Support NeoGAF

[ZombieSupaStar]

watching a few good men on tnt


and good lord I cant believe how annoying pan and scan is


its like it scans smooth and the video moves at half the framrate ergh




widescreen fo life

 

[Hournda]

Widescreen is definately overrated. There are some movies in which it can be used very effectively (such as The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) but for most movies it's just a pain in the ass since when you watch it at home you have to see those annoying black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

In fact I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 in theaters and that movie should have been made in fullscreen (1.33:1). They used so much TV footage in that movie (which is fullscreen) that when they blew it up to widescreen it made all the news footage look bloated (especially the closeups of people) and ugly. Michael Moore did shoot some of his own stuff (like the interviews with the senators and such) but they should've left the TV footage as it was and just made the whole movie in fullscreen.

 

[ArcadeStickMonk]

I saw a Sony DVD that had the "feature" to remove letterboxing from movies.

Imagine the ways it could do that and how shitty they all are.

 

[karasu]

Widescreen is definately overrated. There are some movies in which it can be used very effectively (such as The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) but for most movies it's just a pain in the ass since when you watch it at home you have to see those annoying black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

yeah right. People are still bothered by those?

 

[FortNinety]

I still can't believe people still complain about "those black bars". You're getting the whole picture. What the hell is wrong with that?

 

[Dead]

um no its not a matter of widescreen/fullscreen, but OAR. Original Aspect Ratio, the way the director intended the movie to be seen.

 

[Hournda]

Because they're fucking annoying, that's why. Especially on movies that are 2.35:1. Half the screen is black. With most movies you're really not missing anything if a little bit on the ends gets cut off anyway. I really don't care about seeing the extra bit on the edge of the screen while watching Old School. Most movies don't even need the widescreen, they just use it because that's how every other movie is made these days. Widescreen didn't even exist until the 1950s anyway and most of the best movies ever made are in fullscreen. Widescreen can be used effectively but it is overrated and not needed in most movies that use it.

 

[Dead]

Because they're fucking annoying, that's why. Especially on movies that are 2.35:1. Half the screen is black. With most movies you're really not missing anything if a little bit on the ends gets cut off anyway. I really don't care about seeing the extra bit on the edge of the screen while watching Old School. Most movies don't even need the widescreen, they just use it because that's how every other movie is made these days. Widescreen didn't even exist until the 1950s anyway and most of the best movies ever made are in fullscreen. Widescreen can be used effectively but it is overrated and not needed in most movies that use it.

its not a case of not needed, BUT HOW THE DIRECTOR SHOT THE MOVIE, THE WAY ITS MEANT TO BE SEEN!!

you people, I swear!

 

[JackFrost2012]

um no its not a matter of widescreen/fullscreen, but OAR. Original Aspect Ratio, the way the director intended the movie to be seen.

This is true! But since most movies nowadays are widescreen, that's the way they should be watched.

Seriously, though, I can't STAND watching pan-and-scan nonsense. Makes me want to kill.

 

[JackFrost2012]

With most movies you're really not missing anything if a little bit on the ends gets cut off anyway.

You're right, you're only NOT SEEING PARTS OF THE FRAME WHICH THE DIRECTOR COMPOSITED INTO HIS SHOT! Why would that matter.

Did you fall through a time warp from 1996? I thought this argument was pretty much over by now.

 

[Mumbles]

its like it scans smooth and the video moves at half the framrate ergh

That's the major problem I have with Pan & Scan. The creator's vision is important, too, but it's distracting when the P&S is done at a different frame rate from the movie, which it is in every example I've seen. It just yanks me straight out of the movie.

In fact I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 in theaters and that movie should have been made in fullscreen (1.33:1). They used so much TV footage in that movie (which is fullscreen) that when they blew it up to widescreen it made all the news footage look bloated (especially the closeups of people) and ugly. Michael Moore did shoot some of his own stuff (like the interviews with the senators and such) but they should've left the TV footage as it was and just made the whole movie in fullscreen.

You need to make up your mind, pal. first you say you hate "black bars", but then you want Moore to use a format that movies aren't set up for.

 

[Hournda]

its not a case of not needed, BUT HOW THE DIRECTOR SHOT THE MOVIE, THE WAY ITS MEANT TO BE SEEN!!

you people, I swear!

I know. I'm saying movies that THE DIRECTOR SHOT in widescreen (say 1.85:1) could have been easily done in 1.33:1 without any real asthetic loss to the project.

 

[Hournda]

That's the major problem I have with Pan & Scan. The creator's vision is important, too, but it's distracting when the P&S is done at a different frame rate from the movie, which it is in every example I've seen. It just yanks me straight out of the movie.



You need to make up your mind, pal. first you say you hate "black bars", but then you want Moore to use a format that movies aren't set up for.

Why aren't movies set up for it? Moore could have easily shot his movie in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Half of the footage used in the movie was originally shot in that ratio and you don't need to be widescreen for shots of Michael Moore talking to congressmen outside the capitol building and giving interviews to administration officials.

 

[jett]

um no its not a matter of widescreen/fullscreen, but OAR. Original Aspect Ratio, the way the director intended the movie to be seen.

Indeed. People that complain about "black bars" are just as moronic as the ones that complain about some of Kubrick's later films' aspect ratios.

 

[TAJ]

>>>Widescreen didn't even exist until the 1950s anyway and most of the best movies ever made are in fullscreen.<<<

And HD broadcasts of those (Academy ratio) movies will probably often have the tops and bottom of the frame chopped off because people like you complaining about black bars on the sides...

 

[DJ_Tet]

That's true, especially in a flick like Old School.

Epics are truly meant to be in Widescreen, while comedies could easily be shot in Full-Screen without much, if any, loss to the material.

I'm a sucker for seeing the movie how it was shot though, so WS all the way baby. One day I'll have a TV capable of showing the full picture without those bars. They were HUGE on The Last Samurai, but a few min and a dark room and I adjusted quickly.

 

[Hournda]

You're right, you're only NOT SEEING PARTS OF THE FRAME WHICH THE DIRECTOR COMPOSITED INTO HIS SHOT! Why would that matter.

Did you fall through a time warp from 1996? I thought this argument was pretty much over by now.

For good movies then yes I will gladly go through the inconvenience of viewing black bars on the top and bottom of the screen to see what the director actually shot and was shown in theaters, however most movies are either really shitty and I don't care what the director indended or movies in which the framing is not really that important to the film (dumb comedies like Spaceballs for example).

 

[TAJ]

>>>um no its not a matter of widescreen/fullscreen, but OAR. Original Aspect Ratio, the way the director intended the movie to be seen.

Indeed. People that complain about "black bars" are just as moronic as the ones that complain about some of Kubrick's later films' aspect ratios. <<<

Kubrick is an awful example. Like James Cameron in the early '90s, Kubrick's opinions on framing for home video were based on a low opinion of home video itself. If someone had tried to show his films in 1.33:1 in a theater, he would have thrown a fit.

 

[Hournda]

Can someone fill me in on what the fuss was with Kubrick and aspect ratios?

 

[jett]

>>>um no its not a matter of widescreen/fullscreen, but OAR. Original Aspect Ratio, the way the director intended the movie to be seen.

Indeed. People that complain about "black bars" are just as moronic as the ones that complain about some of Kubrick's later films' aspect ratios. <<<

Kubrick is an awful example. Like James Cameron in the early '90s, Kubrick's opinions on framing for home video were based on a low opinion of home video itself. If someone had tried to show his films in 1.33:1 in a theater, he would have thrown a fit.

His later films were shot in 1.33:1, this time "black bars" were actually added for the theatrical releases. If you're so adamant in watching the films in "widescreen" you can cut some black-colored paper and paste it to the screen.

 

[Mumbles]

Why aren't movies set up for it? Moore could have easily shot his movie in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio.

But then you would have had the black bars that you hate so much in the theater's screen, because the theaters aren't built for 1.33:1 aspect ratios.

And BTW, Spaceballs is a bad example for fullscreen, since one of the jokes is already wrecked even in the widescreen DVD version, due to a change in aspect ratios (hint: nose job).

 

[TAJ]

>>>His later films were shot in 1.33:1, this time "black bars" were actually added for the theatrical releases. If you're so adamant in watching the films in "widescreen" you can cut some black-colored paper and paste it to the screen. <<<<

So, that helicopter shadow in The Shining was an artistic choice? Bullshit.

 

[boo7z]

It has been an amazing transition from "Black Bar hatred" to "Black Bar love".

Ever since DVD starting picking up steam, Widescreen (da black bars) have become cool. Full screen is now old hat. Many people I know who still have traditional 4:3 sets still think widescreen is cool. Which makes me ask the question, why in the hell does Blockbuster have so many full screen version of movies that come in both flavors (OAR & Full Screen). The damn OAR versions are always not available but there are always tons of Full Screen versions available.

One pattern I've noticed is that many HDTV channels refuse to broadcast in OAR...for instance, any movie on HBO that has an OAR of 2.35:1 is zoomed to 1.78:1 (16x9) to remove the black bars. Crazy!!!

 

[StrikerObi]

My parents just recently got a 55" High Def Widescreen television. It puts black bars on the sides of the regular 4:3 images that TV is broatcast in. Although, we keep the image streched out because, you honestly can't tell that it has been stretched and keeping the bars up all the time for regular TV viewing does present a small risk of burn-in.

Bonus, watching movies in their intended ratio without black bars is the fucking coolest thing ever. I fully support OAR (which mostly means widescreen display) and never ever notice the black bars when I watch movies on a 4:3 set, but watching them on a 16:9 without the bars is so awesome.

If you want to see something cool you should watch the Finding Nemo DVD. It offers both Widescreen and Full Frame versions. Full Frame is different from Full Screen. With full screen the sides of the image are cut off (or some shit Pan & Scan is used). Full Frame, on the other hand, actually adds more image. It's like watching a movie in widescreen with even more image stuck on the top and bottom. What they did for Finding Nemo was create the whole thing in Full Frame, but they kept the action inside the 16:9 central section of the image. So for the television version of the movie you actually get MORE image than the theatrical version. The black bars are replaced with more ocean scenery. Nothing important is going on there (it's just more ocean and fish and scenery), but it just makes the image much nicer.

 

[Shogmaster]

Why aren't movies set up for it? Moore could have easily shot his movie in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Half of the footage used in the movie was originally shot in that ratio and you don't need to be widescreen for shots of Michael Moore talking to congressmen outside the capitol building and giving interviews to administration officials.

Uhh..... Those TV footages look blurry ass because they blew up 740x480 footage on to a 60ft wide screen. Nothing to do with the aspect ratio.

 

[boo7z]

...Full Frame, on the other hand, actually adds more image. It's like watching a movie in widescreen with even more image stuck on the top and bottom. What they did for Finding Nemo was create the whole thing in Full Frame, but they kept the action inside the 16:9 central section of the image. So for the television version of the movie you actually get MORE image than the theatrical version....

This is true, but you are not watching the OAR - the way the film is intended to be shown. This is how Super35 works. James Cameron is a big fan of this. It is shot in an about 4x3 ascept ratio and then the top and bottom are matted to fit a 2.35x1 window.

I've never been a big fan of Super35, not sure why it is used...supposedly it gives a higher quality.

 

[Hournda]

Uhh..... Those TV footages look blurry ass because they blew up 740x480 footage on to a 60ft wide screen. Nothing to do with the aspect ratio.

I'm not so sure. Take a look at the framing of a lot of the TV footage. IIRC, the way that Richard Clarke while he was testifying in front of congress, or any of the CNN/Fox News/MSNBC footage was that the people in the frame were way too close to the edges in a way they weren't originally. When going from 1.33:1 to whatever Moore's aspect ratio was (it was higher than that) you have to chop off some of the top and bottom of the screen and thus that's what happened. Or at least from my simple observations that seems to be what happened. It wasn't just that the footage was blown up, it was also that the aspect ratio of the footage was altered.

 

[Shogmaster]

I'm not so sure. Take a look at the framing of a lot of the TV footage. IIRC, the way that Richard Clarke while he was testifying in front of congress, or any of the CNN/Fox News/MSNBC footage was that the people in the frame were way too close to the edges in a way they weren't originally. When going from 1.33:1 to whatever Moore's aspect ratio was (it was higher than that) you have to chop off some of the top and bottom of the screen and thus that's what happened. Or at least from my simple observations that seems to be what happened. It wasn't just that the footage was blown up, it was also that the aspect ratio of the footage was altered.

You do know that resolution CG is rendered for cinema is like greater than 3800x2100, right? Now imagine stretching 740x480 video to full screen on a 3800x2100 monitor.

 

[God's Hand]

Shogmaster, do some research. You know nothing about "cinema resolution". Thanks.

Oh, and widescreen is how everyone films these days because that just how we see things. We see in "widescreen".

 

[Shogmaster]

Shogmaster, do some research. You know nothing about "cinema resolution". Thanks.

I guess I don't cause someone who calls himself "God's hand" said so. *blows a second kazoo* Care to edumatate me?

 

[Warm Machine]

Such a weak argument here. 16:9 or higher is more like how the human eyes see. We don't view the world through what almost amounts to a square, we see in a more rectangular fashion.

The concept that most movies could have been framed in 4:3 is bullshit. Get the A Bugs Life DVD and watch that. The difference between the reframed 4:3 and the orginal aspect ratio is amazing. So many shots lose their power and visual focus because of excessive amount of sky and ground that is seen, and the recomposites to get all the visual information into such a tiny aspect lose all sense of space and depth.

If you bitch about the black bars you shouldn't talk about movies anyway as you obviously have no appreciation for the framing and composition of shots in movies.

 

[Shogmaster]

Oops. I remembered something important. That 3800x2100 resolution was when we were doing IMAX movies. Make it around half of that for normal cinema resolutions.

Thanks God hand for giving me just a gentle reminder.

 

[Dan]

Warm Machine has it right. Any form of widescreen is infinitely more in tune with the dynamics of human vision than 4:3 ever be. It also lends itself to filming humans far better in a whole variety of ways, all while maintaining a sense of environment, but I'm too lazy to get into that here.

While I prefer any sort of widescreen over 4:3, OAR is the most important thing. Modifying a film's aspect ratio never leads to anything good.

 

[Warm Machine]

Something like the opening of Blade Runner gives a great reason for the use of a wide frame. When Holden is giving the Voight-Kampff test to Leon the two of them are at opposite ends of a very large table. The shot is meant to illustrate the distance between the two characters in terms of power between police and suspect as well and their motivations at opposite ends of the spectrum. Because the wide frame doesn't include the ceiling and much of the floor, the characters are given equal visual weight which relates to their importance.

Imagine the table is now half the size and the two characters are given the same positions in the frame. It becomes more intimate and the coldness, loneliness, and drama of the interview is drastically diminished.

In good movies, every shot has motivation and every composition has a reason.

 

[TAJ]

Pan & scan can actually change the tone or even meaning of a scene sometimes.
For example, in the widescreen version of Pulp Fiction, it's clear that Jules cavalierly executes Brett's buddy on the couch just to make a point. In the P&S version, you only see Jules, then the "camera" whips over to the guy on the couch twitching, then getting shot. If you only saw the P&S, you might think the shooting was in self-defense. Even if you didn't think that, it's much more disturbing with the static camera.

 

[Hournda]

Again, widescreen can be used very effectively as in the example you gave. My argument is that widescreen is overrated and overused and the use of it in most movies just leads to the inconvenience of having to view the film with black bars on a 4:3 TV. I generally prefer watching movies in fullscreen on my 4:3 TV because either the movie is shitty and I don't care what the director originally intended, or it is a film in which the framing is not important to the film (dumb comedies like Old School for example). Most films (90-95%) fit in one (or both) of those two categories. You can do quality cinematography in either widescreen or fullscreen (1.33:1). Take Citizen Kane for example which has some of the best cinematography in the history of film. I'm not saying that fullscreen is better than widescreen, just that the knee-jerk filming of all movies in widescreen is a disservice to the movie watching public.

 

[Shogmaster]

Did you miss the part about how humans see more widescreen than 4:3? These people are trying to help you!

 

[DCX]

yeah right. People are still bothered by those?

Kinda like people are still bothered by analog.

DCX