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?"
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
Only because film makers shoot in widescreen, they haven't always. It was a gimmic to stop the decline of the cinema when TVs became popular.
Perhaps they will revert to a squarer image when all TVs are widescreen?
Widescreen is popular in the UK, go into an electrical store and you'll see rows of big widescreen TVs and only a handful of 4:3 tube sets.
Problem is the UK sets aren't HD yet and are unlikely to be for many years.
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
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
I saw a short clip on letterbox vs. full on Turner Classic movies. I was shocked at how much was lost when it was converted from the original format to the full screen format. Entire characters would disappear sometimes. Since then I have only watched letterbox. It is the way the director intended you to view it.
The second example from the bottom is enough to sell me on widescreen.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The reason DVD imagery tends to look awful on widescreen TVs in shops is typically because they have the same signal running to multiple TVs, at least some of which are 4:3. For some odd reason, they tend to configure this shared display for the lowest-common (or perhaps better selling) denominator.
The fact that each TV is showing an image that has been been split multiple times also tends to result in image quality quite inferior to what the TV is capable of producing with a single connection.
This is why I don't judge a TV based on whatever it's displaying in a shop. I use the internet to find in-depth reviews carried out under more controlled conditions. I mean, if it's on the internet, it must be reliable, right? :)
Too bad widescreen films didn't appear until 1953, after 4:3 TV format was established.
Films went widescreen in response to TV:
"Oh, crap. People can watch moving pictures in thier home now. What are we gonna do?"
"We'll make the show really wide so to differentiate ourselves, and continue to make money"
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."
Well there is also the issue that we see more horizontally than verticly, about twice as much. Also films have no one standard for widescreen. 1.85:1, 2:1 and 2.35:1 are some common anamorphic lense formats, but they aren't the only ones. Also some films are shot with spherical glass and then hard matted to the desired ratio (Fight Club for example).
I'm also not sure when the concept of anamorphic lenses came about, which is how widescreen is generally done. In case you don't know, anamorphic lense are squashed, so the image on the film is also squashed. You then hook the same kind of lense to the projector which unsquashes the image. Gets better resolution than doing the same shot with aspherical lens and cropping it since you use more of the film, but has trouble with some aspects of focus. Look at lights in teh distance in Fight Club and contrast them to other movies and you'll see the difference.
It may be that the move to widescreen was partially motivated by TV aspect ratio but I think it was more due to the natural percetion of humans and also perhaps the invention or refinement of anamorphic lenses.
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.