Widescreen & Fullscreen vs. just Widescreen

[LBPound23]

I think that all DVDs should feature the movie in BOTH Widescreen and Fullscreen formats. Columbia/TriStar has been very good in doing this. However, some studios, such as Buena Vista have felt the need to only include widescreen (most of the time non-anamorphic widescreen at that). I would be willing to pay $5 more or so to assure that all titles feature widescreen AND fullscreen versions of the movie where applicable. For me, sometimes I'm in a widescreen mood, sometimes if its not a technically intricate film, I'd rather watch the movie filling up my TV. And none of this two different disc thing like Stuart Little. Having both formats on one disc should please everyone, I mean this really should be the norm. My question is, do you prefer a DVD to have both viewing formats or just widescreen?

[RegniL]

both.
take for example a bug's life.. watching it on widescreen is great.. but with full screen, it just captivates you more in the whole animation aspect.. so yeah, when i feel like i'm in the mood to watch a movie in widescreen on standard, i get to have a choice

[jb523]

Certainly having both is nice, but if space is tight, or time, or other complications come into the production, then the full-frame would be the first to go (if I were in charge)

Widescreen!

The whole purpose of watching a movie is the cinamatic grandure of it all. I personally cannot stand fullscreen adaptations(pan&scan) of wide screen movies. After getting use to widescreen, I often find myself getting motion sickness watching p&s. Not to mention all of the off center picture you loose with a P&S edit. When I first got into movies as a hobby, I was upset with the black bars as are most non videophile consumers. Education and time cured that.

------------------
Please excuse my worse than normal typing as I Had surgery to remove
subcutanious absess and am using only my right arm to type.
"Thank you for your cooperation."

[Blade]

I think all movies should start from the premise of presenting the original aspect ratio of the movie as it was intended to be shown in the theater.

It's called "Home Theater" because we're trying to recreate the theater experience in our homes.

Once they've got that, then if they aren't going to put any extras and it will fit on a single layer (really needs to be under 2hrs for this though), then not putting the P&S only serves to ignore a market that is still not educated about the benefits of widescreen.

But until DVD-18 becomes more cost effective the studios will have to make choices about content and quality. In which case I think Original Aspect Ratio should win out.

------------------
-David

It boils down to what fits and what doesn't. But the main thing is that some studios prefer to present films in widescreen, regardless. Paramount for example has had an all widescreen campaign since last Summer. Columbia Tri-Star may have been good at doing both formats but now with Stuart Little, they are serving the family market and the collector market. Kids don't like widescreen(trust me) and so Columbia decided to do a full blown SE in open-matte & a full blown SE in widescreen. Look at Universal, they offered both formats on seperate DVDs then slowly started phasing out pan & scan/open-matte. 20th Century Fox has had only had two DVDs with open-matte transfers. Anastasia had it due to, again, the children factor. The other film being The Commitments, where the director asked for an open-matte transfer.

You can not really dictate what you like and don't like aymore. Anamorphic widescreen is the future and every studio has begun to embrace it, more or less. DVD can offer a film experience just like theaters, VHS can not. I am not trying to be rude here but Warner Brothers, Columbia-Tri Star, Universal, New Line, and MGM were some of the first studios to do DVD and they are slowly losing the pan & scan transfers. Columbia has even begun phasing out a number of DVDs that had both formats in favor of new SEs with lots of extra content. Warner Brothers "Premiere Series" and budget lines are using widescreen transfers. New Line Cinema has also dropped a number of pan & scan transfers from fims like the Nightmare on Elm Street boxed set and The Astronauts Wife. Universal has phased out pan & scan on a lot of thier newer titles. MGM will begin phasing out pan & scan this year.

Educate yourself LBPound23 at MGM's website about widescreen. The only time pan & scan may ever be used in the near future before its final demise would be childrens titles.

------------------
Bob the Puppet

[Rob Roy]

Stop Promoting Ignorance!

*Warning! Rant Dead Ahead!*

There was one and only one reason for pan & scan's existence: to bring the average home video user into the DVD realm and help make it more mainstream. Now that DVD is no longer a fledgling technology, dependent on masses of uninformed viewers to popularize it, P&S needs to go away completely. No compromise. No whole language in our schools, no P&S on our DVD's. The average home video watcher needs to learn the right way to watch movies. If widescreen bothers anybody that much, then put duct tape across the sides of your tv and sit real close. Better still, tape off the sides to all the pictures in your house. You know, those annoying rectangular ones eating up space in your photo albums?

Sheesh.

*End of Rant*

[LBPound23]

Okay,
I still firmly believe in the power of BOTH widescreen and fullscreen formats on all discs. I agree with the point made by Regnil about A Bug's Life. The fact that Pixar actually reformatted the fullscreen version so that it would be unique is definitely a good thing. Why would anyone not want more stuff on a DVD? That's like saying I only want one of the two existing theatrical trailers for a movie on its DVD release...no one's gonna say that, yet you people are saying that having a second side with the fullscreen format detracts from the movie because blah blah blah...original filmmakers vision. Well, listen, the original filmmaker's vision is to show the movie on a huge 20 foot or so screen. So why would you not want to utilize your entire TV, which is so much smaller than a theater screen to begin with? The fact of the matter is very, very few people currently have widescreen televisions. So the sacrifice you pay if watching the film with about 50% of the screen unutilized and consisting of two black bars. The movie becomes signicantly smaller in scope. While I approve of widescreen and usually will watch a movie in that format, there's no reason studios simply can't use a fullscreen and a widescreen version for every release. Sometimes you want to see the film fill up your screen, regardless if the original ratio is changed or not. Studios should give people the option of deciding for themselves what version they want to watch. After all, the benefit of DVD is that they can store so much info so that containing both versions of the movie is a simple thing. Why not utilize all the benefits on DVD?

[clortho]

I'd agree with that except within 5 years most people will have or be in the market for widescreen hd tv's. That being said, I know I would prefer to have The Matrix anamorphic on a dual layer disk (as it is) giving me the best resolution possible rather than have it look softer because they included a pan&scan version for people who didn't like the 'black bars.'

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

[jb523]

LBPound, I think you're missing our point (I think this mostly when you say "there's no reason studios simply can't use a fullscreen and a widescreen version for every release"). While some of us have strong opinions on the availability on non-director-intended aspect ratios, I suspect that most of us feel that pan&scan or full-frame is an extra feature on dvd that ought to be available A) if room can be spared on the disc without sacrificing (or reducing) the quality of the transfers. B) if they don't spend too much money (that could be spent elsewhere) doing it.

Most of the full-frame/p&s transfers that I've seen, like Blade Runner are of such shitty quality that they can't possibly have cost much money, and were included on a seperate side of the disc (so that we widescreen folks don't have to feel bad about scratching it up). This I can approve of. I cannot approve of the simultaneous release of both versions as seperate titles (a la Patch Adams), nor can I approve of costly new Pan & Scan transfers. Widescreen (by which I mean "correct" aspect ratios) are a part of quality, and if someone wants to hold onto the world of pan&scan, let them hold onto VHS as well. DVD is the widescreen world, with a number of crumbs let out for the pan&scanners/fullframers in the form of low quality transfers on the second side of a disc.

Of course my approval on dvd releases isn't worth much these days. . .

When making a DVD a studio has two main budgets: money and space.

Since a P&S transfer is a manual task, it costs additional $$ to do. (Granted the studio may do one for the VHS release anyway.) But those $$ could also be spent on special features, or the price could be lowered.

The second transfer also eats into the bit budget. Bits (and bandwidth) which they have to allocate to multiple sountracks, captions/subtitles, and other special features. And the once huge 9GB dual layer DVD seems to get used up very fast.

You may scoff at studios releasing multiple versions of the same DVD. But I bet the studios are watching the sales figures for those very closely. So if you want both widescreen and P&S, buy those DVDs when you have the option. (The same goes for feature laden special editions.)

I'm for Widescreen only. I like to see it preserved in the original theather look. I have some that are both and none that are full screen only. I'd have to say I've never watched a standard on DVD or even LD when I had it...

[JHromadka]

I'm for widescreen only. My television is big enough so the bars don't bother me

------------------
James Hromadka
VisorCentral.com

[Rob Roy]

LBPound wrote:

Why would anyone not want more stuff on a DVD?

Why? When it serves to misrepresent the film in the first place. Should The ShadowDVD include news footage of Alec Baldwin pounding a news photgrapher for harassing him and his wife? Should we just cram any old thing onto a DVD that's related? Full screen misrepresentation of widescreen films is NOT a feature. It is a detriment to the art of the film, and should be removed. You want the Louvre to crop all the paintings to a 2x2 foot square so you can "take it all in" easier? Better than craning your neck trying to look at the ones ten feet tall.

I hope you don't think I'm picking on you, LB. It's just I've (obviously) heard that argument before. In all reality, we here in America should have switched to 16:9 TV's as a standard when The Robe came out.

As a former video store employee, I can say with some conviction that DVDs should be both, at least for a few more years. As more people buy DVD players, they are slowly being introduced to widescreen. Most of the customers we had at my store didn't seem to get the concept. Usually it was, "Oh, isn't that where you don't get the entire screen but those black bars instead?" Most people are so used to P/S that they can't grasp widescreen.(Even though they see it in theatres.)

Mind you, there are a few titles that should be full-screen. Blair Witch comes to mind, having been full-screen in the movie theatres. But right now, you have to give Joe Sixpack who just bought a DVD player the option to watch a movie the way he's used to it. Eventually the studios will wean people away from P/S and the rest of us can be happy.

[RegniL]

i have a 60" tv...
this is a big tv, and widescreen isn't a problem when it comes to seeing the movie..
i love widescreen, widescreen is awesome! you get to see (like what most of you have stated) the true aspect ratio..
but seriously, sometimes you just go off and want to watch it fill your screen.. until widescreen tvs are mainstream, i want both.. because it is cool just watching movies on full screen sometimes..
have you guys even seen a bug's life on fullscreen? i walked in the room, and my bro (who doesn't really like widescreen) played this movie on fullscreen, i was like.. whoa, this looks incredible.. it's like the animation and effects have just become so pure!! this would have the same effect with the widescreen version if i had a widescreen tv!!! so, until the time comes, both both both!!!

[LtlPhysics]

Anamorphic widescreen should be a single word. Then you can have lots of extras, hours of 'em, bios, commentaries, director's cuts, historical items, separate music and music scores, rumors, gossip, etc.

If you still have room (dts perhaps?) a full frame former 1.85 version doesn't bother me at all, for the time being. 1.85:1 is really not very wide, at least it doesn't look very wide to me. But it is popular and seems well
suited for the "widescreen tv" ratio of 1.78:1. Ha, that's about as "wide" as a dvd case. Bologna.

Pan & scan really is a horrid sight, it resides in a class of its own and its only merit is that it fills up the tube. I have "Blade Runner" and "Seven Years in Tibet" and they both have a p&s side. To me, that is a waste of space because I know I'll never watch them that way. I've checked. There could have been lots of extras in there (and in Blade Runner's case, an explanation).

[clortho]

Personally, my eyes prefer a wide image to a full screen image. I tried watching A Bug's Life full frame the other night, but I just couldn't do it, I had to switch to the 'theatrical' ratio. And that's on my puny 27" JVC.

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

While I abhor P & S, I would like to see it on the other side of the disc if possible just for the sake of Joe Six-Pack. As others have said above, some people just don't get it. My parents are an example of people who "don't like the black bars", and no amount of explanation on my part will make them see otherwise. I taped them Ben-Hur from TCM (a movie where you easily miis half the picture in the P & S version, and they were not interested.
And those of you who "just want to see the full frame"-watch a pre-widescreen movie! They were made for full frame! I love to put on Casablanca or Strangers on a Train just to see the screen-filling closeups. It doesn't work when you watch a P & S film that way, cuz it wasn't directed that way.

[brian]

I love watching the movies in the original aspect ration and will buy widescreen over p&S anytime. One question though, when widescreen tvs are more popular, will companies make 2.35:1 transfers into 1.85:1 transfers? This would cause a whole new type of pan&scan! pan&scan now is 1.33:1, but maybe in the future, they will get rid of the bars on 2.35 movies once again by making them 1.85. Has anyone else thought of this type of pan&scan?

[Wesly Moore]

Personally...

I will never watch a P&S transfer of a widescreen movie. (I had to exchange a copy of "The Mummy" I received for Christmas because my sister's boyfriend didn't realize there were two separate versions available. Fortunately, I didn't have to tell him. )

I will never buy a P&S-only DVD. (Therefore, I cannot buy current titles like "A Christmas Story," which I would otherwise like to have.)

I don't want to pay a higher price simply because a DVD contains both P&S and widescreen transfers.

I don't want studios to eliminate other special content (supplements, etc.) in order to allow the inclusion of a P&S transfer.

All that said...I don't mind if a P&S transfer is included for the sake of those who might enjoy it. A good example of this is "The Big Lebowski," which includes a P&S transfer on one side but still offers some nice supplementary materials and was not outrageously priced.

------------------
Wesly Moore
------------------
weslymoore@aol.com


[This message has been edited by Wesly Moore (edited 03-17-2000).]

[Chromy]

It's been my understanding that the HD HBO movies that they've shown have been reformated to 16:9.

Its sad, but very real.

HBO's email response said something about "Viewers find letterboxing on a widescreen set to be more offensive than on a 4:3 set" or some garbage like that.

Chromy

I think that all DVD movies for now should have both versions until HDTV ready TVs come down much further down in price. I bought a fairly high-end 27" TV about 3 years ago, and widescreen yields a picture that's too small for me.

I've done some comparisons of widescreen vs. pan & scan versions of movies and yes, I know all the disadvantages (seen extra switching back/forth, stuff chopped off, etc.) ... but at this point, I'd rather utilize all of my TV screen.

If HDTV ready units were cheaper and I didn't have the possibility of moving in the near future, I'd definitely buy a 16:9 HDTV ready unit.

[This message has been edited by phryguy (edited 03-17-2000).]

I have never once chose to watch a full frame when the widescreen was there too. I would rather see what was presented in the theater since I simply refuse to waste my money at the movies. They never get the sound or picture right anyway! I wish Dolby, DTS, & THX would give the kids running the theater a little training on how to properly present a movie. Full frame doesn't bother me, I watch them on HBO, Starz, etc all the time! I think the real problem may be that you need a bigger tv.

Although I don't object to P&S on a disk I never use it. I watch my movies on our 32' 4:3 tv and don't mind the black bars. I believe in watching what was originally filmed. As far as the children not liking widescreen mine have never complained and in fact say they don't mind the bars. I look forward to someday getting a wide screen tv (HDTV and whatever else comes along)until then will still watch the widescreen versions with the black bars. So, any P&S inclusion on a disk is a waste as far as I am concerned but if someone prefers to watch it I guess this is a good thing for them. The idea of selling P&S and widescreen on separate disks sounds like a good idea to me.... they did this with "The Mummy"?

Originally posted by Gaffer:
While I abhor P & S, I would like to see it on the other side of the disc if possible just for the sake of Joe Six-Pack.

I'd rather have some nice artwork on the other side of the disc.

if they continue having both P&S and WS on the same disc, once we get HDTVs there's a chance they'll only release movies in 1.85 and will start croping 2.35 movies to 1.85, so i say ws only so they get used to the bars.

[LtlPhysics]

...Chromy..

It's too bad HBO decided to concoct a line of BS and used it on you. I have had HBO for about eight years and no one has asked me for an opinion on the matter. Who could possibly prefer a cropped 16x9 "Alien" or "2001" and have already told HBO about their pleasure?

In the widescreen future, be it NTSC or hi-def, Joe6pack might say, "Hey, what's dis? I thought you sez da widescreen would get rid of da black bars?" What a mess that would be, cropping everything so Joe doesn't belch and cinematography with 1.78:1 as the common denominator. The theatrical communities have a hand in this, accepting the dimensions of a post card as widescreen.

...RoArKe..

Hang on to your ntsc gear as the future could be narrow and those old tvs with the fuzzy pictures could be the last of 2.35:1.



[This message has been edited by LtlPhysics (edited 03-24-2000).]

[P7A77]

Brooker -

If I had a 32-foot television, I probably wouldn't mind letterboxed movies too much, either.

Tho' even on my 27-inch JVC, I don't think I've ever watched a full-screen DVD of a movie which wasn't intended as such.

And while I can understand the appeal of watching something full screen even (especially?) on a large 4:3 display, the future is wide, and that's what should be available. People are stupid. They need to be taught what's right. Even if it means someone has to get hurt.

But on this subject (and I'm surprised I haven't seen it mentioned)... when I was first looking into DVD, I remember reading somewhere that players could create cropped versions of widescreen movies on the fly (similar to the anamorphic downconversion). What happened to that? Is it more along the lines of something that has to be programmed into the disc? But if it is, I imagine such a thing would take up much less space than a full P&S transfer, so why isn't it done? I can understand some movies already have the P&S done (or are being done for VHS), but with some of these special editions coming out, it seems that this would be worthwhile.

[Wesly Moore]

Originally posted by P7A77:
I remember reading somewhere that players could create cropped versions of widescreen movies on the fly (similar to the anamorphic downconversion). What happened to that?...it seems that this would be worthwhile.

I seem to recall reading early coverage that touted this as a great feature of the DVD format. As far as I can see, it never materialized. I have read recently of one or two titles (can't remember which ones) that use, I believe, the subtitle feature to implement optional letterboxing bars. This would really only be useful for open-matte full-frame presentations, but it is interesting. I imagine that doing a true pan-and-scan on the fly presents all sorts of technical hurdles. I shudder at the thought of different players interpreting the pan-and-scan instructions differently.

Not that it will ever matter to me, of course, as I will never in this life watch a pan-and-scan transfer if I can help it.


------------------
Wesly Moore
------------------
weslymoore@aol.com

[LtlPhysics]

Speaking of vapor-features, I remember an article that predicted 625 lines, which would have been nice.