Should the term Full Screen be changed? (1 Viewer)

[Douglas Kalon]

I was thinking that the term "Full Screen" is sort of confusing.

In regards to the term, it seems to indicate that with this version you get more. Full to some may indicate larger, bigger or more.

Where as the term "Widescreen" may indicate to some that you need one of the new "Widescreen" TV's to view this, because the picture is wide and won't fit on their TV's.

Remember that there are alot of people out there that simply don't understand the difference between full screen or widescreen. Or that some do, but are resistant to change or still prefers the butchered version.

But what would you change "Full Screen" to?

Cropped Version?

Pan And Scan Version?

And it would be nice, that when studios offer two versions of the same movie on disc. One in Widescreen and the other in pan and scan, that on the back of each they would simple show a picture of a scene from the movie in it's OAR and with the pan and scan version show color bars to show what the viewer will be missing. Like what MGM did early with their dual version releases, in the booklet.

 

[Chris Brown]

YES!@#
(From a post I posted in another thread)
It's all in the naming!
"Fullscreen"
...
think about it? Full - Screen. As in, "Full", complete, everything, Full as in not empty, full as in you better stop pumping gass before you make a mess of yourself. Full as in you better stop eating turkey or you'll have a bad day-after-thanksgiving. Full as in Full of crap... probably the only true thing "Full" about fullscreen.
Nowhere but DVD's, does the word "Full" refer to something that is "Incomplete". Most people will think, "Fullscreen? why wouldn't I want FULL screen? what else would I have? HALF screen? Empty screen? 2/3rds screen?"
*Sigh*. There is no hope.
I have been known to become violent if someone complains that a widescreen DVD "Cuts off the top and bottom of the movie!". HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE

 

[Mikko Rasinkangas]

There is a discussion abou this in the Studio and Manufacturer Feedback section but in this forum there might be more comments.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...threadid=88026

 

[Yee-Ming]

maybe the correct term is "fill screen", i.e. "we've messed about with this movie so that it fills yours screen."
just my $0.02's worth...

 

[David Hill]

Chris,

maybe you HATE it, but unfortunately sometimes it is true. So not only do we have to educate re OAR, but the difference between Full Frame and Pan and Scan.

Example - my Big Lebowski DVD has both Widescreen and Full Frame versions on it.

When you do a scene comparison there is no doubt that you see more information top and bottom of the picture of the full frame, whilst the edges are the same.

Another unfortunate aspect is that this full screen image appears 'better' framed than the OAR widescreen. A case in point is when the three buddies are are all sitting down and listening to Jesus.

In the OAR the screen cuts off around their ankles. In full screen you see both their feet and some bowling balls lying around. To my eyes, whilst not WTDIFTR (What the Director.....) it is actually a "better" composition.

All I'm saying is that we have multiple battles to fight, and with J6P Full Frame v Widescreen on a 4:3 TV is a tough one to win i.e. more image potentially 'better' framed versus black bars. (I have a 16x9 TV and ONLY buy Widescreen versions. I only noticed this in Lebowski as I was curious to see how they would chop some of the scenes to end up full frame and got a huge surprise when I actually saw more picture!)

Regards,

David

 

[Thomas Newton]

There needs to be a distinction between 4:3 OAR, Open Matte and digitally-recomposed animation (on the one hand), and butchered Pan/Tilt and Scan (on the other).

Maybe the shorthand terms should be "Standard" and "WideScreen" with modifiers, and with accompanying sentence fragments on the back cover.

Standard
Shown as originally intended.

Standard (Pan-and-Scan)
Picture chopped off on sides.

Standard (Open Matte)
Extra picture content on top and bottom.

Widescreen
Shown in its original X:1 aspect ratio

Widescreen (Tilt-and-Scan)
Picture chopped off on top and bottom.

etc.

 

[Mikko Rasinkangas]

"Standard" should NOT be associated with Pan&scan. It sort of gives you the idea that it is the "right way". Also, what happens when 16:9 tv sets are the majority and become the "standard"?

Like suggested in the thread I linked, I would probably use
- "Original Aspect Ratio"
- "Modified Aspect Ratio"

 

[Chris Brown]

From what I understand, the reason some full screen versions have extra content at the top and bottom that the widescreen versions do not have is because they were filmed in super35. The technique basically films more than the intended theater AR on the top and bottom just so that it will look better when it is made into "fullscreen".

Never the less, I believe this is pointless. It may be designed to ease the 4:3 conversion process, but that doesn't change the fact that you are not watching it as the director indended.... It's still not OAR. I mean... it really doesn't matter what's in this little extra little bit of super35 film if it's not what the director intended for you to see.

 

[steve jaros]

Chris - the OAR (defined as what was originally shown in theaters) may not be what the director intended us to see.

 

[Tim Hoover]

My problem with the term "fullscreen" is that, for owners of 16x9 televisions, it is not fullscreen! I'd like for someone to claim false advertising, since the fullscreen presentation did not fill their 16x9 set...

Maybe the studios should use the terms "square-screen" and "widescreen" to differentiate the two.

 

[streeter]

YES. I have always thought that the term is misleading! This indeed needs to be changed because if you have a widescreen set it doesn't fill the screen. IMO it's false advertising.

 

[Eric Peterson]

I too have always thought that the term "Full Screen" was very misleading. I also think that the warning preceding a P&S video is extremely vague. I would like to see a true poll of how many people understand what "Modified to Fit your screen.." means. I know that I completely ignored that for years, it was just another disclaimer similar to the FBI warning and was intended to be fast-forwarded past.

It's almost as though the studios are trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes. Why be so vague? The warning should simply state "Picture information has been removed from the sides of this movie compared to the original theatrical version in order to fit your square Televsion"

I still have a very strong opinion that education is the primary problem. Almost everyone that I've met still swears that widescreen removes picture (Yes, I understand Open Matte), but I seriously doubt these people have sat down and compared two different versions of a matted movie. For whatever reason, that's the first reaction that people have when their screen isn't filled. I have yet to meet anyone whom after I explained the situation that was still adamant about fullscreen. Many of them still aren't as passionate as myself, but most of them won't purchase anything except widescreen now.

 

[Neil Joseph]

The term fullscreen is not only deceptive, it is an outright lie. No wonder the general masses complain about black bars and not having a full screen. Heck yes, change it.

 

[Clinton McClure]

This should be the standard disclaimer on the back of the keepcase:

Side A - Widescreen version (2.35:1) preserving the correct theatrical aspect ratio of the film

Side B - Chopped-up Pan & Scan version, modified to fit a 4:3 TV screen because you don't give a damn about the film you are about to see since you are willing to sacrifice over a third of the picture. Since you obviously do not care about the film if you are willing to watch a butchered version, we have removed all dialogue and replaced it with the soothing sound of jabbering squirrels and a treefrog. The picture has also conviently been replaced with a dancing bear because our market research indicated you would rather watch a dancing bear than a correctly-composed Original Aspect Ratio version of the film. Have a 6-pack and enjoy!

 

[Mikko Rasinkangas]

Clinton, you made my day!

 

[MattHR]

I too have always thought that the term "Full Screen" was very misleading. I also think that the warning preceding a P&S video is extremely vague. I would like to see a true poll of how many people understand what "Modified to Fit your screen.." means. I know that I completely ignored that for years, it was just another disclaimer similar to the FBI warning and was intended to be fast-forwarded past.

The word "modified" in the disclaimer could be interpreted by some to mean an improvement. I remember when the studios were first pressured to use the disclaimer. The directors' and cinematographers' guilds were demanding the disclaimer, unhappy with the video versions of their films.
There was an article about this matter at the time, and I remember the directors/cinematographers wanted the disclaimer to read something like: "The film on this video has been cropped and altered to fit your screen. Visual information has been removed. The composition in no way resembles that of the original, as carefully created by the director and cinematographer." If I recall, their idea for the disclaimer was even longer, and suggested that certain actors have been omitted in the video version. I wish I could remember the exact wording. It was rather long and technical (or would have been to J6P), but was 100% accurate.
The article quoted a studio executive saying there was no way they were going to use the terms "cropped" or altered", as that would imply to the consumer that there was something WRONG with the video. Well, isn't there? They ultimately settled on the disclaimer we now have.
With todays 16:9 displays, the disclaimer is more confusing than ever. It's time to come up with a new disclaimer. This time it should be accurate, like the one suggested by the guilds previously.
The only disclaimer I'd ever like to see again would be (assuming all films are released in OAR only!):
"The film on this video/dvd may contain black borders on the top & bottom, or sides, of your screen, whether 4:3 or 16:9 displays. The image on-screen faithfully represents the composition of the film's director and cinematographer. No portion of the film as been cropped, scanned or altered to fit the screen. The black bars ensure you are viewing th film in its original, intended form. Enjoy!"
Wishful thinking? I thought so.

 

[Brian Kaz]

I'd like to see everything put into 2 simple groups:
TRUESCREEN: Whatever was originally intended by the filmmaker or creators (including 4:3 TV show aspect ratios)
CUTSCREEN: Product with its picture cut to fit on conventional TVs
Now you have no confusing words such as "FULL" and "Modified"

 

[Chuck L]

I hate to say it...but in the long run, I don't think what you call it matters...what does matter is that people that prefer OAR are being F*@%ed with...

 

[Andrew Grall]

The name should be changed... but it probably won't be. Selling the "Fullscreen" version of the movies is catering to the ignorance of the masses...

 

[MichaelPe]

In regards to the term, it seems to indicate that with this version you get more.

It's nothing more than a marketing ploy. In order for studios to fool consumers into buying an inferior product, they have to give it an attractive name.
This reminds me of how Starbucks markets the three sizes of coffee: Tall, Vente, and Grande. I still don't know how they map to small, medium, and large respectively.