Which will win in the end? Full Screen or Widescreen (1 Viewer)

[Ken Garrison]

When did we become "fat and lazy"? I thought the ones who needed educating were fat and lazy.

I was kidding. But you're right about 2nd part.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

When the guy who hates "them black bars" buys a widescreen TV and finds out that half the movies he watches still have black bars, he's going to flip.

That's why we have to educate them, so they will not hate the black bars. Then they won't flip, because they will know that they are getting the entire picture.

 

[Thomas Newton]

That's why we have to educate them, so they will not hate the black bars.

I just saw a newspaper article on DVDs define "anamorphic widescreen" as (paraphrasing) "the format that puts those dead areas on the top and bottom of your TV screen." There was no explanation of why the "dead areas" were there, and no hint that a Pan and Scan disc chops off a large portion of the composition!

 

[Damin J Toell]

The question of the thread presumes that, at some point, the OAR vs. MAR battle in the home viewing context will end. It won't. Not, at least, until the standard home viewing apparatus has an AR that is easily modifiable at all. 16x9 TVs aren't the answer; it's just a new AR to which films will be modified. There is no end in sight, there's just the ongoing battle that the informed purchaser fights in order to purchase OAR home viewing material.

DJ

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Since OAR is the important thing education is still the way to go. 16:9 sets are in themselves no solution if Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs or Casablanca in the future are formatted to fill the 16:9 screen. There is one good thing about 16:9, though. It is a better compromise between existing movie aspect ratios than 4:3 is.

 

[Andy_Bu]

I don't understand why everyone thinks that Joe Six Pack is going nuts.

Has anyone heard of a single complaint about Enterprise, ER, West Wing, Farscape, The Soprano's etc from a Joe Six Pack?

These shows are watched by millions and millions and millions of viewers every week who you all claim are Joe Six Packs and yet they seem to have no problems.

I think there are two groups of people who make this out to be a battle. One, the moronic vendors like Walmart, and Two, the widescreen or death group who insist that Joe Six pack is having a coniption watching John Carter in widescreen.

Andy

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

NBC actually did get quite a few complaints when they started E.R. in widescreen. These lasted a few months, and then people adjusted. And I know for a fact that J6Ps exist. I was at a friend's house about a week ago. I brought over Royal Tenenbaums: CE. He watched it without problems, but then I checked out all his DVD titles. When I asked why he didn't buy the widescreen versions he said, "I don't have a widescreen TV. I know stuff gets cut off but it's unneccessary, and I lose resolution with widescreen films."

The big difference is that TV is "free." J6P doesn't mind watching widescreen if it's free, it's paying for it that twists their noodle.

 

[Ken Garrison]

I lose resolution with widescreen films."

That's one common thing you'll hear from Joe 6 Packs and other people who do understand. And it's bullshit. Either way, the movie's gonna look the same, resolution wize. If you zoom it, it's gonna get grainy and maybe pixalated. Shrink it down to the normal letterbox format, and it looks better, even though less pixals on the screen itself are taken up. I think images look sharper in letterbox than they do in Pan and Scan.

 

[Michael Harris]

The biggest thing that has bothered me on the myriad of posts regarding the "widescreen" vs "fullscreen" debate is the very use of those two terms. A 16x9 picture will not "fill" a 4x3 TV and same with 4x3 on a 16x9 (electronic alteration of picture by DVD player or TV notwithstanding).

I wonder, if I bought a "fullscreen" DVD for a 16x9 TV could I return it to the retailer because it did not fill up my screen? Afterall, it says "fullscreen" right on the cover. Conversely, if I got a "widescreen" is it really wide on my 4x3? (Mr retailer, it says its wide but it is actually smaller).

Now before any flames come my way, I am passionate about proper OAR. I just wish that these terms be retired and that reviewers use such terms as "correct OAR" and "pan & scan" or "cropped" or something similar for non-OAR presentations. Maybe people reading such reviews may then ask themselves "what all this about OAR" and just might get a little more educated.

 

[KeithAP]

Widescreen as the original aspect ratio may eventually win out but I doubt it. Too many people want their screens filled and do not care about any artistic compromises that occur in the process.

-Keith

 

[Ryan Peddle]

I don't even think it has anything to do with widescreen tv's. It mainly has to do with the shlump watching a dvd (widescreen version of course) on a freakin 13" tv. Come on. I watch a lot of normal cable tv on my 32" tosh and when I watch a dvd I don't notice a difference.

You may say it is because I have been into this hobbie for a while, but still, the screen difference is negligable on the 32 tv.

But on a 20 or lower, it causes frustration for the j6pers.

When somebody goes out and buys a 13 GE tv and a Aiwa $100 dvd player, they are not prepared to enjoy the technology of dvd compared to people like us.

I don't mean to sound segregated, I'm just giving you an example of the situation. We spend a moderate amount of money of our setups...anywhere from $1000 to $100,000 or systems to fully enjoy the film in all it 5.1, widescreen glory, only to be trampled by the stained tanktop wearing guy with the $200 walmart setup.

It's truly time for something to change and it is us that has to do it.

 

[Tony-B]

I know widescreen will win eventually, but for the short-term, full screen will. I think that NBC is doing a good job showing West Wing, ER, and other shows in widescreen. Also I have noticed that The Discovery Channel is starting to do alot of widescreen broadcasts. I think that sometime when you are watching a widescreen dvd or tv show with a J6P, you need to wait until halfway through, and say, "Did you notice that it is in widescreen?". I did that when I was watching Peal Harbor on VHS with my parents, becuase I wanted to show them that the only way you will notice them is not watch the movie. They did not want DVD because of the bars, and now we have it, and they really don't mind them.

 

[Ken Garrison]

Pearl Harbor was sort of pan and scanned. It was mostly 1.85:1. Then on the battles, it turned to 2.35:1. That part's better than Pan and Scan to 4x3, but it's still unacceptable. I guess now, on Starz, they show Pearl Harbor in 4x3. Which has GOT to suck.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Widescreen as the original aspect ratio may eventually win out but I doubt it.

Widescreen (of various aspect ratios) as the original aspect ratio already has won out for practically all new made-for-theater films.
Made-for-TV productions and home-made videos still predominantly have 4:3 as the original aspect ratio, as do many digital camera stills. (Digital cameras = 4:3, 35mm film = 3:2).
Perhaps you meant to refer to the presentation aspect ratio, as opposed to the original aspect ratio?

 

[Ken Chan]

Either way, the movie's gonna look the same, resolution wize.

It's not that simple. Anamorphic 1.85:1 or 16:9 has about the same resolution vertically as pan&scan, but less resolution horizontally, since the wider picture must be expressed in the same number of pixels. And it's only equal vertically when viewed on a widescreen set, or a 4:3 that does the squeeze. For the majority of 4:3 sets that don't, you lose the resolution and get some softening or minor stair-stepping when "throwing away" those lines. With anamorphic 2.35:1 and letterboxed 1.85:1 (and even more so with letterboxed 2.35:1), you definitely lose vertical resolution, since some lines are "wasted" on the black bars.

Having said that, any loss in resolution is almost always minor in comparison to chopping off entire chunks of the picture with pan&scan. In fact, the more you could complain about the resolution, the more has to be chopped off. Seems more like rationalizing the desire to have the screen filled than a legitimate complaint.

As for NBC, if they really want to get in my good graces, they should actually start showing The West Wing and ER in Hi-Def, not just The Tonight Show and Crossing Jordan.

//Ken

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Well it would certainly speed things up if they didn't sell "Hi Def" tv sets that were in the 4:3 format! What the hell is up with that?

Undoubtedly people who buy a Digital tv with a 4:3 shape are the same ones who probably want pan and scan.

I agree that once Widescreen (16:9) sets become commonplace, the demand for Pan and Scan will become substantially smaller.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

The thing that really suffers in all of this is the rental Market. Now I realize many of us buy more than rent. But some of the "On the Fence" titles that I'd like to rent first or only get affected. Take this week's "Showtime" I probably won't buy this, but I wanted to still rent it. Do you know what my chances of finding a Widescreen Version of this to rent. Try Slim to None. So I might have to buy this at $15.99 from Best Buy watch it and sell it. It's a massive Pain but what can you do Rent the P&S version?

No Way.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Undoubtedly people who buy a Digital tv with a 4:3 shape are the same ones who probably want pan and scan.

Have you taken a look at the price of "HDTV-ready" sets lately? At least for direct-view sets (large CRTs), 16:9 sets cost a lot more than similarly-sized 4:3 ones.

 

[Ken Garrison]

I don't consider 4x3 HDTV sets TRUE HDTV. WhyTF are they making 4x3 HDTV sets anyway? HDTV is 16x9, not 4x3!! To me, a 4x3 HDTV is just an oversized computer monitor.

 

[Thomas Newton]

An "oversized computer monitor" would actually be better than HDTV.

HDTV maximum resolution = 1080i, i.e. 1080 vertical lines with interlacing, at a refresh rate of 60 Hz (field), for a refresh rate of 30 Hz (frame). I'm sure that the "i" was chosen for reasons of conserving broadcast TV channel bandwidth, or for ease-of-implementation reasons, not for reasons of picture quality.

Many large CRT-based monitors can do 1600 x 1200, or better, non-interlaced, at variable refresh rates that can exceed 80 Hz. With help from a suitable player, it would be quite feasible to play back 24 Hz film-source material at 72 Hz and 30/60 Hz video-source material at 60 Hz on such a monitor. This would get rid of interlacing and "judder".