Slashdot Mirror
Widescreen (Finally) Winning
Yort writes "There's a little blurb over at the IMDB about customers at Blockbuster now generally preferring the widescreen, or letterbox, format over full-screen. This after Blockbuster tried to only stock full screen versions of movies a few years ago. I guess now the wife will have to let me buy that new widescreen TV, right?"
Widescreen is undeniably a lot better way to watch a movie, and I'm sure that TV makers like it, because no one wants to watch a widescreen movie on a small TV
I think it will be really nice in a few years when widescreen TV's are the norm.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
Still, I have to admit that those plasma TVs look darn nice!
This site has some samples of movies in widescreen format and the result that one will get in the full screen format. widescreen.org.
The full screen version of LoTR is really bad because of its original screen ratio.
The masses choose wide screen over full screen! Next, we have to wean them off of pro wrestling, Brittany Spears, and lite beer and the 2000s won't end up being an embarrassment to history! Or at least we'll be cooler than the 1920s, with their flagpole sitting and zootsuits.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
While I think releasing DVDs in widescreen is the way to go, I've noticed that more and more programs on my TV are being letterboxed, probably becuase programs are increasingly being distributed and broadcast in HD.
Meanwhile the effective size of my TV screen is being erroded beacuse of this letterboxing. Damned progress.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Considering that the cost of front projection DLP is falling fast, I'd skip the widescreen tv route entirely. You get whatever aspect ratio you need.
Even if you do go rear rear projection or tubes, I think I'd still go with a bigger 4:3 (as long as it supported 16x9 compression, like the Sony's or JVCs)
My parents always watch DVDs in pan-n-scan, because my dad says "We bought a big tv and that widescreen doesnt use it, what a waste!", but I personally ONLY watch DVD's in widescreen unless not available. You can see a lot more of whatever is going on, I feel. :)
-Bill
-Bill
I find, generally, that when you say 'aspect ratio' to your average layperson they say 'gesundheit'.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
isn't HD tv's native format widescreen? wouldn't this help to get every type of TV media on the same page?
SOME TV is not broadcast in wide screen. Some is. I'm pretty sure all of the late-night shows are filmed in wide screen now for example.
Now, whether the broadcaster in your area is broadcasting that wide-screen signal, or your cable provider is carrying it, is another matter entirely.
paintball
Call me a snob, a bigot, whatever. But I cannot fathom how people stomach non-widescreen. I mean, it's cutting off sizeable chunks of what the director intended you to see. With competent editing it is a disaster. With incompetent editing it's unwatchable.
How the hell are you supposed to watch Kubrick or Kurosawa, for that matter, on a format other than they shot it in and not walk away with (almost literally) half the picture?
My
Limekiller
Because most modern movies are recorded in Cinemascope, which is not 16:9, but 2.35:1. So cool movies like LOTR still have a nice black bar on the top and bottom when viewed on a Shiny! 16:9 plasma screen.
I realize that to provide both a widescreen and a fullscreen version, with 5.1 sound and little encoding artifacts, would generally require a second disk for most feature films, I don't understand the trend currently for many newer movies to have separate boxes for Wide and Full, particularly when the version info is not easy to pick out (Now whenever I get a DVD, I doublecheck the back of the box to get all the formatting information to make sure it's what I expect). The old Warner DVD titles were flippies in that one side was full, the other wide, but this means you didn't have a picture on the DVD media itself (oh, boo hoo!). It would seem to me that providing both versions of the movie on a flippy disk in one box would be cheaper than making up two distribution runs, particularly when the number of full vs. wide is still rapidly changing.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The widescreen version is better because it is the full frame as the cinematographer and director intended. Anything 'pan and scan' cuts out about a third of the frame. But we all know that.
;-).
I bought a widescreen HDTV a few months ago and I must say there is no going back to standard 4:3. Even if you do not watch/get HD feeds, I highly recommend the new widescreen HDTVs for DVD watching. Even without my HD receiver, I'd still have purchased the TV just for the DVD experience. Now, of course, I'm an anamorphic snob
--- witty signature
I guess asking "Do you have this in widescreen?" every time I rented from Blockbuster actually made a difference, eh? (I mean the collective difference of thousands of movie fanatics all doing the same thing.)
I rented the Bourne Identity last week, and imagine my surprise when I got it home and realized it was the Pan&Scan version. Now, there's a reason why I have a widescreen TV -- I like widescreen. I don't want to spend $4.50 on a movie rental and then lose half of the image. This wouldn't be so bad if the DVD display case said in prominent lettering "Fullscreen Version" or "NOT Widescreen", but it said nothing. Since it didn't explicitly say it was the fullscreen version, I just naively assumed that DVD == Widescreen unless otherwise specified. I won't be fooled again. I guess I'll stick with Netflix from now on.
Here in the UK quite a lot of the digital channels are broadcast in widescreen, and all the free-to-air digital channels are.
Seems like almost all the TVs in the shops are widescreen now, as well.
Sit closer.
paintball
Flame all you want, but after the first month, approximately 100% of people who watch any movie will be watching it on a T.V., so why the hell wouldn't you design the movie to be seen on that medium?
A few directors do that, Stanley Kubrick shot most of his films in something closer to a TV ratio (the top and bottom would be cropped off in theatres) and I read an interview with Cronenberg where he stated that he tried to frame his films with the expectation they will be shown in a television ratio.
If only widescreen TVs would become more commonly available in the USA - last time I was back in Britain visiting family I found you were hard pressed even to find a 4:3 TV in stores. The little 10" TV/VCR combo units were about the only ones left, everything else was 16:9. This is because the upcoming DTV standard for Europe is 16:9.
That said, Panasonic sell a nice 30" and 34" 16:9 HDTV tube TV in this country. Movies and videogames look phenomenal those sets and they're a lot cheaper than plasma displays.
Graham
Without having any hard numbers, I'd guess the average home's screen size has gone up in the last few years. I know I didn't start opting for the widescreen until we got a big tv, and I had the screen real estate to enjoy the movie without squinting.
You know what?
With decent (not great!) 27" TVs dipping below $200, the median size of TVs in US households must be significantly higher than it was a few years ago. This tends to resolve the tradeoff between letterbox and fullscreen in favor of letterbox.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Your DVD player has a zoom feature (most do, anyways). USE IT! That way we both win.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Where were you shopping, and whereabouts do you live?
No, seriously... 4:3 is nice for a newsreporter, or a solo artist etc. But compared to the human field of vision, it's hopeless. And if you're looking to convey a "realistic" scene, you can either squeeze all the actors together, or you can have basicly a lot of ground and sky that would be "outside" the letterbox. Either way it sucks, and I'm glad we're moving to a format that is at least closer to the experience you get at a cinema. Note that cinema producers would actually like it even more rectangular, like 1,85:1 or 2,35:1. Personally I have a 32" widescreen (not HD) TV, and it's great for watching DVDs.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Sony 4:3 televisions have a feature that will compress the scan lines into a 16:9 format. You lose surface area, but you don't lose any of the pixels. Great way to get quality 16:9 movie playback on the cheap (less than a thousand bucks).
Jonathan Pearce jonathan@pearce.name
3EAAFB2A http://www.jonathan.pearce.name/
The saddest thing I've seen lately is a letter-boxed widescreen movie played on a widescreen TV in a store display. The letterbox effect printed on the DVD shrunk the image vertically to accommodate the aspect ratio of most TVs. The widescreen TV, for some unfathomable reason, stretched the image it was given to fit the wider aspect ratio of the widescreen TV. The result was a short, elongated version of the original movie, and I don't think the implementation could have been further from the intent of its designers (the film makers). There's no way I was going to even consider buying that TV. Unfortunately, most of the "widescreen" TVs I look at (casual inspection only) seem to be pulling the same "stretch it a little and no one will notice" trick, so unless I hear that the industry is making an effort to coordinate solutions I'm not putting my hard-earned $thousands into the new technology.
Two possible solutions:
(1) sell widescreen format movies that look weird on normal sets because they'd be squished horizontally.
(2) make the TV able to recognize the letterbox format and adjust intelligently.
My vote is on option 2 - better backwards compatibility. I just hope that the industry picks soon and sticks with the decision.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
Uh, because movie screens in the theater are widescreen, and if movie people took you literaly, they'd be making movies at 640 X 480 that would look like garbaggio on the big screen. Film makers make films, otherwise, they'd be called ... television directors.
Widescreen is better because that's how you see life. Try looking straight ahead, can you see more up and down or left and right?
Wherever you go, there you are!
I can't remember the source, but I read that originally, movies were played in something closer to a 4:3 ratio, but once people started getting home TVs, the motion picture industry widened the picture in an attempt to entice people back to the theaters, offering them something they couldn't get at home (wider picture).
Also, widescreen is debateably better because its closer to the aspect ratio at which you see (more wide than tall), so it fills more of your vision.
Personally what gets me is the two widescreen standards... it kills me to have a 53" tv, but still have the top and bottom black because some movies were shot at 2.3ish : 1 instead of 16:9.
Every now and then, a dead end technology pops up, only to disappear in the mists of history.
As long as widescreen isn't filling the entire screen, beacuse it isn't, it will never conquer the home market. For cinemas it's an entirely different thing, of course.
Those who tout widescreen as the next big thing, might be interested in the fact that there is not yet a single consumer widescreen camcoder on the market. Coincidence?
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
America lags behind in consumer adoption. I hear the Japanese are pretty much all widescreen too.
On a side note, I was just noticing how widescreen TV is utterly dependent on flatscreen technology of varying kinds. Too bad widescreen films didn't appear until 1953, after 4:3 TV format was established.
In any case, I don't think you'll see greater adoption of 16:9 until they're comparable in price to 4:3, which may follow the death of the CRT.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
You care about the picture and you still buy Video Tapes?
Perhaps you should buy your sister a $50 DVD player instead of purchasing movies on 8-track video tape.
I was over at my cousin's place last week, and he bought one of those massive 60 inch wide screen tvs. I thought it was pretty damn cool, until I noticed something disturbing - even when we were watching something on ABC, NBC, or any other major network on TV in widescreen, we still had the black lines at the top of the screen like you would on a square tv. He has DirecTV, and all I could think is that this had something to do with the DirecTV feed, but I have no idea. I didn't get to see a DVD played on it, so I don't know how it worked like that. But, the widescreen stuff displaying like that on TV made me not want a big TV because the actors faces were all scrunched up, and you still had that annoying black space on the screen. I thought the point of the widescreen tv was to eliminate that crap. We messed around with all the display settings on the TV, but never thought to mess with the directv settings.
The second example from the bottom is enough to sell me on widescreen.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Now that Widescreen format is winning, we can press for anamorphic transfers and get rid of letterboxing. The sun will shine, birds will sing, and there will be much rejoicing.
(Using an anamorphic transfer fills the DVD frame with picture information - if any letterboxing needs to be done, it's done by the DVD player, and only for those displays that require it.)
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
Sounds like a fitting punishment to me. If they don't notice that half the damned movie's missing anyway...
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
We live on a horizontal planet. Most things tend to be horizonally arranged, people stand NEXT to each other, not on top of each other, things generally travel horizontally, and you usually peer around things to the left or right as opposed to over or under. Thus a 2.35:1 aspect ratio makes more sense than a 1.33:1 one, as you tend to show more action in a given scene instead of more sky or dirt.
Or put another way, it's easier to frame two objects that exist in a horizonal world in one big, horizontal rectangle than it is to squeeze those two objects in something more square.
No matter how much you spent for a TV, or what format the movie is presented in, a 32" TV will still give you a larger picture than a 27" TV, even if there's some unused space.
Additional bad news for you - if you're watching a 2.35:1 ratio movie in wide screen, you're not even using half of your screen!
But wouldn't you be pissed if you bought a movie and then only got to see 50% of it?
paintball
I guess I am that kind of moron! I spent $1200 on 32" Sony Vega (some call it a Wega) TV 3 years ago. At the time, it was damn good. I just wish I could have gotten the 36" at the time. By the way, I would rather of paid that much for a tube based tv instead of that much for a much larger projection based tv. The quality is so much better.
in 30 years there will be a new generation of geeks telling us about all the advantages of this new "SquareScreen"(tm) movie format.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When my dad went to buy his home theatre, they we're trying to sell us a widescreen tv. I looked at both the widescreen model, and the same priced 4:3 model next to it (at the same ~price). The 4:3 model was about 3-5 cm's less wide, but the widescreen model was around 15 cm's less tall. So by sacraficing 3 or so cms of width on your widescreen content, you gained a huge amount on your fullscreen content.... For the price we got about as good a wide screen out of the normal aspect ratio screen.... Widescreen tvs are a lot more expensive for their viewing area (at least when I looked)....
You'll notice that more and more of the digital TVs that are coming out are more widescreen than previous generations. They're slowly trying to move everyone over to widescreen, because, well, it's just a better format to watch stuff in.
Hopefully these TVs will come with an option NOT to stretch out regular sized stuff such as VHS and regular TV.
Please excuse my blathering.
I am a filthy pirate.
My bad. You'd be using just over half of your screen when watching a 2.35:1 ratio movie in letterbox.
Close enough for government work.
paintball
I am curios as to if Widescreen is really a better format for things beside movies? I am curious if there is any advantage to widescreen for standard made for tv/video releases? I know widescreen is good for the movies and therefore it is best to watch the movies in their original form but quite frankly, I don't see the problem with standard 4:3 for everything else?
The black bars somewhat the fault of the dvd format.
The dvd format should have allowed the definition of a center point of a sequence of frames. Then all movies could be made widescreen with center references, and those movies could be watched on letter box or fullscreen, without having two separate movies on the disc. In fact, assuming the center point is 2d, a native full-screen movie could also be presented on a full wide screen in a fairly accurate fasion.( center line point moves up so I am looking at the talking guys face instead of his shirt.)
Here in The South Sandwich Islands we are are lucky enough to have the new High Screen system, it looks just like wide screen only higher, pretty much just like the old TV used to look before you had to move your head from side to side to watch all the action.
I think you're thinking of James Cameron
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Depends on the TV, DVD disc and DVD player.
I'm not familiar with the ratio in use in the US but in the UK a widescreen TV uses a 16:9 ratio. This ratio is the best compromise ratio between the different widescreen formats and traditional 4:3.
A good widescreen TV will have various picture modes, a good DVD player will have similar options.
You will still get some black bars if the movie has a very wide ratio, can't be avoided without losing some horizontal image. Look at the screen at the cinema closely next time you are there, there's often a portion of the screen at the top and bottom that remains unused.
I'd have to say on handhelds and small devices (like portable DVD players... anything less than a laptop) fullscreen is superior. Of course the assumption would then be you are watching it on a portable device because you have no other option (i.e. travel) and are just looking for something to save you from crushing boredom.
Of course I don't watch movies that way and I don't know many people who do. And if I did I wouldn't feel the desire to duplicate my DVD collection for road trips.
So... eh. I guess this is only good for the idle rich.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hey, did you see that awesome parody website? I felt like the spam i get was almost worth it.
I can't wait until Joe Sixpack gets a HDTV (when they get cheaper) and finds out that all his "full-frame" DVDs have those "damned black bars" on the sides...
Except that Halo is a 4:3 game, not 16:9. Sure, you can display it in fullscreen mode on a wide TV, but that's just stretching things horizontally. The XBox supports 480p (4:3 and 16:9), 720p, and 1080i (only 16:9 for both of those, IIRC), but only if the developers choose to support them in their game. 480p 4:3 generally comes for free. 480p 16:9 may have some effect on your textures or HUD. 720p and 1080i generally need you to rethink your engine design.
That said, Halo2 is supposed to support 480p 16:9 and 720p, so you will eventually be able to experience a Halo game in widescreen glory. Just not now.
There are a few widescreen games out there, though. Hitman2 (480i 16:9, not 480p), Sega GT 2002, Tony Hawk 4 (and possibly 3? 720p, 480p 16:9), Amped, and more. Check out this thread for an ongoing list.
"Pan-and-scan is formatted for the small-minded."
approximately 100% of people who watch any movie will be watching it on a T.V., so why the hell wouldn't you design the movie to be seen on that medium?
well, here in the UK, they *are* designing their movie to be viewed on tv. we've mostly converted to widescreen here... and in much of the rest of europe. you have to go out of your way to find 4:3 stuff, both hardware and software. a friend of mine is looking for the second harry potter film on dvd in 4:3 and it's not available yet. you've been able to get the widescreen one for a while now but the 4:3 one is not even out.
dave
Screw Blockbuster. Go with Netflix. They seem to use exclusively widescreen (unless it's not available for a certain movie).
I have a 3 disc changer on my DVD player, so for movies with more than one disc, like LOTR, I just push a button and it switches discs.
Great for VCD/SVCD movies on multiple discs too.
For double sided DVDs, like the one I have of animated Spawn episodes from Wal-Mart's $5 bin, I have to open the tray, get up, switch to a different disc so I can get at the one I need to flip over, flip it, close the tray, switch back to that disc....
Sure it's not hard, but pushing one button is a lot easier, especially if the movie itself is on more than one disc. I can live with a bit of work for extras, but getting up in the middle of the actual movie is annoying.
Personally what gets me is the two widescreen standards...
there aren;t really 2 widescreen standards.. there aren;t really any widescreen standards.. they shoot it in the aspect ratio they feel like.
dave
... linked in the intro. I saw that at my local Best Buy. I wanted it. I considered it. I realized that if I bought it I'd better be prepared to move in to the box when my wife finds out how expensive it is. And the box on that thing is way too small for my big fat arse.
"You spent how much on a tv?!?!"
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
If at all possible, I don't watch anything in 4:3. Any widescreen movies converted to 4:3 are absolutely butchered.
But an interesting thing I noticed recently was a movie that had different versions on both sides (The Truth about Charlie). But, rather than the 4:3 or native aspect ratio choice that many movies give; it had choices of 16:9 or native 2.35:1.
I find that the "butchering" is much less severe when going from 2.35:1 down to 16:9 / 1.78:1. But, I chose the 2.35:1 side, to see the movie in it's full glory.
BTW - The movie was less than stellar, except for the presence of Thandie Newton.. She is gorgeous.. which helps improve any action movie (she was the hot spy chick in Mission Impossible 2)
they neglected something on this one....
blockbuster still continues the practice of stocking only widescreen formats. My local BB here in CNY had like 40 some copies of harry potter 2 on dvd. the entire group was widescreen only. I've noticed this for several other titles.
not that I'm saying widescreen isn't better, but it seems in my head wouldn't that impair a studies nbrs a bit if some big new releases aren't even sotcked with an option ?!?
Fear Breeds Knowledge
4:3 = 1.33
16:9 = 1.77
2.35:1 = 2.35 (duh)
I don't understand why there is all this furor over "what the director intended". Really, who cares what the director intended? If you're interested in your own viewing pleasure, the movie should be watched in the way that is most enjoyable to you and not the director. If that means 16:9 for you, then great. But just because a director may have "intended" for something to be seen a certain way doesn't mean that he/she knows how the audience will want to see it. Nobody has to tell me what I like and don't like.
Who knows. Maybe Kubrick would be all the more profound if you only watched half the picture.
My point? Preaching preferences is pointless.
Because the vast majority of TV content is letterbox. The original point of having a wide screen cinema wasn't to make the screen 'wide' but to make it 'huge'. In our living rooms, it usually doesn't do anything but make the TV seem smaller. I personally would prefer to have a normal screen with a few inches on the top and bottom during a movie then a wide screen with the bars on the side while watching regular TV.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Another advantage of letterbox format, at least when watching foreign films, is that any subtitles can be presented in white text on the (lower) black background, which can greatly improve readability.
Yeah, because the different aspect ratio is so much better. Soon, they'll be chopping off random parts of TV shows to make them look 'cooler'
Widescreen TVs have less surface area at the same linear size. The reason they are better for movies is because movies are shot that way. It's totally arbitrary.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
baldeep writes:
"Really, who cares what the director intended? If you're interested in your own viewing pleasure, the movie should be watched in the way that is most enjoyable to you and not the director. If that means 16:9 for you, then great."
The director, presumably, added "information" to the mix when he shot the thing. Without a director you have a camera pointed in one direction, permanently. So the director has value, as long as you do not take the stance that the director is so bad that the movie would be better off if the camera was stationary or perhaps turned off entirely. But if you take the position of "getting away from what the director intended is irrelevant" then why not just watch pure tv static? Or stare at a photograph for two hours? You've just negated what the director intended, just to a more absolute degree.
"But just because a director may have "intended" for something to be seen a certain way doesn't mean that he/she knows how the audience will want to see it. "
If you are going to a movie with the posit that the directors input is worthless then I can't imagine why you'd go in the first place!
"My point? Preaching preferences is pointless."
Here I see your point. I, myself, am a big fan of the "arguing over opinion is stupid" school of thought. But I'm not sure this qualifies. I'm not saying you cannot enjoy a movie move when information has been clipped out of it but merely that it is less likely to be the case. Again, back to my static example. If you accept the logical premise that cutting out parts of the film is analagous to adding noise (read; static) one, I think, without resorting to argument over opinion, quantitatively and conclusively say that less static is "better."
My
Limekiller
Actually, most movies today are shot in 1.85:1 aspect ratio, NOT 2.35:1 aspect ratio. This is because the 1.85:1 aspect ratio is the hard-matted default aspect ratio of the large movie cameras from Panavision and Arriflex.
It's only blockbuster movies that are shot in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, mostly to give a bigger sense of epic sweep. For example, the three Lord of the Rings movies are shot this way because we are talking three movies that we can easily call epics.
The reason why every HDTV system around the world chose 16:9 (1.78:1) aspect ratio is that it's very close to the 1.85:1 aspect ratio used by movie cameras.
I'm not sure how the pricing is now, but when I bought my TV, you paid a big premium for a 16:9 screen. In fact, it was so large a premium that buying a 32" 4:3 TV was a LOT cheaper than a 27" 16:9. If you do the math, the 32" displaying a 16:9 image is equivalent to a 29" 16:9 screen.
And of course, a 4:3 tv is a lot more useful for the bulk of television programming.
(The TV in question is an absolutely awesome Samsung Tantus digital. Highly recommend it!)
Bullshit. Movies aren't just entertainment. They are art.
Would you cut up a picasso into a smaller painting because you didn't care for other parts of the painting?
Or what about removing certain anatomically correct parts of michelangelo's david for the purpose of censorship?
Art should not and never be modified except by its creator. Period. Not even if it makes it more interesting for you.
- The early worm gets eaten by the bird.
Actually, I picked up a floor model Mitsubishi HDTV widescreen (65") for $1,995 -- a far cry from $10,000.
You can get non-HD widescreens for under $1,000 now.
Actually, I only care about widescreen for movies and gaming -- both Xbox and PS2 have HD connectors and do widescreen and sometimes HD.
Surround sound Halo on a 65" HDTV is something to behold. I can't wait to pick up DOA2: Extreme Beach Vollyball! Hires rendered 3D T&A!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I know movies look better in wide screen format, but that's because they're shot that way, and a lot of people now have an association between letterboxing and 'quality' in their minds.
:P
On the other hand, I think the whole concept of wide screen TVs are stupid. A widescreen TV will always have less surface area then a 4:3 TV with the same diagonal size. That's right, you can fit more on a normal TV then you can on a wide screen one. When you have a projector, you can fill up a whole wall from floor to ceiling, and most walls are much wider then they are tall. For situations like that, wide screen is actually bigger. But with a tube or flat-panel TV, a wide screen box will always be smaller then a 4:3 box. It's also nice to have the letterbox for subtitles...
The shape with the most surface area would be a circle. But I think most people would agree it would be pretty strange
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I've seen DVD playback on a widescreen projection TV from a progressive-scan DVD player and the picture quality is OUTSTANDING. =)
Yes, on movies shot in 2.35:1 aspect ratio you will still see some letterboxing on 16:9 widescreen TV, but it is much less obtrusive than playing back that same movie on a 4:3 aspect ratio TV.
Who would want that?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Many movies are shot in 4:3, and then parts of the top and bottom are cut off for the theatre release. So the TV (4:3) version is the entire original, whereas the widescreen (16:9) version is essentially a vertical version of pan-and-scan. This is true of all pre-1953 movies, and funny you should mention Kubrick, because that's how he filmed almost all his films.
So let me ask you with the wide-screen TV the same question then: how the hell are you supposed to watch Kubrick on a format other than they shot in and not walk away with (almost literally) half the picture?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Not to worry.
Because one of the big selling points of the US ATSC digital TV standard IS 1080i/720p 16:9 aspect ratio high-definition broadcasts, I expect an acceleration of more and more new TV sets (CRT, flat panel, rear and front projection) to go to 16:9 aspect ratio over the next few years. Indeed, I can guess by 2006 the US market will have passed the point where most new sets will sport 16:9 aspect ratios.
This will happen when CRT tube manufacturers learn how to produce 16:9 aspect ratio CRT tubes cheaply over the next few years.
All pre-1953 movies, and many well-known later ones (most of Kubrick's stuff, for example) were shot in 4:3. Then they cut out about a third of the frame to chop it down to 16:9 for the widescreen release. So when you watch the original 4:3 version, you're actually seeing what the cinematographer intended.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
All pre-1953 movies were shot in 4:3 (as well as some later ones, notably Kubrick's stuff). Thus you either have to do a vertical version of "pan-and-scan" to show Gone With the Wind in 16:9, or you need vertical black bars.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Pardon the dupe post: If you compare a widescreen DVD with the same movie on TV, you'll find that pan-and-scan doesn't just chop of the sides. They are forced to chop off less of the sides if they also reveal more of the top and bottom, since both changes make the frame closer to the 1.33:1 of TV. (Look closely at these FOTR examples.)
Directors know this is going to happen, and they have to account for it. They can't let a microphone or a dolly track appear right above or below the frame, though sometimes (as the parent indicated) one slips by. The viewfinders that they use don't have just one rectangle, but several: one for theatrical release, one for TV, and now ones for HDTV and other "future" scenarios, all superimposed.
This is a little sad because it means directors can't explore the edges of their frames any more. They're forced to compose every shot so that the characters appear in the intersection of all the rectanges -- in trying to please every distribution scenario, everything has to be in the boring center of the frame.
I'm glad the general public is starting to come around to letterboxing, so maybe we can eliminate pan-and-scan once and for all.
A side note too: the prints that are shipped to theaters aren't matted; it's up to the projectionist to use the correct lens (anamorphic or no) and the right set of physical mattes. Whenever you see a boom lower into the frame it's almost always the projectionist's fault. I actually went to complain to the usher at a neighborhood theater that the movie wasn't matted right, but she looked at me like I had two heads.
Most widescreen movies have a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. A widescreen TV is 16:9, which works out to a AR of about 1.7. DVDs are encoded with either 1.33 (4:3) or 1.85 aspect. 2.35 widescreen movies are actually encoded at 1.85 and then scretched out to the appropriate width, complete with the black bars on top and bottom (look closely at a badly transferred/encoded DVD sometime, you'll notice the bars). In fact, anything that is not 4:3 is anamorphically encoded in 1.85 with approriately thick bars, or letterboxed in a 4:3 frame.
So there aren't too many combinations for your DVD player to handle.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Disclaimer: I prefer widescreen.
Anti-disclaimer: But I can see why not everyone would.
For low-resolution formats such as VHS, full-screen may still be preferrable, since you've only got so many pixels[*] to play with, and using up a third of the picture with black bars further lowers the effective vertical resolution of the actual picture.
Of course I realise that strictly it's not 'adding black bars' but zooming out to see the full picture, but the result is the same.
The big advantage with widescreen is being able to see the 'whole' scene, not just the centre of attention. There are some movies where what's happening at the periphery of the screen just isn't important (mainly chick flicks, I guess), but you want to see as much detail as possible in the foreground (auch as characters faces, or writing on surfaces). In these circumstances full-screen may be preferrable to widescreen.
Another case is when you're a poor student and only have a 14" telly. Suddenly screen real-estate becomes paramount, and wide-screen just isn't an option unless you want to park your chair 1 metre from the set.
[*] I realise that in the video industry the term 'pixels' is discouraged since measurements are done in 'lines'. Video signals are stored and transmitted in pixels nonetheless.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Weclome to the club! ;-)
For what it's worth, I debated long and hard, and despite wanting a widescreen tv, really badly, there just aren't enough tv programs in New Zealand that are widescreen (about none I think) - so I'll live with black bands during movies - at least until I can afford a projector...
If you want something MUCH cheaper try
www.visualapex.com
Outstanding service, and Plasma TV's at a great price!
About 2 months ago I actually sat down and sent an email to Blockbuster saying that I was disappointed that they carried one movie in only Fullscreen. I did get a response back from them that sounded like they have received more than my email. I also said that if they didn't carry it in Widescreen I would go to Rogers (which is probably their biggest competition in Canada) since they usually did. Glad to see somethings do work by sending (constructive) feedback.
The funny thing is they seem to be carrying sometimes both widescreen and full for the same movie (i.e Red Dragon) All the widescreen versions were mostly gone however only about 3 of 20 copies in fullscreen were taken.
I do not like wide screen at all. I do not know why people are calling wide screen some kind of movie gimmic. It seems obvious to anyone with geometry 101 that a theater full of people is better suited by a rectangle than a square. But when you are close to the screen, a square seems more natural. So at home the TV has a more ergonomic shape, and the rectangle is more ergonomic for the theater.
I do not like wide screen TVs at home. I don't really see the point besides not losing something from the widescreen movies.
As I understand it, when you see a tv ratio image in the theatres the left and right sides are not in use rather than the image being enlarged and cropped.
Normally yes, but Kubrick was unusual in that he shot his films from the Shining on so that nothing important was shown in the top and bottom sixths of the screen. This interview goes into more detail.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html
All old movies are actually shot in 4:3 and intended to be shown that way, since 16:9 is a later format (introduced to keep people from watching movies on their TVs instead of paying to see them in the theater). Also, Kubrick (among others) shot in the full 4:3 and used that cut for the TV releases, since he didn't like the way pan-and-scan mangled 16:9 cuts. So you're actually getting more of the movie with the 4:3. Sure, the 16:9 version's cut is overseen by the director, but it's still a cut-down version of the 4:3 in some cases.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
the widescreen format is inferior to pan-and-scan. I run the movie department of a local grocery store and most people don't understand the concept of "those black bars at the top and bottom." I used to get frustrated and try to explain to them that they are really seeing the whole movie, but it looks smaller on their TV, so the average person doesn't want it. I've been buying widescreen movies since they were available on VHS, and I can remember watching many of them on my 13" TV. That's not to say everyone can do it, though. Most people just want to watch a movie, and don't care about the trees on the side of the scene that get cut out in pan and scan format.
Anymore, I just explain the differences to my customers but let them discover on their own which format they prefer. I can understand the reasons behind choosing pan and scan, even though I know it means you have to effectively miss out on half of the movie.
http://www.walkingtaco.com
Plasma screens are friggin' awesome. BUT... there's no way I'd spend $10,000 on an appliance. Then again, I bought my car used and built my own PC.
since standard VHS uses 240 scanlines (had to look up the exact number), multiply by the ratios and it comes out to 192 lines in use.
Of course the number would be lower for films (most big-budget films today) which are actually done in a 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
173 or so for 1.85
136 or so for 2.35 (lord of the rings for instance uses this res).
Anamorphic DVD on the other hand, on a good TV with 16:9 native or squeeze mode will use all 480 lines for 16:9 material, and the relevant fractions for "wider" screens. Much much better.
And aspect ratios in the replies here. For the VAST majority of you misinformed Slashdotters, try this site. You may learn something.
As a fan of pro wrestling I am offended to placed in the company of lite beer drinkers...
Seriously, I would like to know what you have against wrestling.
We're talking about entirely two different things here. Art is not destroyed by modifying a COPY of the original. Rather, if anything, new art is being created. If I take a Picasso painting and cut it into pieces, perhaps for making a puzzle, is this some sort of sacrilege? I doubt it. I'm not storming a studio and destroying the original. I'm just saying that I should be able to view a movie the way I want to. If I like to watch a movie standing on my head, is this wrong because I'm not watching it the way the director intended? Or what if I just burn a DVD for myself and cut out some tiresome chase scenes?
...can be found here.
Props to The Digital Bits for the link.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
I agree widescreen is better for getting a better view of the action (after all, your eyes are used to looking left and right), but it's also the responsibility of the director to make the focus of the frame isn't spread to both extremities of the picture. Think about it, you're always focused on one part of the image (especially in the theatre), and having something happening far away would generally be bad. That's why most movies DO translate to 4:3 fairly well, because directors usually keep that in mind.
Don't expect your good ol' 4:3 format go by the wayside anytime soon, there's still some people with black and white TV's out there!
Great, now I can watched widescreen NC-17 and other films edited by the studio for "family-friendly" stores like Blockbuster and Walmart because these stores will refuse to carry content they find religiously/morally questionable. The studios don't want to lose money so there goes the penis scene from Bad Lieutenant. I can't remember any others from the top of my head, but the editing is quite real.
They need to widen their tolerance not their aspect ratios.
everyone seems to complain about how expensive 16:9 sets are yet they don't mind spending up to $4k+ for a heavy ass 4:3 RPTV.
t m
f m? part_id=1947&trig=1
f m? part_id=1949&trig=1
I got a few solutions for people wanting to get in on the 16:9 game for cheap. i noticed a few people mentioned DPL front projectors but everyone else started to complain about how expensive 16:9 sets are and how they hate the black bars in widescreen dvds etc, etc.
those people that talked about DPL have the right idea on how to best get into 16:9 movies they rent at their local blockbuster but you gotta realize that some people are affect by what is called the rainbow effect of DPLs.
this when the light produced by the DPL chip are passed through a 3 color spinning wheel which in turn produces the effect that give some people headaches.
there is always LCD based projectors available that are cheaper, sure they have what is called the screen door effect but it's nothing a little defocusing of the lens can get rid of.
ok here are the solutions i was talking about. first up is sony's HS10. check out this projector central review:
http://www.projectorcentral.com/sony_vpl_hs10.h
the problem with the sony right now is that it's pretty hard to get one right now since the demand is pretty high and sony is just barely getting to finally catch up to the demand.
they usually can be found for about $2500 and sometimes even $2200. next is the panasonic PT-200U:
http://www.projectorcentral.com/online_prices.c
and its older brother the PT-300U:
http://www.projectorcentral.com/online_prices.c
these 2 projectors are perfect for watching DVDs since their resolutions pretty much matches the dvd resolution spec. i hear from owners that HDTV looks pretty awesome on it too.
i mean come on, who wouldn't want to watch hockey or the super bowl on a 90"+ screen. I just don't get how some people can keep buying into the HUGE heavy HDTV RPTV craze when you can get something smaller and lighter that can produce an image just as good as those TV's but lots bigger. especially the sony projector.
then you can REALLY call it Home theater. I chuckle to myself when i read internet message posts about home theater and they just talk about those RPTV. they are just fooling themselfs with those tv's. well thats my $0.02
I remember reading an article in a magazine several years ago about this. It was around 1994-95 when the DVD standard was being hammered out.
16:9 was chosen because it was a compromise between 4:3 and the various movie formats. There were mathematical reasons why they arrived at 16:9, but I forget what they were. I know 16:9 is the square of 4:3. I think it had to do with, yes, 16:9 being very close to 1.85 and 2.35:1 being close to 4/3ds of 16:9.
I do vividly remember there was a diagram with rectangles representing all the popular aspect ratios, and 16:9 fit between them in some ideal way. It also had to do with things like how a letterboxed DVD would look on a legacy TV, how a 4:3 TV show would look on a 16:9 screen, etc.
...this guy is going to be so upset.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement I think.
It's not my opinion that a director adds nothing to the film. I just don't think anyone should think that they have to experience a work of art the way an artist intended.
Actually, the problem is that your premise is not necessarily logical, and rather is a matter of opinion. While most reasonable people may have the same opinion (myself included) would agree it's better to leave a film intact, it's still a reasonable point to make an argument over. In a related example, you'd think that less THD in audio amplifiers is "better". But in some cases, listeners comparing amplifiers (tube vs. transistor, for example) actually find that they prefer the amplifier that distorts more. So does this mean they've done something "wrong"? Perhaps the artist intended that the track should only be listened to on a particular transistor amplifier and with a certain set of speakers. I'd argue that the artist's intent has no bearing on an individual's enjoyment of the art.
I was amused that I had to beg the BBC a couple of years ago to air "Film [insert year here] with Jonathan Ross" in widescreen, because they amazingly shot Ross's studio reviews in 4:3 and then had letterboxed movie clips. The series that followed finally switched to widescreen - amazing that the most obvious BBC show to get widescreen (a movie review show) was one of the last to get it !
One weak point in the UK widescreen TV market, though, is the virtual non-existence of widescreen TV's below the 24" mark. Now, I don't know about you, but I have a small bedroom with limited space to put my VCR, satellite decoder and TV (in fact, the three are stacked on top of each other).
There's no way I can fit a 24" widescreen set in the space available, so how come it's impossible to buy a portable widescreen set in the UK now ? Luckily, I got myself a Sony 16" widescreen set before they got discontinued and I love it to death, but when that needs replacing, I'll have to knock the wall through to the next room to fit a widescreen set in :-)
The article says letterbox. This is terrible. There's no excuse for widescreen DVDs not to be anamorphic.
Quite aside from the loss of vertical resolution, letterbox format DVD cause huge problems when viewing on a 16:9 TV using subtitles.
Pretty much all DVD players place the subtitles towards the bottom of the screen, in the black letterbox bar. If you zoom the picture so the letterboxed area fills the screen, you lose the subtitles. So people are forced to watch 16:9 video in a little window on their 16:9 TV, with black bars on four sides, just so they can read the subtitles.
I think the US is catching up on this one, and I think it's because the US TV industry decided that it would use Widescreen as a driver for the HDTV market: hence no non-HDTV widescreen sets. As long ago as Summer 2000, I was astonished to go into a Chicago Sony Centre to find only one widescreen set on display -- while in Europe it's now (and was then) rare to see a new TV >=28" that's not widescreen.
Most original free to air content in the UK is broadcast in digital widescreen, right down to news, soaps, gardening programmes etc. 4:3 content tends only to be imports and repeats -- and even then "prestige" US imports such as 24 are widescreen.
I work at a newly opened blockbuster, and we only carry widescreen format dvd's. Personally, I like them better than fullscreen, but if you have a tiny tv, it makes viewing kind of rough. The majority of our customers ask for fullscreen however, but that could be due to the fact that it's out in the boonies....
see sig. see sig run. run sig run.
Are the TV manufacturers , broadcasters and widescreen owners about to realise that they've only been following a fad for the last few years?
I wouldn't be surprised if most of these wide-screen-renting folks are like me and just too lazy/lame/forgetful to pick the right aspect ratio.
<grub> Reading
i was at hastings (its like a blockbuster and barnes and noble all in one, for those of you without one) and i overheard an older couple discussing what widescreen was. the wife wrinkled her nose and said "ew, is that the one with the black at the top and bottom, i hate that." i worked in film for 2.5 years as a grip and had to step in. after explaining to them that they were missing ~20% of the movie watching full screen, they thanked me and picked up the widescreen version.
i sell illegal drugs
Nah, she's gonna buy you one of those Japanese Cardboard PC cases, cut a short wide slot in the front, slip it over the TV and... voila, widescreen!
Go permanent? In your dreams and my worst nightmares.
you beat me to it... i was hoping i could point out that simple depth of field affects that too... i just wanted to look smart so people would like me!!!
i sell illegal drugs
The space that most folks have for a TV is constrained more by width than height. Most entertainment centers have a TV shelf that is taller than it is wide. That means a 4:3 TV will show just as wide of a picture as a widescreen TV. It makes the most sence to get the biggest screen that will fit in your space.
i have two eyes.
they are next to each other.
i do not have one eye.(see line one)
because my eyes are side by side, they see more left to right than up and down.
this means that a wider screen is superior.
QED
i sell illegal drugs
"Try as I can, I can't quite figure out what exactly you mean by "(the top and bottom would be cropped off in theatres)". "
Aaah, this is the highly contentious (at least between film fans) Super 35. Its got a natural ratio of about 1.6, and what they do is rather than mask to the intended cinema ratio in camera, they just have ground lines in the eyepiece. This lets the cameraman see
1) the whole exposed frame - keep things like set edges out of any of this or problems will occur.
2) the actual intended frame thats meant to be the film.
That way you have footage (admittedly footage that ruins the shot composition, but then when did pan and scan fans even notice that?) to minimise the amount off the sides you lose, and at the same time shoot your intended shot.
The reason its slightly contentious is that extraction of the widescreen image from that negative is yet another stage for the film to go through, and you're also using less negative for it, so image quality can occasionally suffer. The exterior shots at Ankor Wat in the Tomb Raider movie just looked absolutely shockingly bad, for example.
Done well (e.g. Lord Of The Rings), its not too much of an issue, however. You do get to laugh at the odd telegraph pole straying into shot on the pan and scan release as well. Clearly cinematographers don't care too much about the 4x3 safety.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
For those of you interested in the subject of "Widescreen Home Theatre." an excellent resource is the monthly magazine Widescreen Review and its associated Web sites: http://www.widescreenreview.com and http://www.dvhsmovieguide.com
In a sentence, if you've read one, you don't need to read t'other.
It may well be better to see all of a movie widescreen on 4:3 screen so you don't loose anything...
but the point of movies at the cinema being in widescreen is that they fill your whole field of vision. Which is significantly biased to the horizontal ~220deg horiz and ~80deg vertical (presumably because cavemen did'nt worry about being attacked from the sky). But as far as i can tell there is little bias to the horizontal in field of view (the small area that is properly in focus ~30deg).So if i'm watching tv which usually only fills your field of view (unless you sit eye strainingly close to the screen)then i would rather have it fill that whole field rather than just a stip across the middle of it. The obvious example is the monitor that you are staring at, do you think it would be better in widescreen? i don't. It fills my field of view nicely
This is especially the case in the UK were you can buy the same amount of widescreen area on a 4:3 screen for less than the equivalent widescreen(which then plays 4:3 pictures in a tiny area).
My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
My theory is on why there doesn't seem to be much hope for large-scale adoption of widescreen computer displays is that for the most frequently used applications (e.g. e-mail, web-browsing, word processing), a widescreen computer display doesn't offer many advantages. Most websites are still built with the 800 pixel-width lowest common denominator in mind.
I even remember some monitors a few years back that were made longer vertically than horizontally in order to approximate the shape and size of a standard 8.5x11 sheet of paper. I think that approach is dead now since standard 4:3 monitors have gotten larger and have better resolutions.
Unfortunately, I don't see much hope of widescreen monitors catching on any time soon. Only a small subset of computer users are hardcore gamers or regularly use their computer to watch widescreen movies.
I don't mean to criticize geeks' choices of televisions and where they shop, but why is Best Buy (or Circuit City, or Tweeter, or Good Guys, or Ultimate) held up as the bastion of where technology is located? I work for an independent audio/video retailer, and as a specialty shop we are allowed access to better products, and can offer them at lower prices. Best Buy is a mass-merchant big-box store who retails through an internet portal and through several hundred retail locations, but they don't and can't carry the best product lines from manufacturers, and they definately do not have the best prices. I wish that in the future, if Taco or any other geek would like to link to a product that they think is awesome, they should link to the manufacturer's page, such as this one for the actual product, rather than a retail page.
Incidentally, the model shown on the Best Buy page is for the PDP-5031, not the PDP-5030, which is the actual Pioneer Model. This is most likely a situation where Best Buy has a unique model number so that they cannot be price-shopped, but is also probably a lower-grade (and therefore cheaper) display than the acutal 5030 (for a better profit margin). In reality, if you are serious about a plasma display, especially the Pioneer or Sony models, then a specialty retailer is where you would want to look, because Best Buy does not and cannot carry Pioneer Elite products, such as the beautiful PRO-1000
In short, just because a retailer has a product, and it has a manufacturer's name on it, and it carries a hefty pricetag, does not necessarily mean that it is the best and (in this case both literally and figuratively) brightest that the manufacturer has to offer.
"Defenestration" is to throw out of a window; what's a word for throwing 'Windows' out of something?
All those years of my friends and other movie fans proclaiming the good of Widescreen have payed off. With large TV screen sizes coming out for the cheap Wide Screen is now an obvious choice.
i happen to prefer non-letterbox when renting movies. i don't own a widescreen tv (nor would i pay current prices to buy one), and it's terribly annoying to me seeing that large black void on the top/bottom of my screen when i watch something in letterbox format.
i am wondering, is there anyone else who *doesn't* prefer widescreen (on a normal tv)? i mean, i would LOVE to own a widescreen tv and rent only letterbox format. but on a normal tv, i can't *stand* the letterbox format. the arguments that i get to see more of a scene and that it's "the way the director intended" don't really impress me too much - i don't particularly care how someone else "wants" me to watch a movie, and as far as those parts of a scene that get clipped in non-letterbox... my feeling is that if those parts were necessary to preserve the integrity of a scene, then they wouldn't *be* clipped in the first place.
the thought of my local video store potentially stocking mostly (or only) letterbox annoys the hell out of me. any thoughts? am i missing some other wonderful benefit of widescreen?
When buying DVDs, be sure to get the ones that say "Anamorphic" or "Enhanced for widescreen". A letterbxed movie that is not anamorphic is still encoded at 640X480. Anamorphic DVDs have the image encoded at 720X480. When buying a 4:3 HDTV, make sure it can handle the "enhanced" DVD. Good 4:3 HDs should be able to display the anamorphic movies without distortion.
What pisses me off is that my TFTs are 4:3 ratio, so DVDs and my WinTV card (when in Widescreen) doesn't use most of the display. (I don't have a TV as having forked out so much for a bunch of TFTs it seems like a bit of a waste of money and space.)
:o)
Has anyone come up with a way of getting Xine/Mplayer to split accross 2 displays? That way I could remove the facing and build a new bracket for my super high res (2560x1024) widescreen display
Beep beep.
There is a measurable psychological effect of the aspect ratio of a picture or film. Widescreen gives a more expansive, free, exciting effect, while narrow aspect ratios cause the viewer to feel more confined and pressured and trapped.
You can get the same effects with your composition. Vertical lines increase the drama in a scene. People arguing in a hallway, a conversation through jail bars, the cowboy showdown with the buildings looming on both sides of the characters.
Horizontal lines have the opposite effect. The angle and perspective you set your shot at will affect the audiences emotions.
The aspect ratio of the television is a hardware issue. Forcing an aspect ratio on a movie because of your TV screen is like diluting the gasoline in your car because you don't want to adjust the carburator when it's burning too rich. Or how about deliberately writing crappy code because you just can't handle the fact that the CPU isn't running at 100% when it's executing your software?
Ignore the black bars. You should be watching the movie, not the TV the movie is playing on.
Moekandu
"Action!"
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
You guys in the U.S. are really quaint. A bit like watching the funny monkeys in the zoo. You're happy in your own little closed-off world with your little brightly-coloured toys. Out here in the real world we transitioned to 16:9 TV a few years ago. It's all old news. Yawn. Did you know that everywhere else in the world, you can use your mobile phone whatever country you go to? It's like that with everything. We all use International standards. GSM @900/1800MHz Emergency phone number 112 Paper in halvable sizes Measurement in base 10 systems If I've got your back up by now then it can only be because I'm right, and your right-brain is active, and you are a typical stupid emotional human being. Since I am unarguably right, anything you say is simply emotional crap and of no relevance. If however your left-brain is active, that means you're a smart cookie, you'll be calm as a millpond right now, and I'll have given you something to think about. Perhaps there is a way to make the world a better place.
Yes, I don't have access to the studio master. But I still have access to the original DVD I bought.
News is one area where the extra screen area could be used well. The screen can be divided so there are areas for the reporter, the news clip, and much text information. The last time I saw CNN, there were 2 stock tickers, a news broadcast, sports scores, and random news text. A little space would have reduced the nausea.
The widescreen means that regular shows can put the station identification off the main image. They can also keep the schedule of new shows on the screen. And advertisments, one for the coming news show and one for a product. The art of silent movies would return, since the ads would need to be attractive without sound. They could also use more still shots, and be much longer, since the sidebar ads would be running continously and should be much cheaper.
Once the format dominates, we can remove having ad breaks from the shows. A few ads that require sound can appear betweeen shows, and would demand a higher price. With shows running without commercial breaks, the times will be odd and shows might not start exactly on the hour, but this is good since it gives channel lock-in. And people would not flip channels during the breaks. Or short films (commercial or not) could be inserted to fill the tims.
Advertisements could also be queued into the show, so the Pontiac ad displays when the teenager is entering his TransAm. [They killed my car!] This has been the dream of the entertainment industry ever since the "media center" was envisioned.
Should advertisements belong to the channel, or to the show/movie maker? There should be standards so both are happy, but luckily this battle can be fought inside the industry, since the viewers will not care.
Widescreen gives the ability to put more on the screen. (You can say "Duh!") It is up to the television industry to take advantage of the opportunity.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
I think that books can be an adequate metaphor here. Pan and scan is like an abridged novel. Sometimes it's done reasonably well and you only miss out on some non-crucial information, other times it's painfully obvious and you wonder just what the hell is going on. The reasoning perhaps being that "people don't want long books, they want short books that are easier to read and get straight to the point". People who know about this tend to prefer the full, unedited book presented as the author intended without anything missing. Maybe it even has some things that were edited out in the past cut back in because the author never wanted them removed (Stanger in a Strange Land, The Forever War, etc.). Some books even come annotated (commentary, various extras) with all sorts of insightful background information and comments that often expand on reading the book alone.
If you don't care what the director intended you're essentially saying that you want to read abridged novels. There are a million reasons perhaps, but the end result is that you pay the same ammount (typically) but you get less and what you do get is butchered and at times jarring and obviously done.
So why on EARTH didn't you buy a Widescreen TV ?
> Flame all you want, but after the first month, approximately 100% of people who watch any movie will be watching it on a T.V., so why the hell wouldn't you design the movie to be seen on that medium?
Precisely. Seeing as about 90% of the TVs sold here in the UK are Widescreen, then it makes sense that movies are shot in Widescreen ! The USA will catch up soon, and if you'd bought a Widescreen TV when you had the chance, you'd be ready.