeks ago and that's what he told me: simply that he watches the show broadcast on HBO in WS. Maybe he only got into it in S3, or left out that they didn't used to broadcast it that way.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The Sopranos were not originally broadcast in letterbox, but the later reruns have been. I think every single episode has been seen in letterbox by now, at least on HBO Plus or whatever subchannel...

 

[Michael Ballack]

All Sopranos Seasons were SHOT IN WIDESCREEN. 1 and 2 were origianlly broadcasted in full frame until they showed repeats in which they were widescreen. Season 3 was shown in widescreen from the begining.

 

[Steve Owen]

I agree that WalMart and the like are the big problem. The people that shop there for DVDs are not typically home theater enthusiasts, and as has been pointed out, the people that work there don't understand the issues either.
Want to know how much power WalMart has? Here's a horrifying statistic that I read last year. Want to know who the #1 PC software seller in the US is? It's not CompUSA or CircuitCity or BestBuy or any of the mall software stores. It's WalMart. WalMart!!!! Frightening.
I'd be wiling to bet that they are the #1 DVD seller too. If they're not, they're damn close. They're everywhere and have obliterated nearly ever mom and pop store in their path (many of which actually had a clue about the products they sold) leaving WalMart as the ONLY choice for things like DVDs within many miles.
OK, so what do we do? First boycott. I already do for the reasons already listed. I can't in good concience give my money to a company like that. Next, let them know WHY you're boycotting them. Write to them. CC the studios.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Attn: Customer Service
702 S.W. 8th Street
Bentonville, AR 72716
1-800-WALMART (1-800-925-6278) or 479-273-4000.
Fill out their online form/.
Next, continue to educate your friends, neighbors, and those you bump into while shopping (wherever that is).
If WalMart is the top DVD seller, and they probably are, then they have FAR too much power over this issue and over the studios. They MUST be shown that their insistance on having chopped and cut versions of DVDs will only hurt them in the long run.
-Steve

 

[David Lambert]

Steve Owen, I agree with you. Wal-Mart needs to get the input that widescreen is wanted. That they need to stop giving studios the excuse to NOT make OAR versions of DVDs.
This is the key, though: the studios are using Wal-Mart as an excuse. The real thing is that they don't want to be bothered with OAR, as a cost-saving measure if nothing else. If they can quote Wal-Mart's "exhaustive market research", then they pass the buck and feel okay about getting away with it.
Scott Michael Bosco, a key person behind The Watcher in the Woods (a Disney film), reveals here his personal take on the whole situation. This is just HIS opinion, but it seems to hit the mark fairly well in my opinion, too.
Here's the gist of it (corrected for spelling):

Ah, huh, sure Walmart is "just" selling pan & scan" DVDs - unbiased. The truth is most of Disney's current theatrical ventures aren't holding up at the boxoffice. So the same happens on DVD. So, why should a company spend money to make two masters for certain product? Lets face it, they could do a flipper and release both widescreen and pan & scan - but again, that would mean 2 masters. To save money they now decide to make only one and that same one can be used for cable release too. It doesn't matter what the public wants - it a matter of saving money - at the expense of the backbone consumer that made DVD what it is.

It has been said here at HTF time and again that the studios shouldn't want to spend $ to do a P&S version of any film, because it's extra work that costs $. But every time someone points out that they have to spend the $ on that master anyway for cable versions if nothing else. Scott agrees that this is what's happening, so since they have to make THAT master they don't want to invest MORE $ to make a 2nd master.
We have to A) convince the studios that they need to invest the $ to make the 2nd master, B) convince Wal-Mart and all other retailers to help us convince the studios that we want our widescreen (complaints, returns, comment cards, letters, phone calls, THE WORKS), and C) it would not hurt us to convince cable channels to show more widescreen broadcasts...IN OAR, and not perfectly trimmed for 16x9 in every case.
Don't stop, guys! We might just look back on these days and laugh one day. But if we give up, we'll be cryin' instead...

 

[DaViD Boulet]

So, why should a company spend money to make two masters for certain product? Lets face it, they could do a flipper and release both widescreen and pan & scan - but again, that would mean 2 masters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, using the electronic P/S feature only requires ***ONE*** transfer.
This option is only viable for 1.66:1 - 1.85:1 transfers, but that just happens to be most of the "pan and scan only" releases that are scheduled.
TELL THE STUDIOS TO USE THIS FEATURE. It's frightening how even industry "leaders" and studio production departments seem clueless about its existence.
-dave

 

[Phil Nichols]

Ron E.,

I only read your initial post that started this topic - the string is too long for me to read more - but I fully understand the issue(s).

If anyone thinks that DVD's in OAR will be the norm when most of America has 16X9 viewing screens of affordable diagonal size in their homes sometime in the future instead of 4X3, they may be sadly mistaken.

Wait til most people view 2.35:1 OAR's on their small 16X9 screens and see the upper/lower black bars that force them to (still) look through a too-small "slit view". I'm willing to bet that US DVD consumers will "scream" for 2.35:1's to be P&S'd down to 1.78:1 so they STILL don't see any black bars on their "wide screens"!

With too-small 16X9 screens ("too-small" is a relative but very real consideration), 2.35:1 black bars will still be an issue. It's only with those of us fortunate enough to afford "large enough" diagonal dimension screens that OAR-or-Bust can be our passionate position.

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

It is also dispiriting to read the otherwise-venerable DVDFile and have them cater to Disney and Columbia/Sony by posting an interview with Snow Dogs director Brian Levant (while at least addressing the P&S OAR question within his Q&A) and giving a glowing review to the "deluxe" version of Stuart Little which, as you know, is P&S only.

My opinion of that site and its reviewers just dropped considerably.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I've sent *many* emails to dvdfile regarding isolated issues with their site (like their WAY outdated review of BARAKA which mentions it as 4x3 lbxed only...a now out of print DVD replaced by the new reference 16x9 transfer) and other things and they neither respond nor do they make any modifications to their site.

When other sites were posting banners encouraging consumers to call Disney to express displeasure with their P/S only releases, dvdfile completely ignored my emailed requests.

I'm sure they don't want to offend Disney too much now that they're gaining some favor with the studio. But still it's hard to imagine why they could neither respond to my emails nor post something civil and balanced on their site that at least informed consumers that they have an avenue to provide consumer feedback to B.V.

-dave

 

[Steve_AA]

Wait til most people view 2.35:1 OAR's on their small 16X9 screens and see the upper/lower black bars that force them to (still) look through a too-small "slit view".

When the masses finally have digital 16X9 TV's with better features, they will also have the ability to scale the picture to "fit their screen". I don't see this as much of an issue unless, of course, they want it to be automatic:frowning: .

 

[John_Berger]

When the masses finally have digital 16X9 TV's with better features, they will also have the ability to scale the picture to "fit their screen". I don't see this as much of an issue unless, of course, they want it to be automatic .

No, because when 16x9 TVs become the norm, the J6Ps who complained about the black bars on the top and bottom of widescreen movies will just complain either about the black bars on the sides of 4x3 TV shows or how everything becomes fat when they stretch the 4x3 image horizontally to fill the screen. (Gotta have a full screen!!!)
Just can't win.

 

[Karl Englebright]

Well, I just a got a call from a manager at my local Walmart's (Vancouver, WA) responding to my email that I sent through their web site about their P&S DVD's. The lady was very polite and helpful and listened to what I had to say. At the end she told me that she would talk to "their supplier" to make sure they get widescreen versions in!

Now, I don't know if she is just feeding me a line or not, but I was impressed that they even called me!

It sounds to me like their buying habits follow more what their local clientelle wants.

Just send those emails, people!!!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Karl,
that is simply amazing. WOW. Keep up the good work folks.
It's important that we all realize that Walmart is not "anti-widescreen". They're just responding to the customer feedback they've been getting. Well now it's time to turn the tables and their policy by providing some customer feedback of our own.
GO TEAM!!!!

 

[Tom Boucher]

I don't buy anything at Wal-Mart. I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart because all of the Wal-Marts in my region feel like I'm in the hood and are dirty and dingy feeling. It could be the cheap lighting, I don't know.

I buy on average $2000 worth of DVDs a year. I buy them from on-line retailers that have widescreen titiles. If I accidentally pre-order a DVD that doesn't have all the specs in the pre-order and shows up Pan-N-Scan or non-OAR it goes right back to the retailer with my apologies for not checking.

Titles included in this type of return included Full Metal Jacket, Parenthood, Liar Liar, Happy Gilmour, and others.

I do have 1:33 formatted DVDs. These are Farscape, Star Trek, and other originally formated 1:33 shows. I do wonder what will happen when I finally get a TV that is 16x9 formatted. For now, I prefer the black bars on my Sony Wega. Pac-Man is on the screen when I watch Tron.

 

[Phil Nichols]

DaViD Boulet,

What does your high-lighted statement mean "I've said it before and I'll say it again, using the electronic P/S feature only requires ***ONE*** transfer."??

I thought P&S required a lot of human intervention to review all scenes in the movie to insure that the cropping of the sides always left the highest action showing in the central frame portion left after the cropping? This sounds tedious, labor intensive, and expensive to me.

I call the above "active" P&S, as opposed to "passive" or "electronic" P&S, such as you might do in a DVD player to zoom-away the sides of, and increase the height of, a film's scenes to fully fit them onto viewing screen's particular aspect ratio. This passive or electronic P&S is of course not always centered on the action in each scene - because sometimes the action is not in the geometric center portion of each frame.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

At least the auto-pannscan will fill the screen; it might not be easy to have it selectively move left and right but anyone who wants their screen filled up won't notice that anyway.

 

[Jenna]

I AM NOT SPENDING $2000 ON A TELEVISION SET. I don't know ANYONE who would. It's ridiculous.

Well then, Martin, count me among the "ridiculous". I don't have ANY problem spending $2000 or MORE on a high-end TV. (Think about it...smokers spend more than that each year on cigarettes and have nothing to show for it but black lungs. To me, that's ridiculous.)

 

[GregoryM]

My wife and I have a Netflix subscription, and recently recieved our copy of "Timecop" for viewing. It turned out to be a 1.33 to 1 version which was pan n scan (I pointed out how you can see the electronic pans and look at headroom to differentiate betwwen p&s and open matte). Anyway, in one scene, set in 2004, Jean Claude goes home to his apartment and turns on his tv. His widescreen tv. Which displayed home movies from 1994 which exactly filled the screen. The exact size of the tv would be impossible to tell, but I paused it and measured to determine the ratio, which turned out to be 2.4 to 1. I just had to comment on the irony involved.

I suspect that when 16 x 9 tv's becomes commonplace, we'll see most 2.35 to 1 movies edited down to 16 x 9 for cable and "family" releases, but I don't think we'll hear the same complaints about 4:3. See, I think a big part of the problem is that the typical mass market consumer doesn't "get" that the black bars on a 4:3 tv preserve the original picture because they have decades of familiarity with p & s. When viewing 4:3 on a 16 x 9, fewer will complain about black bars on the side because then the bars will be preserving the picture that they are already familiar with.

When one of my friends visited recently and saw Casablanca on my new 16 x 9 played back in progressive scan, she literally said "Oh my God" at how good the picture looked. The black bars didn't bother her in the least, and she is one of those who steadfastly refuses to accept that letterboxing shows more of the picture than pan n scan.

 

[Mark_vdH]

This passive or electronic P&S is of course not always centered on the action in each scene.

Phil, the electronic P&S feature also allows for horizontal panning, so the action can be centered on the screen!
Of course this is as labor intensive and expensive as a normal P&S transfer, but you must compare it to the alternatives:
1. Separate P&S and WS transfers: takes two transfers and the expensive, labor intensive cropping.
2. Only a P&S transfer: takes one transfer and the expensive, labor intensive cropping.
3. Only a WS transfer: takes just one transfer without cropping.
David's solution takes only one transfer and the expensive cropping, thus making it no more expensive as option 2, the option we fear the studio's will choose more and more.
Note that option 1 is the most expensive, and still quiet some major releases (A.I.-dual release, Shrek) are option 1, implying that studio's are wasting money by ignoring David's option.
BTW: the electronic P&S feature could be more expensive due to programming/authoring difficulties, but I have not read anything about these costs.