Tell me why I don't like Widescreen (1 Viewer)

[esboella]

Actuallly Brits are probably keaner on widescreen than
you yanks unfortunately, I put it down to brainwashing
by the cinema industry. Widescreen was only introduced
because it would not transfer well to 4:3 televisions which
were taking the cinemas audiances away, why pay to go to
the cinema when you can see the same thing at home for
a fraction of the price?
Now that people are getting widescreen sets at home this 'spoiling' effect no longer works so why continue with it?

Half a picture is half the fun.

 

[RickER]

This wont go anywhere. I would like to know how my field of vision is taller than wider? And i am not talking about if i were to walk around with one eye closed. Wal Mart has some good deals for ya. I myself am glad i have the whole movie in all its widescreen glory!

 

[esboella]

Having your eyes side by side does not give you wider
vision it just gives you depth of vision as the two
*circular* images from each eye are combined into one
'3D' image. It's a common misconception that your two
eyes give you 'wide' vision.

 

[esboella]

Your field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide because of your nose, the angle you can see with both eyes is quite narrow because of this, however up and down there is nothing to block your vision. Hence your field of 3D vision is taller than it is wide, much of what people call widescreen vision is that of a cyclops at best.

 

[Gralen]

I usually try to stay out of these debates but here is my 2 cents worth. Even though I am a owner of a 4.3 ratio T.V I have to favor the wide screen crowd. Seems like you see all the action and that is how your eyes are made to see. I cant remember the movie ( maybe my fellow forum members do) but there is a scene where a character is talking to another character and you never see that person until they leave the room. That was in 4.3 but watching the same scene you actually see the character in widescreen.
I watch all my movies in wide screen mode. Just as soon as I find a house, my panny will go to the bedroom and I will get a wide screen. Also isnt there a demonstration on the Sound and Vision dvd about the pros and cons of wide screen vs pan and scan.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

There is significant artistic and aesthetic merit in filming in wide ARs. Not eveyone agrees (like Kubrick) but it's pretty standard to have films in wider ARs than just 4:3. The original more square ARs before widescreen became popular was arbitrarily the opening of a theater's stage which is more squarish. If you view films at home, or in the theater on a screen that is 2.35 or 16:9 or such it is, in my opinion, a much much better AR than 4:3, cinematically. It's much more dramatic.

Your technical arguments, however, are fubar. While you may oddly prefer 4:3 (which is fine), advocating pan-n-scan, or arguing that widescreen is technically less feasible.


.....????

 

[esboella]

Gralen, if that film had been panned and scanned properly
for 4:3 it would have been blindly obvious who was in the
room, thats just pure idleness on behalf of the person
who produced the 4:3 image. It's just like a camera man
pointing his camera in the wrong place and the incorrect
shot being left in, through idleness.

Personally I am of the belief that such poor editing may
have been deliberate, either that or the person doing the
editing was bored to death with the film or asleep.

Anyway I am saying films should be shot and filmed in 4:3
so its not an issue anyway.

Futhermore you cannot actually look in two places at the same time with your own eyes anyway, not without moving them of course, so if something did occur at the edge if the screen you might miss it even if you are viewing in widescreen, however a correctly edited 4:3 edition would have ensured you saw eveything the director intended you to see.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Well, I guess the overwhelming majority of film-makers and cinematographers out there disagree with your preference of 4:3. And I do too. The cinematic impact of a a well-done widescreen film, even those a good deal wider than 16:9 are, IMO umatched.

You could have found a much better way of bringing up this very OT opinion about cinematography and what AR is chosen than in this part of the forum, as this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with display devices at all.

Much better off in the movies section or something.

 

[esboella]

ChrisWiggles ??????


A 4:3 'lens' is far more efficient then 16:9 as you don't
know what shaped image you will be filming then the closer
to a circle you get you achieve the bect comprimise between
tall and wide shapes. 16:9 is geat for wide images but utterly useless for tall inages which are just as abundant as wide ones.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

So you advocate a square aspect ratio.

I think I'm not alone in thinking that this is an aesthetically terrible AR, and it doesn't match our field of natural vision, and what happens in this world very well at all, at least in the way most films are shot. Again, I'll mention that Kubrick is the only major film-maker that I can think of who shot things in 4:3.


This is where your argument fails. Tall images are not at all as abundant as events and scenes that occur horizontally. This is why film-makers like the widescreen and scope type aspect ratios. You can show and isolate multiple people and conflict and motion without wasting a huge amount of space above and below the scene on the sky and the ground. The framing of widescreen formats is more effective in this way, for the way most things are filmed. There is no law that film-makers can't use taller ARs, either, and there are some movies that are filmed in 4:3. But as you don't see films in narrower formats, obviously there is an aesthetic and cinematic preference (And it should be obvious to anyone who watches movies) against tall-format ARs.

 

[esboella]

The main reason you don't see tall formats is that you can't
have a very big picture without a tall cimema to show it in
and itis cheaper to build low wide cinemas.
It not correct to say there are more wide images you have just chosen a particular subkect matter.
People, who kind of appear in films a lot are, surprise rather tall, and one person in a 2:35 screen tends to waste
90% of the display, same goes for facial, and head and shoulders shots.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

I don't know what universe you live in, but life happens on largely horizontal planes. As does our vision. You can look at more than half a century of cinema that agrees that mimicking this is important aesthetically. If you are a film-maker, you are free to choose a tall format that is 16:9 that goes vertically. I'm betting people won't like it, for obvious reasons.

 

[esboella]

No they wouldn't they would go for a sensible format closer to the the round camera of our eye, maybe even make it a little wider to give it a bit of a shape, 4:3 would be a good candidate. Then it would also be compatible with 50
years of television, which is what most people watch.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

This discussion is out of place, and pointless if you ignore the most basic reality of our vision, which is our ability to see in a wider plane side to side than we do up and down.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Fixed.

 

[Ralph B]

this is one nutty thread!

a waste of space!

you keep talking about 4x3 and I will keep enjoying WS movies.


lol

 

[Ralph B]

BTW: lets just answer his question.... "why I don't like widescreen" ?

cause you like pan & scan.....lol simple. answered . bury the thread!

 

[John S]

As many have said already....

You Fov is much wider than it is tall. Just look at a wall, this becomes totally obvious.

I'm an astronomer, and the only way your vision would be taller than wide is if your eye balls were one on top of each other instead of side by side.

I want real estate period. Much much much more real estate at 2.35:1 than 1.33:1. The tall of the image size is constant in a way. The same for any aspect ratio, only the width can be altered.

Widescreen is much much more like what you actually see, just look off a vista / scenic view and this becomes very logical.

I will continue to trust the aspect ratio the director / producer choose for their art work myself.

Do you even love film???? I mean as an art form? I don't know a single person that loves film, that feels as you do. The wider the better, the more you can see and have being displayed. This really connot be argued.

 

[Shane Martin]

I don't think that's true. I think he prefers 4x3 ratios but not necessarily P&S.

I prefer 2.35 or 2.76 myself The wider the better.

 

[Jorge M]

Perhaps esboella has one eye and no eyelids, and therefore prefers 4:3 as it's closest to his circular field of vision. For us humans with two eyes, side by side, and eyelids that mask the top and bottom, wider ratios make more sense.

If he says pan & scan one more time, though, he should be banned for being such a troll, period.