Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Widescreen Vs Fullscreen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by The Dark Knight
    It makes a huge difference.

    In particular when there are scenes where the actors are on opposite side of the screen speaking to each other. Full screen of a 2.35 to 1 ratio movie cuts out nearly 46% of the picture!!! That's rediculous. It totally ruins scope, framing, emotion, tons of little nuiances that create the enviornment of the shot. There are lots of movies that are totally jacked up because of being chopped into full screen. Because I have them on Widescreen, it makes it hard to look at when I see them on cable in full screen. Take a look at some of those shots above and tell me that doesn't make a differnce in some scenes. It make a real big difference. You wouldn't cut up the mona lisa would you? I prefer to see the movie the way the director intended it to be seen.

    YABA!........
    - Go Broncos 2017 and Beyond! -

    Super Bowl 50 CHAMPIONS!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Jared
      The problem with HI def is that the government is mandating a switch to somethin that, as of yet, the public has shown no interest in, so they can auction off the standard frequencies. I personally see no reason to buy an HDTV set until I have no choice, which will be far in the future. I had so many debates on this in college when it was announced.

      As for aspect ratio, I don't really give a crap. If it's a good movie, it a good movie. Aspect ratio won't make it a better or worse movie. Hollywood and the FCC should just get togther and pick 1 ratio, and stick to it.


      If they had true fullscreen, I would prefer it. I se nothing worng with full frame now anyway. And I am not a novice. I just see no way that aspect ratio has any bearing on the story, script, or performances.

      And my TV is so small that wide screen is actually harder to see anyway.
      If a movie is filmed in a fullscreen ratio (4:3) then you're seeing it the way the director intended you to see it. However, when a widescreen movie is "formatted to fit your screen" by converting it to fullscreen or pan-and-scan, the process chops up the intended scenes by cutting off the sides. Sometimes it isn't that big of a deal but most of the time you're losing valuable footage.

      There's a beautiful example on the first release of Star Trek IV on DVD where Leonard Nimoy (who directed the film) showed how badly that conversion can hurt a scene. In the widescreen version of this scene, Spock, Kirk and Gillian are sitting three across in the front of her pickup truck and the camera is stationary with all of them in view. They're having a rather amusing conversation and Spock is not quite himself and makes a number of funny expressions of confusion and consternation. In the pan-and-scan (full frame), they had to cut out either Spock or Gillian through the entire scene. There were times with the camera focused on Gillian that the viewer isn't getting to see Spock's expressiveness despite supposedly being emotionless as a Vulcan. There is just much more depth to the scene when seeing all three of them at the same time the way it was intended to be seen.

      And that is just one example out of many in just this one movie of how the artistic vision of the director gets screwed by cropping big chunks off of the original scenes. Again, full frame is fine if that is the way the movie was orignally filmed and intended by the director. But chopping a widescreen movie down to fit full frame, thereby going pan-and-scan, is a travesty to most movie aficionados.

      As to the Hi-Def issue, there is quite a bit of interest by the public but many of the interested parties don't want to make the plunge until there is enough material available to make the change worthwhile. But the expense of switching is a deterrent to television stations that want to have an audience already available to garner advertising revenue. It's kind of a catch-22 situation. As Hi-Def sets become more affordable and older sets get replaced, the market will build and we'll soon be encountering the Brave New World of high definition television. As it is, the major networks are steadily increasing their Hi-Def content and that will help us reach the promised land. And Voom! is out there for those who just can't wait. If only Voom! had the NFL Sunday Ticket, all would be well in the world.
      "You can't take the sky from me..."
      ------
      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Javalon
        If a movie is filmed in a fullscreen ratio (4:3) then you're seeing it the way the director intended you to see it. However, when a widescreen movie is "formatted to fit your screen" by converting it to fullscreen or pan-and-scan, the process chops up the intended scenes by cutting off the sides. Sometimes it isn't that big of a deal but most of the time you're losing valuable footage.

        There's a beautiful example on the first release of Star Trek IV on DVD where Leonard Nimoy (who directed the film) showed how badly that conversion can hurt a scene. In the widescreen version of this scene, Spock, Kirk and Gillian are sitting three across in the front of her pickup truck and the camera is stationary with all of them in view. They're having a rather amusing conversation and Spock is not quite himself and makes a number of funny expressions of confusion and consternation. In the pan-and-scan (full frame), they had to cut out either Spock or Gillian through the entire scene. There were times with the camera focused on Gillian that the viewer isn't getting to see Spock's expressiveness despite supposedly being emotionless as a Vulcan. There is just much more depth to the scene when seeing all three of them at the same time the way it was intended to be seen.

        And that is just one example out of many in just this one movie of how the artistic vision of the director gets screwed by cropping big chunks off of the original scenes. Again, full frame is fine if that is the way the movie was orignally filmed and intended by the director. But chopping a widescreen movie down to fit full frame, thereby going pan-and-scan, is a travesty to most movie aficionados.

        As to the Hi-Def issue, there is quite a bit of interest by the public but many of the interested parties don't want to make the plunge until there is enough material available to make the change worthwhile. But the expense of switching is a deterrent to television stations that want to have an audience already available to garner advertising revenue. It's kind of a catch-22 situation. As Hi-Def sets become more affordable and older sets get replaced, the market will build and we'll soon be encountering the Brave New World of high definition television. As it is, the major networks are steadily increasing their Hi-Def content and that will help us reach the promised land. And Voom! is out there for those who just can't wait. If only Voom! had the NFL Sunday Ticket, all would be well in the world.

        Well, like I said, I don't really care what the director intends, as long as the script and performances and plaot are interesting. I think only die hard movie people care about minor details like that.

        I am sending you a PM regarding HDTV, since it is off topic here, unless you would like to start a new thread?

        Everybody's gotta elevate from the norm...

        The greatest list of music I don't own on CD :sad:
        You should check these guys out

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jared
          Well, like I said, I don't really care what the director intends, as long as the script and performances and plaot are interesting. I think only die hard movie people care about minor details like that.

          I am sending you a PM regarding HDTV, since it is off topic here, unless you would like to start a new thread?


          Well see, that's where we differ, because in many people's opinion, it's not a minor detail. How would you like it if we cut your favorite song in half? Or made so you could only listen to it from a 1 inch peizo speaker? Or took the percussion out entirey?

          You probably wouldn't like that much I imagine. Whether you realise it or not, it makes a difference. It's not a "minor" detail. Quite a big one in fact.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by The Dark Knight
            Well see, that's where we differ, because in many people's opinion, it's not a minor detail. How would you like it if we cut your favorite song in half? Or made so you could only listen to it from a 1 inch peizo speaker? Or took the percussion out entirey?

            You probably wouldn't like that much I imagine. Whether you realise it or not, it makes a difference. It's not a "minor" detail. Quite a big one in fact.
            Cutting a song in half would make it a radio single!

            And my sound system sucks anyway......

            Its hard to compare different mediums, because of the way the data is interpreted by our brains. There is more data coming from a movie than an audio cd. So, if some piece of data is missing for a short period of time, you should be able to get the gist of it. Music is only aural, so any change is percieved as more drastic within the totality of the piece.


            Just my opinion.

            Everybody's gotta elevate from the norm...

            The greatest list of music I don't own on CD :sad:
            You should check these guys out

            Comment


            • #21
              Why ask my opinion if everyone is going to tell me I am wrong?

              I really don't give a crap about aspect ratio. Honest. A bad movie in widescreen is still a bad movie.

              A good movie in fullscreen is still a good movie.

              I have never seen that Trek movie, so I can't comment on how it works with that one.

              Like I said, I personally would prefer they shot movies in the same format as TV or vice versa, because on my TV, a full screen make it easier to see text and images on screen, because I have a modest TV. It's really just my preference.

              Maybe it all in how you percieve movies? Some people try to get the "being there" (in the movie) experience. I always imagine it as an ok substitute for a book, but I never imagine myself in the movie.

              Everybody's gotta elevate from the norm...

              The greatest list of music I don't own on CD :sad:
              You should check these guys out

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by JWinn

                Again, try watching a sporting event thru binoculars. If you can only see the ball, or one or two race cars, your not really watching the whole event. Thats the only place I recall asking your opinion. Would you enjoy sports as much if you could only see half the play? Cut out some cardboard and remove about 20% on both sides of the tv screen. Do you still get the whole game? Or are you missing part of a play?

                :
                I only watch the ball anyway. On TV, I have instant replay, but at game, I follow the ball/puck.

                Cardboard? hm...I suppose for the most part, everything is centered anyway....but I am alone here, so I can try that one night. My wife will never know the crazy things I do...


                Now, I just need some cardboard........


                As for rentals of DVD's, I usually just grab what my wife wants. Since its just me, I'll just grab a VHS if its a movie I REALLY want to see. I have honestly never looked at what version it is. I always assumed both versions were on the DVD's. I just hit "play movie" at the menu, and I never watch that extra crap.

                Everybody's gotta elevate from the norm...

                The greatest list of music I don't own on CD :sad:
                You should check these guys out

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by The Dark Knight
                  I went to Best Buy the other day and I over heard people talking about Widescreen and Fullscreen and one of them said " I hate widescreen, they put black bars on the movies!" This drives me out of my friggin gourd. So I just kinda laughed and shook my head. They saw me and said "See, that guy hates Widescreen too." and I said " Uhh, no I don't. I prefer to see the movie the way the director intended. The chop off the sides on fullscreen and pan-n-scan the movie. It ruins the framing and reduces the resolution. Makes the movie look like crap." Anyway, I went on for about 5 minutes explaining why Widescreen is better and these idiots still bought the "fullscreen" version. They shouldn't even call it fullscreen because your not getting the full screen. It's mis-leading.
                  I agree! Widescreen is much better because in full-screen, with subtitles it kills the movie, plus it's easier to see in widescreen because it's less space to look around to see the fine detail.

                  sigpic

                  Sig made by me. Click top sig to view my Graphics Portfolio.

                  There are three things you can expect in life:

                  1. Death
                  2. Taxes
                  3. The Ball Being Picked Off by Champ Bailey

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Javalon
                    If a movie is filmed in a fullscreen ratio (4:3) then you're seeing it the way the director intended you to see it. However, when a widescreen movie is "formatted to fit your screen" by converting it to fullscreen or pan-and-scan, the process chops up the intended scenes by cutting off the sides. Sometimes it isn't that big of a deal but most of the time you're losing valuable footage.

                    There's a beautiful example on the first release of Star Trek IV on DVD where Leonard Nimoy (who directed the film) showed how badly that conversion can hurt a scene. In the widescreen version of this scene, Spock, Kirk and Gillian are sitting three across in the front of her pickup truck and the camera is stationary with all of them in view. They're having a rather amusing conversation and Spock is not quite himself and makes a number of funny expressions of confusion and consternation. In the pan-and-scan (full frame), they had to cut out either Spock or Gillian through the entire scene. There were times with the camera focused on Gillian that the viewer isn't getting to see Spock's expressiveness despite supposedly being emotionless as a Vulcan. There is just much more depth to the scene when seeing all three of them at the same time the way it was intended to be seen.

                    And that is just one example out of many in just this one movie of how the artistic vision of the director gets screwed by cropping big chunks off of the original scenes. Again, full frame is fine if that is the way the movie was orignally filmed and intended by the director. But chopping a widescreen movie down to fit full frame, thereby going pan-and-scan, is a travesty to most movie aficionados.

                    The scene in Star Trek IV your refering to reminds me of another scene in Ghostbusters (ratio 2.35 to 1) that they used to butcher for years. It's when they go on there first job in the fancy hotel to catch slimer. I've seens a few different versions of this scene. The scene starts by them talking to the hotel manager (4 across) and discussing the problem. Then they make they're way to the elevators. There's a nice little joke about them being exterminators and then they get on the elevator (3 across).

                    On one version I've seen, they pretty much just chopped off the sides and kept the dialog centered. In the hotel lobby, that cut out Ray and Egon but kept Peter and the manager in the Frame. In the elevator Egon's in the middle with the other two only visable by their ears. Egon only has one line in this scene as Ray and Peter do most of the talking. I'm pretty sure that's not what the director intended. It really ruins the scene.

                    Another version is the panned and scanned one. In this one, frame is actualy moved over to the where the dialog is coming from. Since there's alot of back and forth dialog in this scene, the image pans across back and forth very quickly to the point of annoyance. Although in alot of cases, this is the best way to convert a widescreen to full, it still doesn't work at all with this scene. Some scenes will just be impossible to convert effectively.

                    Another version is maybe the worst one yet, although it does include everyone in the scene. This version compresses the image until everyone fits, stretching them out vertically. Everything bleeds in this setup and it looks like the scene was painted with water colors. It looks really really bad. Those that have seen it can atest.


                    Movies that are filmed in 2.35 to 1 are gonna always be butchered more. (upto 47%!!!)

                    Alot of movies are just filmed in 1.85 to 1 (upto 29% of the image lost!) and most all HDTV sets are in this ratio to accomedate the wider images. There will still be black bars on these sets when viewing a 2.35 to 1 movie.
                    Last edited by The Dark Knight; 03-25-2005, 08:01 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Once you go widescreen you don't go back......widescreen for me.
                      Go Broncos, Capitals, and Orioles



                      Thanks SNK16

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jared
                        Why ask my opinion if everyone is going to tell me I am wrong?

                        I really don't give a crap about aspect ratio. Honest. A bad movie in widescreen is still a bad movie.

                        A good movie in fullscreen is still a good movie.

                        I have never seen that Trek movie, so I can't comment on how it works with that one.

                        Like I said, I personally would prefer they shot movies in the same format as TV or vice versa, because on my TV, a full screen make it easier to see text and images on screen, because I have a modest TV. It's really just my preference.

                        Maybe it all in how you percieve movies? Some people try to get the "being there" (in the movie) experience. I always imagine it as an ok substitute for a book, but I never imagine myself in the movie.
                        Jared, I hope I didn't offend you with anything I said. Obviously, this is all a matter of opinion. Having said that, we're right and you're wrong!

                        I definitely understand that if you have a smaller television set, widescreen is not going to be an attractive option. It is harder to see the detail when the viewing area is reduced even further by putting it in letterbox.

                        So, all I can say is...get your priorities in order and buy a bigger TV! And you might as well go widescreen while you're at it so you get the maximum image.

                        PHILIPS 26PW8402/37 26" Digital WideScreen TV

                        Philips 30" RealFlat Widescreen TV, 30PW6341

                        ----
                        Best Buy has 0% financing for 2 years and their all on sale so you could get one of these:

                        RCA 52" Widescreen HD-Ready Rear-Projection TV for only $1099 + tax which would put it at around $49 per month with no interest.

                        Mitsubishi 55" Widescreen HD-Ready Rear-Projection TV for around $62 per month with tax but no interest.

                        Sony Grand WEGA 50" Widescreen Rear-Projection LCD HDTV for $128 per month. LCDs are nice.
                        "You can't take the sky from me..."
                        ------
                        "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Javalon
                          Jared, I hope I didn't offend you with anything I said. Obviously, this is all a matter of opinion. Having said that, we're right and you're wrong!

                          I definitely understand that if you have a smaller television set, widescreen is not going to be an attractive option. It is harder to see the detail when the viewing area is reduced even further by putting it in letterbox.

                          So, all I can say is...get your priorities in order and buy a bigger TV! And you might as well go widescreen while you're at it so you get the maximum image.

                          PHILIPS 26PW8402/37 26" Digital WideScreen TV

                          Philips 30" RealFlat Widescreen TV, 30PW6341

                          ----
                          Best Buy has 0% financing for 2 years and their all on sale so you could get one of these:

                          RCA 52" Widescreen HD-Ready Rear-Projection TV for only $1099 + tax which would put it at around $49 per month with no interest.

                          Mitsubishi 55" Widescreen HD-Ready Rear-Projection TV for around $62 per month with tax but no interest.

                          Sony Grand WEGA 50" Widescreen Rear-Projection LCD HDTV for $128 per month. LCDs are nice.
                          Thanks but no. Our TV was a gift, and is only 2 years old, and functions perfectly fine.
                          Plus, the cheapest one on yoru list is almost $500 before tax. That's insane. I'm nnot paying that much for a TV. Where are you all getting the money for rthsi stuff? My wife is a doctor with no educational debt or credit card debt, and I work as a hobby, not a necessity, and we still can't afford purchases like that.

                          I studied the wrong field in college.
                          Last edited by Jared; 03-25-2005, 11:22 AM.

                          Everybody's gotta elevate from the norm...

                          The greatest list of music I don't own on CD :sad:
                          You should check these guys out

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Jared
                            Thanks but no. Our TV was a gift, and is only 2 years old, and functions perfectly fine.
                            Plus, the cheapest one on yoru list is almost $500 before tax. That's insane. I'm nnot paying that much for a TV. Where are you all getting the money for rthsi stuff? My wife is a doctor with no educational debt or credit card debt, and I work as a hobby, not a necessity, and we still can't afford purchases like that.

                            I studied the wrong field in college.
                            No, I think the problem is that you live in California. Talk about your high cost of living. Ouch! I have family that lives out there and I can't believe how much everything costs when we visit.

                            Also, my wife and I were together for over nine years before getting in the family way so we could spend more on ourselves without worrying that we were depriving our kids. That'll probably change now with the little one soon to be here. But at least we already made most of our frivolous purchases so we won't feel too deprived now.
                            "You can't take the sky from me..."
                            ------
                            "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X