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

[Jan Strnad]

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.

Ever notice how there are NO "small" condoms?

Jan

 

[Tim Hoover]

Ever notice how there are NO "small" condoms?

Wait for it...
No Jan, I haven't... I never had to look for them (rimshot)
Sorry, I couldn't resist!

 

[Jan Strnad]

Ba-da-bing!

Jan

 

[LarryH]

Of course this idiotic and erroneous term needs to be dumped. As the discussion above shows, this is much too complicated an issue for the uninitiated to understand or even to try to understand.

I think the clearest labelling uses the outline of the 16:9 and 4:3 screen to show how the image will look on each type of TV. BUT, I also think the 4:3 version should indicate how much picture has been cut off the sides to fill the screen top-to-bottom. The same principle would apply to open-matte transfers to indicate how much extraneous image had been added at the top and bottom. They could be labelled "deleted" and "fill" respectively. Of course, 16:9 images opened up from 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 should also be properly indicated.

Of course, this wouldn't help for labelling the front of the package. In any case, "fullscreen" is a false and misleading term.

Oh, well...another pipedream.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

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

I think this is the most accurate way to title the DVDs.

Sanjay
Member since 1997

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I would like to see Banners that say

Original Theatrical Presentation
Modified THeatrical Presentation.

 

[Patrick McCart]

when it's open-matte then it should be something like Open-Matte Version

Most people don't know what open matte is.

 

[PhilipG]

How about:
Cinematic Presentation
(This is the original uncut version)
Airline Presentation
(This version has been cut for small, legacy TVs)

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Not sure what it should be called, but "Fullscreen" is simply wrong!

 

[Brenton]

Here's what they should do: they should show two versions of a screenshot on the back, showing how it will look on a 4:3 and how it will look on a 16:9. The fullscreen version will show a 4:3 screenshot where it fills the screen, and the same screenshot at 16:9 with gray (or black) bars on the sides. On widescreen releases, they should show how it will look on a 4:3 (2.35:1 having large black bars, 1.85:1 having small) and how it will look on a 16:9 (2.35:1 small black bars, 1.85:1 none).

 

[Andrew s wells]

I could be way off on this but how many people out there who are not familiar with the real benefits of widescreen would even know what "aspect ratio" means?