Who are most likely to understand widescreen and who is most likely to hate it? (1 Viewer)

[Douglas Kalon]

I was just wondering who understands widescreen and who hates it?

Do young people, who grew up on music videos (Some which are widescreen) more likely to understand widescreen benefits?

Do older people not understand it?

Does education have anything to do with it?

Do college graduates understand widescreen better?

Do high school graduates and non graduates understand it less?

When you go to a retailer that sells DVD's, who do you notice is buying the widescreen version more? The older person or the younger consumer?

 

[Jeff]

Working in a video store over the years, I have discovered the people who are the least likely to accept widescreen are older men, 40 and up.

 

[CRyan]

In my experience, those with smaller TV's are more likely to hate widescreen.

You have to rememeber that most people have smaller TV's in the corner probably 8 feet or more from the viewing position. It really is hard to watch widescreen films this way. When I was forced to use my 25" set from about 9 feet away for a few months when moving I really just stopped watching movies. Subtitled flicks were simply not possible.

I don't like watching movies non OAR and watching widescreen movies on this set at that distance was unbearable. My wife and I both got headaches watching 2.35:1 films, so we just stopped watching movies for those few months.

I would venture to guess that we will never win the OAR battle with these people. And you know, I don't blame them.

 

[Keith Paynter]

I second that one, CR...

Most of the late adopters have been watching 'home theater' on 19" televisions and linear mono VCRs which are not hooked up to their stereo systems (which may be nothing more than a higher end shelf boom box) and the image reduction in that perspective is too much to them. They're not willing to spend $600 to $1000 on a 29-31 inch television, but they'll spend $100 - $150 on an entry level DVD player from WalMart.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

They're not willing to spend $600 to $1000 on a 29-31 inch television, but they'll spend $100 - $150 on an entry level DVD player from WalMart.

I agree with others on this forum that the "P&S ON-THE-FLY" hardware option should be utilized to help satisfy these people.

Even 2.35:1 movies would end up looking like 1.85:1 transfers on their little 19" screens, and I think that could be tolerated. Transfers from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 would fill their screens with a simple "centering" code.

Once these people upgrade to larger RPTV's or even FPTV's (which are becoming more and more affordable every day) they can switch to the full anamorphic widescreen transfer by simply changing a menu option.

And the beautiful thing is, they can also view the movie in its proper framing if they wish, downconverted from the anamorphic transfer in the traditional way. This might even help educate them to the many benefits of a widescreen transfer, since they can simply switch back and forth at will and see the difference.

It's way past time for the studios to start utilizing this feature of the DVD format. Anything is preferable to P&S exclusive DVD titles, which is just a short-term solution to the "problem" anyway, and alienates the primary fan of the format.

 

[DaveF]

who understands widescreen and who hates it

If I may quibble, this is a false dichotomy. A person can both understand widescreen and hate it. Or not understand it and like it.

I was one of hte people who had a small TV for years, and knew that WS was "correct", but I didn't care -- the picture was too small for my tastes.

Likewise, I have frineds to whom I've demonstrated the difference between WS and P&S (comparing Toy Story DVD and VHS), and they still don't care. To them, it's stil basically the same thing.

 

[NickSo]

I have discovered the people who are the least likely to accept widescreen are older men, 40 and up.

Yeah, i think so too. My friends who most dont have huge TVs or DVD players came over a couple times to watch movies, and they never complained...

They probably know what it is (widescreen, duh), but they dont know what function it serves, and WHY its there, but they dont mind...

 

[Jack Briggs]

It's dangerous to generalize about people. I have seen more than one instance where a marvelously educated person simply cannot stand a letterboxed presentation on a 4:3 screen of any size. As has been noted many a time, even those who comprehend the concept can still hate the format.

The solution, though controversial and seemingly harsh, is to force the widescreen era along and not even offer the P&S option on DVD. But the studios are resistent to the idea.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Very few people actually don't like letterboxing.
In fact, most people who buy P&S products either don't know about letterboxing or don't look for it.
You're looking at a post by someone who only started supporting OAR-only video since 2000.

 

[Ric Easton]

I am over 40. Back around 1982 I bought widescreen bootlegs of Star Wars, Empire and ET for my betamax VCR. It was the only way to get widescreen. When I was watching these, I finally felt I was seeing movies on TV the way they should be... and I was watching on a 19 incher! I probably understood widescreen in my early teens. I remember seeing a Clint Eastwood movie and the picture was squished during the credits making everyone look really skinny! It was obvious to me why they did this, but it was not the right solution. I truely can't understand why people don't get this concept immediately.

Ric

 

[Holadem]

AFAIK, most people don't give a shit about the picture being correct, they care about the story. For them, movies are a way to deliever a good story, nothing more - wether most of those stories are actually good is a whole other discussion . Most people to whom I told about widescreen couldn't care less, after they perfectly understood it. They point was: "2 inches missing from the sides are not gonna affect the story"... Can't really say they are wrong (puts on flame suit). They simply don't watch movies the way we do, and we can't expect them to.
--
Holadem

 

[MartinTeller]

Holadem is exactly right. Movies are, for most people, stories, not art... and 99% of the time pan & scan doesn't alter or ruin the story. In fact, pan and scan does what your eyes already do NATURALLY: it follows the action.
When you talk about a movie to your friends, you probably talk mostly about the dialogue and the plot. If an acting performance is particularly noteworthy, you'll mention that. MAYBE you'll discuss stunts, music, lighting, costumes and sets. Very few people discuss, or appreciate, the framing. "Wow, they had seven people all lined up on the screen at once!" or "You could see the WHOLE BOAT in that shot!".
(Let me add that I do advocate OAR being an option for all DVDs, and that I prefer watching movies in OAR)

 

[Steve Schaffer]

I'd at least like to refute the idea that one must be a cinephile in order to prefer OAR.

I'm an auto mechanic by occupation, at a largish Toyota dealer. Of the 10 or so guys in our shop that have dvd players, only 1 prefers P/S-and he's watching on a 17" computer monitor. One of the other guys hasn't bought a player yet, but wants to soon so he can watch more movies in OAR. The rest fully understand and prefer OAR, and not all of them have huge sets--most are watching on 32 inch 4/3 sets. I loaned out my copy of AVIA to one guy, and within a month 4 or 5 others asked to borrow it.

 

[george kaplan]

High IQ - understand and prefer OAR
Low IQ - fail to understand or understand and still prefer non-OAR

 

[Jack Briggs]

George, no! Not the situation at all. And that's what's so frustrating about the OAR crusades: We're up against, in many cases, an educated lot.

Steve's post, while it doesn't imply anything about the general intellectual levels of people in his profession, shows how a preference for OAR can cross demographic boundaries. (And, when I was a teenager, I flirted with the idea of becoming a motorcycle mechanic. Mechanics, by the profession's nature, cannot be dummies.)

 

[Rob Dwyer]

Hey now,

I'm a OAR zelot - however I'm also poor and watch widescreen on my GIGANTIC 13" TV...

Once I scrape some money together, I'll have a nicer TV, but if I can enjoy widescreen on my postage stamp of a television, the MAR people need to open their minds a little - most of them notice NOTHING except the "horrible black bars" and don't even try watching... those are the people that will never accept widescreen...

 

[george kaplan]

Well, Jack, while I was being humorous, I also believe what I said. I believe that people who understand why p&s is wrong but prefer it anyway aren't very bright. And frankly, I don't think most people who don't understand OAR are stupid, I think they're uninformed. It's not a difficult concept and practically everyone who has it explained properly can understand it. The stupidity comes in on understanding and still prefering p&s crap.

 

[Patrick McCart]

High IQ - understand and prefer OAR

Low IQ - fail to understand or understand and still prefer non-OAR

Nice fantasy, but that's not reality.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Oh, George, I know you well enough also to know that humor was the underthrust of your post. I was posting for the benefit of newcomers who may not know the personalities here. (Not tryin' to bust your chops, bro'! )
Yet, fact is we are dealing with many people who are bright but who still are opposed to letterboxing.
Another problem I've been aware of all along has to do with those persons--I don't know how else to put it--who are perceptually challenged. It's similar to the situation in 1989 when the promo campaign for Tim Burton's Batman was in full swing: That Batman logo on all those billboards was lost on many people; they thought they were looking at an image of teeth!
I once was talking about aspect ratios and DVDs to a female coworker possessed of reasonably good intelligence. She admitted to me that she had never before even noticed how the basic shape of a typical commercial theater screen differs from most television screens. Not once had she ever paid attention to the fact that one is a wide rectangle, while the other is a more squarish rectangle.
In a few other cases, I have overheard people complaining about all these newfangled HD-ready television screens being "so narrow." Instead of seeing "wide," these people are seeing "narrow."
We face quite a few challenges in this effort.

 

[Michael Bailey]

For me, I did not come to prefer widescreen movies until I bought a widescreen set. I knew widescreen was the correct way to go but P&S seemed to look better even on my 60in 4:3 screen.