The Daily Ping

The 5,000th Ping will be published on September 14, 2013.

December 29th, 2000

Why Widescreen Rules

I think most people realize how much the idea of “pan-and-scan” sucks and why widescreen is necessary for movie watching, but there still seem to be a few stragglers that like to complain about “those black bars” associated with widescreen. Last night I was watching a pan-and-scan version of The Seventh Sign on TMC and was reminded why pan-and-scan is so annoying — once you notice the changes that are made to fit the picture onto a standard 4:3 television, you won’t be able to not notice it. Generally, pan-and-scan is most obvious during tracking shots or pans that follow someone walking; the result is a bizarre adjustment of the picture to make sure that all important parts of the picture remain on screen.

The Seventh Sign is not at all the worst offender, though — if you’re a proponent of pan-and-scan, all you have to do is watch the dreadful rendering of Multiplicity to never, ever again want to watch another non-widescreen movie. It is absolutely painful to endure.

And DVD owners have something else to be careful of: anamorphic widescreen. If you’re buying DVDs, one thing you want to make sure of is that the movies you buy are not only widescreen, but what they call “anamorphic” widescreen (or “16:9 enhanced”). This ensures that once 16:9 televisions become more commonplace, your widescreen DVD will look clear and correct on your new set. It doesn’t affect viewing on your current 4:3 television, but it’s a simple forward-thinking measure to ensure your DVDs of today don’t become obsolete in a couple of years. -ram

Posted in Television, Movies, and Music

FROM: Robert
DATE: Friday December 29, 2000 -- 9:03:33AM
Amen! I like to know I'm seeing everything the director wanted me to see. A good example in the orgy at the end of "Caligula".



FROM: Rob
DATE: Friday December 29, 2000 -- 11:12:55AM
Yeah, I was flipping through the channels over the weekend and came upon The Rocketeer and the pan-n-scan for that was just awful. You had guys who were supposed to be getting in other people's faces, but you couldn't even see the other guy. I still can't believe that people prefer pan-n-scan. So what if it fills the screen? You lose SO much. Especially on something filmed at a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

By the by, you guys should've SEEN how drunk Ryan was at the company Christmas party last night. He was so gone, I think he ate a whole pig.



FROM: Robert
DATE: Friday December 29, 2000 -- 11:35:53AM
I think the only people who don't like widescreen are the ones who aren't used to seeing it on they TV's.

Rob--Are we to believe that there was a company Xmas party AFTER Xmas?!



FROM: Tony
DATE: Saturday December 30, 2000 -- 7:20:16PM
I didnt belive it myself, until I got a DVD drive and watched U-571, with the amount of movement, I could see where (even on a 15in monitor) pan-n-span has trouble.



FROM: Robert
DATE: Tuesday January 2, 2001 -- 5:50:13PM
In addition to widescreen ruling, I'd also like to say that commentary tracks on some DVD's also rule. The one on This is Spinal Tap is like another movie by itself.



FROM: Lisa Marks
DATE: Sunday March 4, 2001 -- 11:13:52PM
You are a giant poseur. I'm sorry, but widescreen SUCKS BIG TIME!! You can rattle on about wanting to see the movie "the way the director intended it" but I'd rather see it the way it LOOKS BEST ON MY TV. I don't care if pan-n-span cuts off a bit of the side -- at least I can see the top and bottom without having the entire picture scrunched up.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Sunday March 4, 2001 -- 11:29:24PM
Lisa -- Try watching Multiplicity as pan-n-scan... you will immediately see why it's much more than just "cutting the sides off." Trust me -- you might feel physically ill.



FROM: Robert
DATE: Monday March 5, 2001 -- 12:01:43AM
Lisa--If you have a big enough TV the fact that things are "scrunched up" a bit doesn't make such a big deal. I believe that art requires exerted effort from the viewer/listener. If you expect every little thing to be tailored to your comfort then you really are missing out on the experience.



FROM: Lisa Marks
DATE: Wednesday September 26, 2001 -- 12:01:49PM
Look, why do you care if I like widescreen or not? I'm not saying you can't have your widescreen -- I'm merely saying DVD's should offer BOTH choices.

I have seen numerous movies in widescreen and I don't feel I'm getting anything extra. If I don't see it, after dozens of times watching, then I never will. And I don't care about that "little bit" at the side that I would otherwise be missing with pan-n-scan.



FROM: Robert
DATE: Wednesday September 26, 2001 -- 12:26:59PM
Wowee! Your anger sure was simmering for a long time, Lisa!



FROM: Rob
DATE: Wednesday September 26, 2001 -- 1:11:46PM
Maybe she'd missed the comments directed at her because they'd gone off the side of the screen.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Wednesday September 26, 2001 -- 2:04:13PM
Lisa -- Why do I care if you like widescreen? Because you seem to care so much that I do by calling me "a giant poseur."

And I don't care about that "little bit" at the side that I would otherwise be missing with pan-n-scan.

Watch a 2.35:1 movie in a 1.33:1 pan-n-scan version... you're losing more than 40% of the picture. Go to http://www.scoopy.com/widescreen.htm and scroll to where it says "You don't think you can lose that much info? Check this out." Then you'll see how wrong you are.



FROM: Robert
DATE: Wednesday September 26, 2001 -- 2:33:29PM
Rob: As usual, I think you're on to something...



FROM: lexlaw
DATE: Saturday January 19, 2002 -- 7:06:11 pm
I paid for a 56" TV, and thats what I want to see!....if you want all of your movies to be in Widescreen, buy me a widescreen TV!



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Saturday January 19, 2002 -- 8:36:28 pm
... a good example of someone with too much money but not enough information.



FROM: Robert [E-Mail]
DATE: Saturday January 19, 2002 -- 9:48:47 pm
Don't be so quick to assume he's actually going to pay for that TV.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Sunday January 20, 2002 -- 1:13:40 am
Yeah, you're right... if he's asking us to buy him a widescreen TV...



FROM: bill [E-Mail]
DATE: Saturday February 16, 2002 -- 8:43:54 am
I just bought the Goodfellas dvd, and it said nothing on the box about beiung widescreen. I bought a 32" , not to see a picture 25 inches tall. I can live with it, but i wish i could toggel between both. I totally understand about the "cutting off of images" and all of that stuff, but the black bars are just as, if not more annoying. Now, if I had a widescreen tv, it'd be another story, that would be fine.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Saturday February 16, 2002 -- 12:11:33 pm
Bill -- So filling your screen is more important than seeing the film the way the director intended it to be seen?



FROM: Michael C
DATE: Tuesday November 5, 2002 -- 2:30:58 pm
You widescreen buffs are idiots and I'll tell you why:

1) You worry that you lose part of the picture when it is cropped but forget that you lose fu&^#ing detail in the picture when it is scrunched up on a 4:3 set. You lose detail because the damn picture is so @%@$ing small letterboxed with those damned black bars (total waste of screen space) and your eyes are loosing what is in the picture cause you see it smaller.

2) If you dare make the argument that one should purchase a 16:9 TV today then consider this. It will really suck selecting to crop out the top and bottom of a television program or adding thicker black bars on the left and right of a 4:3 program.

If you think it sucks losing part of the picture and all this artistic crap then these damn directors should frame the pictures a little further back to accomodate the whole picture. For example if you are looking at a movie like ghostbusters where they are all side by side and the picture gets cut on pan and scan, then the directory should simply back up the camera a bit so that both widescreen and 4:3 tvs can show everyone in the picture.

This widescreen crap is nonsense. You can buy a large 4:3 set and watch both 4:3 and 16:9 programs. You buy a 16:9 tv and end up seeing the 90% of television programs with black bars on left and right. Whats worse you crazy widescreen buffs.

Widescreen looks good in the theater, not in small areas like a home.

If you think that the fcc will change every tv in 2006 to widescreen your crazy. A change like that will take a while, especially as more people become aware of what the fcc will attempt to do (force them to throw out there 4:3 tvs).




FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Tuesday November 5, 2002 -- 5:24:36 pm
Dear Sir...

1. Directors shoot movies for the big screen first, television second (if at all).

2. Your arguments are pretty contradictory:

You worry that you lose part of the picture when it is cropped but forget that you lose fu&^#ing detail in the picture when it is scrunched up on a 4:3 set.

You can buy a large 4:3 set and watch both 4:3 and 16:9 programs.

3. your crazy
Perhaps your grammar is pan-n-scan -- it seems to have cut out an apostrophe and an "e".

4. the damn picture is so @%@$ing small letterboxed with those damned black bars
Are you watching on a 13" TV from 20 feet away or something? I'd much rather watch a 2.35:1 ratio film in widescreen at a smaller size than lose nearly HALF the picture to merely "make it fit."

Sorry, son. Your arguments are weak and your technique is flawed.



FROM: Nicholas K.
DATE: Wednesday November 6, 2002 -- 12:24:47 pm
I'm sorry. I do agree with Mike that widescreen is for losers who prefer smaller picture. Ryan if you love widescreen so much why don't you place a card board on both the top and bottom of your eyes and walk the streets that way because everything will look wider. Mike has a point you know. Would you like to sacrifice part of your eyes dummy or use your whole eyeballs.



FROM: Jonathan Peters
DATE: Wednesday November 6, 2002 -- 12:29:37 pm
Good point Nick and Mike. Widescreen sucks! Widescreen is only best for wide seating in movie theaters. Black Bars?? are you widescreen guys that nuts? Television should also be considered in the movie making process. Content is the key to a movie, framing is second. A movie is not good because it is in widescreen, it is because it makes us laugh or cry.



FROM: Susan
DATE: Wednesday November 6, 2002 -- 12:32:49 pm
Mike, Nick, and Jonathan. I could not have said it better myself. Ryan is crazy. Just wanted to put my two cents in. Especially after suffering from a widescreen television I bought.



FROM: Michael C.
DATE: Wednesday November 6, 2002 -- 12:34:27 pm
Guys thanks for the support. Maybe you guys have talked at least some sense into Ryan.



FROM: Paul
DATE: Wednesday November 6, 2002 -- 12:40:10 pm
Ryan, you're such a doodyhead. No one likes widescreen because they think they're getting a smaller picture, duh.



FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Wednesday November 6, 2002 -- 1:19:29 pm
Seems that our anti-widescreen visitor has multiple personalities. Either that, or a whole lot of anti-widescreen dolts are sitting by the same computer with the same IP address!

I do like "Nicholas K"'s suggestion, though. But I'd reword a bit and suggest that people that don't see the value of watching a movie as it was intended should wear blinders (like a horse) in order to block out all that extraneous life happening around them.



FROM: qwik
DATE: Wednesday November 6, 2002 -- 4:11:19 pm
I watch the sopranos every week and I wach the letterboxed version.. BTW - HD tv will also be letter boxed on non wide screen TV's..



FROM: Greg
DATE: Wednesday November 6, 2002 -- 8:11:32 pm
Both sides of this argument have been a little ignorant in the matter on this board...

The director has an artistic vision. By favoring one aspect ratio while catering to the other severely limits the director's vision. You say you don't care about the director's vision? Then why are you watching?

Let's take an example from regular still photography. Unlike movies or TV, still photography can be any aspect ratio or shape the photographer wants it to be. They crop to whatever they envision for the photo.

So out on the racetrack, there's a spectacular crash, and the photographer, who sees it coming, manages to take a picture of the wreck JUST as it happens... no explosion yet, but you can see one car denting the car in front of it.

The photographer prints this picture and crops both the top and bottom off, so that the stands are not in view, nor is the racetrack. Just the car that hit the other car.

A year later, a magazine editor decides he wants a picture of the car that had hit the other car, but decides he ONLY wants one car. So he does even more cropping and lo and behold, you have a cropped picture of a car. You can't tell there had been an accident, because all you see is a car.

Which was the photographer's vision? Obviously the accident just as it happened. Has the photographer's vision been compromised? YES!

Let's go back to the movies. Let's say I've just directed a movie, and there's a scene where the female protagonist has just been walked away from by her boyfriend. I've filmed this in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, with the woman on the far left of the frame. The door is on the far right of the frame, and I don't cut away as the boyfriend turns and walks across the frame, then walks out of the door.

I suppose I could have filmed this in Super-35, where there's an additional amount of space to the top of the 2.35:1 frame. That way, the entire film frame could be shown in 4:3 ratio on TV. But where goes the isolation? Suddenly there's extra ceiling above the two people, and floor below the two people. Most importantly, the feeling of isolation is gone because the viewer sees more of the scene to the top and bottom. Obviously this was not my vision.

So they go to show this on TV, in pan and scan. This causes a dilemma... they can't show both people at once, so now you have the person who is doing the transfer making a creative decision. He's a guy who for his entire life has wanted to transfer film to video, it's what he does best. He shows the couple together, then as the boyfriend turns, he focuses ONLY on him, as he walks. He pans the frame to the right, and we see the boyfriend go out the door. But what about the woman?

Of course, we don't see the woman at all. As a director, my goal with the scene was to show the boyfriend leaving the girl and walking out the door, outlining the isolation she is feeling, making US, the audience, feel her isolation.

Well now, this non-artist technician, really, has made a choice of removing the isolation aspect of the scene, completely ruining MY VISION.

So not only has this scene been ruined, but the entire FILM has been ruined.

Enter letterboxing. Ok, to you it's annoying, oh no, you're being ripped off because the entire screen isn't being used. So don't watch something intended for the theater on your precious TV... my artistic vision is more important than you feeling ripped off by black bars. I didn't intend for you to see the movie that way, I intended for you to see it in 2.35:1.

My point is that you should watch the movie in whatever format it was intended for. Is it a TV show? Fine, watch it in 4:3. Movie in 1.85:1? Watch it that way. 2.35:1? Same thing. Again, if it's annoying for you to watch it at that ratio on your TV... don't.



FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Thursday November 7, 2002 -- 9:32:16 am
Well said, Greg, as usual.



FROM: andrew
DATE: Monday December 16, 2002 -- 3:22:19 am
widescreen totally sucks, people dont buy a 60 inch T.V to only watch half of it. Id rather watch the whole screen and miss a guy doing something on the the corner of the scree, than to endure tose anoying black bars that turn your 60 inch T.V into a 30 inch T.V



FROM: Paul
DATE: Monday December 16, 2002 -- 8:46:18 am
I hate it when there's anoying stuff on my scree.



FROM: John Caleb
DATE: Sunday December 22, 2002 -- 12:34:05 am
I like widescreen because I don't like to have picture cut off from the sides. The letterbox bars don't bother me. I think it feels more like I'm watching a movie that way. And if you have a big enough TV, the black bars only reduce the picture slightly. But it really doesn't matter. Odds are, within the next 10 years or so, widescreen will become the standards of television anyway.



FROM: Tom
DATE: Saturday January 4, 2003 -- 4:48:35 am
I just bought a DVD and right away bought Gladiator. Not knowing the whole fullscreen vs Widescreen war. Its only fooking option is widescreen and any artistic feel that made this movie kick ass in the movie theather was lost to home DVD. Maybe you enjoy seeing a beautiful movie in a small screen but I want to see it use my maximum TV capacity regardless of losing its sides or top of the uncut movie. DVD's should have both options. Yes I would like widescreen in 2006 but until that time give me Pan and Fooking Scan.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Saturday January 4, 2003 -- 1:26:48 pm
Ever notice how movie selection seems to determine whether someone would appreciate widescreen or not?

Rarely do you see someone watching a foreign film saying, "I wish this was full screen."

But on the flip side, I doubt too many people are watching XXX and wondering where their widescreen is.



FROM: Warren
DATE: Monday January 27, 2003 -- 9:06:57 pm
I have to laugh at all of these anti-widescreen people posting on here. Their comments are so ridiculous. They can't seem to get it through their heads that movies were made to be seen on a theatrical screen, which is wide to fit in as much of the surroundings as possible... and if you try to make it fit the entire screen of a standard television, you're going to lose LOTS of the picture. Go to www.widescreen.org and look at some of the comparisons between widescreen movies and pan-n-scan. You won't believe how much you're missing out in pan-n-scan. I also used to think widescreen sucked, but then when I realized how much picture I was losing... I now make sure to rent and buy widescreen dvd's, because I want to see the FULL movie, not a choppy edited version of it! I really realized the difference when I saw David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" on a pan-n-scan DVD I rented... great film, but it looked like utter crap. Sure, it was filmed in 1986... but it looked like it was done in the 1970's. When I bought the widescreen DVD however, it was like seeing the film for the first time again... the picture quality was beautiful (now it's hard to believe the film is over 16 years old!) and I noticed so much more in the film than I did when I saw it pan-n-scan. In fact, most directors make full use of the widescreen when they film their movies... so when you see pan-n-scan, not only are you not seeing it the way the director intended... you're potentially missing out on important details. However, I think now the studios are trying to please both sides... just about all of the dvd's I own have both widescreen and full screen versions on them (either they are double-sided or you can select it from the interactive menu). In short, I will NEVER ever ever buy or rent a pan-n-scan DVD ever again. Yes, I am sacrficing a bit of the space on the screen, but that doesn't matter... I want to see the movie the way it should be seen. Those who admire pan-n-scan and bash widescreen are probably only casual viewers anyway and just watch movies for a kick once in awhile. REAL film lovers would never approve of pan-n-scan. We want to see the entire picture. You should, too. By supporting pan-n-scan and bashing widescreen, you are basically saying you want lower-quality films.



FROM: Warren
DATE: Monday January 27, 2003 -- 9:11:33 pm
Here's a direct example of widescreen vs. pan-n-scan from the "Lord of the Rings" dvd:

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord_rings_fellowship/index.shtml

Now, look at that and then try and tell us that you prefer pan-n-scan!!! Just look at how much picture you're losing out on!



FROM: Robben
DATE: Tuesday January 28, 2003 -- 4:12:44 am
When I got my DVD christmas before last, it was really upsetting to notice the majority of movies were in widescreen. I had an extensive collection of VHS before this, and 'Last of the Mohicans' was one in widescreen. I hated watching it because of those 'ugly black bars'. I was ready now for a letter writing campaign or something... I stumbled across the www.widescreen.org searching for arguments to support my feelings.

I got educated, instead. I didn't even realize what all these years I had been watching was pan & scanned to fit my television. Sure I'd seen those 'Modified to fit your screen' messages, but it hadn't registered just h o w modified (read butchered) they were. I went back to my DVD player enlightened and watched my new movies with an open mind. The scenery, the framing. So much more dramatic seeing it through the eyes of the director, the way it was meant to be seen. Lord of the Rings, having seen it both ways, was soooo much more in widescreen.

After a short while, you won't even notice those black bars anymore. And when I re-bought 'Last of the Mohicans' in DVD recently? I was so happy it had been released in both formats in one package. I still haven't watched the 'pan&scan' side. :-)

My concern now is that Joe & Jane Q. Public (the masses) are going to press for pan&scan. Large retail outlets are bending to the pressure already, as I've noticed trying to buy 'The Bourne Identity', Walmart only has the 'Full Screen' version for sale. I'm holding out, though, even if it has to cost a little more.

All I'm really trying to say here is to keep an open mind. If you don't want the full experience, go back to your VCR.

That is all.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Monday February 10, 2003 -- 12:58:04 am
Ryan,

Great Article. Widescreen rules. These people who posted here complaining about Widescreen can't get in their heads that they are loosing part of the picture. Movies are an art. Widescreen preserves the director's vision. Pan & scan destroys the directors vision. When I watch a movie, I want to see in in the aspect ratio that it was filmed in. I was once a pan & scan supporter years ago but I have been supporting Widescreen for several years. The Anti-Widescreen people will have to get used to Widescreen because even TV stations are showing movies in Widescreen. In fact, right now, Sci-Fi is showing one of the Indiana Jones movies in Widescreen.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Thursday February 13, 2003 -- 5:45:15 pm
Any person who believes that Widescreen sucks should goto these sites:
http://www.ryanwright.com/ht/oar.shtml
http://www.widescreen.org/

A good example of a movie which is ruined by pan & scan is Ghostbusters. In the scene where the 3 Ghostbusters are in the hotel side by side, you can only see 2 Ghostbusters in the pan & scan version. In the Widescreen version, you see all 3 Ghostbusters in this scene.



FROM: Jason
DATE: Wednesday February 19, 2003 -- 3:12:33 am
I work part time at a video store and find it really hilarious that the people most opposed to widescreen are either a) below the age of 13, or b) generally too dumb to understand the difference. I try to explain the whole thing to people but it's like they don't even want to listen - anything that dares make their, uh, "equipment" smaller is simply sacriligeous. We live in a world where bigger is better... which is really stupid when you consider that a typical pan n scan knocks off some 40% of the picture.

In addition, why are the damn studios too cheap to put both widescreen and pan n scan on the same disc? I think this would be a great way to educate the "masses" about the virtues of watching movies the way they were supposed to be watched.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Wednesday February 19, 2003 -- 7:40:00 pm
Some studios do show people that your are getting more with Widescreen. For exmple, the 1977 horror movie The Car is on DVD from Anchor Bay. When you play the movie it goes to a menu where you select between Widescreen & Fullscreen (the are pictures in the menu which shows what Widescreen & fullscreen look like & that you gain more when watching The Car in Widescreen.

Also MGM shows the difference between Widescreen & fullscreen in their discs which come with certain MGM movies which are in Widescreen.



FROM: Warren
DATE: Monday February 24, 2003 -- 12:50:21 am
"the people most opposed to widescreen are either a) below the age of 13, or b) generally too dumb to understand the difference"

That's so true, Jason.... believe it or not, the anti-widescreen folks actually think that the widescreen versions of a DVD is the pan-n-scan version with the black bars added in!!!! Hard to believe some people could be so stupid, but it's true. Even if they don't care about the "damn directors" (as one of our simpleton pan-n-scan lovers put it), they should then care about the fact that they really aren't seeing the whole movie in pan-n-scan. They don't understand that the directors are filming the movie to be shown on theater screens.... TV's are not the priority. People are just stubborn and stupid, they always have to fill up empty space. Personally, I don't find the 'black bars' very distracting at all. I enjoy the film more knowing that I am seeing the ENTIRE thing the way it was meant to be seen.

"Also MGM shows the difference between Widescreen & fullscreen in their discs which come with certain MGM movies which are in Widescreen. "

This is very true; I love MGM for doing this and I hope more studios will follow suit. If the anti-widescreen folks won't believe US, I think they'll have to believe the studios who are putting these disks out. I think MGM is trying to get away from pan-n-scan all together. For awhile, they've offered both versions, but I bought two of their newer releases the other day, "Igby Goes Down" and "Blue Velvet (Special Edition)" and they both included only the widescreen version and also made sure to point out the difference in the booklet. Widescreen also saves the independent studios a lot of money, since it's cheaper to simply transfer the film to video (which is what widescreen is) instead of hiring an editor to pan-n-scan it. All of the Lion's Gate DVD's I known are widescreen only.

Finally, I think that even though the pan-n-scan lovers are more vocal, the widescreen lovers are the ones who are getting their wish of more widescreen dvd's. That's because the people who buy DVD's most are film lovers; and film lovers are the ones who want widescreen. Casual buyers are the ones who want pan-n-scan. Every couple of months I buy a few DVD's... and when I go to the big city, I stock up on the indie/foreign titles I can't get in my little town. Most of the pan-n-scan lovers probably only buy 2-3 (if that) DVD's a year. Therefore, mine and other film lovers purchases are speaking much louder, which is why widescreen is becoming more common.



FROM: Don
DATE: Thursday April 3, 2003 -- 1:50:18 pm
re: Warren post 02/24/03
If I'm considered dumb, then you are something that cannot be printed even on an adult web site.

Widescreen TV's are something that is being pusshed on us whether we want it or not. The TV manufactures love for us to spend $10,000 or more for their products, which is the only proper way to watch the #$^%% widescreen programs.

It's not just DVD but the whole industy. More and more network and cable stations are using the widescreen format which chop-out what THEY think is objectional material, break-up programs with commercials and stick on their stupid logs; sometimes animated ones.
Talk about "seeing the thing as it was meant to be seen"!

Sure I buy only 2 or 3 DVD's a year. That's all there is that I want to see which offer full screen versions.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Thursday April 3, 2003 -- 2:26:21 pm
More and more network and cable stations are using the widescreen format which chop-out what THEY think is objectional material,

Wait, what the hell are you talking about? Since when has widescreen format been used to censor movies?



FROM: Don
DATE: Friday April 4, 2003 -- 12:53:49 pm
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the Widescreen format is being used to censor viewing content. The entire television industry from the regular broadcast stations, the satelite/cable stations and the pre-recorded media providers are distroying what we watch.

To use the term "seeing a movie the way it was meant to be seen" as an excuse to force the widescreen format on us or to justify it, is hogwash.

Speaking of being forced into watching widescreen, whoever thought up the crazy stunt of taking a standard full screen movie and cutting off the top and bottom to make it into a letterbox edition?



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Friday April 4, 2003 -- 1:14:34 pm
To use the term "seeing a movie the way it was meant to be seen" as an excuse to force the widescreen format on us or to justify it, is hogwash.

I don't understand this viewpoint one bit, and I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find a director that does.

Speaking of being forced into watching widescreen, whoever thought up the crazy stunt of taking a standard full screen movie and cutting off the top and bottom to make it into a letterbox edition?

This is done very rarely (it's called "matting") and most reputable DVD review sites will note when a mastering company has done this. This has only really been done by the super-low-budget DVD companies (the ones that release 10 movies on 5 DVDs for $3). In 99.9% of the cases, though, widescreen versions on DVD are revealing MORE information that pan-and-scan has removed. There's plenty of evidence to support that, but I have yet to see any evidence supporting your various widescreen conspiracy claims.



FROM: Don
DATE: Tuesday April 8, 2003 -- 1:46:23 pm
"Conspiracy" Nice term, glad you used it; it does seem to sum up the whole situation.

Why else would a major manufacturer of DVD's not bother to indicate the format of their movies. Only to list the aspect ratio in tiny 4 point characters that gets covered up by a merchant's sticker.

Why else would a merchant lie and say it was a full screen version after he had to remove the DVD and use a magnifying to see it.

Why else would I end up watching the move with a pair of binoculars because it was a fifty-mile round trip to return it.



FROM: Paul
DATE: Tuesday April 8, 2003 -- 3:35:49 pm
Stupid shadow government and its matting....



FROM: Marcus Mackey
DATE: Tuesday April 8, 2003 -- 5:31:10 pm
"Conspiracy" Nice term, glad you used it; it does seem to sum up the whole situation.

It doesn't though. It's just evolution, progress, improvement, bettering ourselves with higher quality, more functional products. Would you just as soon TV stayed black and white? Maybe we should've remained with silent movies rather than ::gasping:: progress to mono, stereo, quadraphonic, surround sound, dolby digital, dts, dolby digital 5.1, dolby digital 6.1, ac3, et al.? Wouldn't that be joyous to watch the continuation of silent movies with subtitles and black and white movies? If you even for a second believe that progress is bad, consider where you'd be if we were still stuck watching Charlie Chaplin-esque movies? Hell, don't bother to upgrade to DVD you twit... your VCR should be good enough right?!?

ROFL

Technology improves things, makes them better. You can still buy your "pan-n-scan" movies, but the gradual evolution is towards the widescreen format as it will 1) make it easier on movie houses (as the aspect ratio of theater screens and the widescreen TV's are identical), and 2) provide for better television, as the director envisioned for the widescreen, it'll make things "CONSISTENT". So stop your conspiracy theories... as it's a zealots way of not understanding the truth of the matter.

Considering that the music formats we use have changed umpteen times in the last 50 years (78, LP, 45, Reel-to-reel, Cassette, 8-track, CD, eventually DVD-A... while we also have seen MP3, WMA, and AAC come online), the fact that TV is working on potentially it's 3rd major change (to 16:9 widescreen High-Definition TV from Black and white 4:3 and Color 4:3) is pretty reasonable. The fact that they're "gradually" shifting this way... will eventually render the argument moot. It's not going to happen over night, but it will happen over time. It should really, and I'm in support of it. It's ridiculous to expect the television companies to create a support for all formats... it's too costly overall. The sooner we get to 16:9 widescreens, in tube, LCD, Plasma, and whatever other formats loom on the horizon, the better off we'll all be. Maybe it'll even enlighten a few zealots along the way.

Do some research before you impose slander, it's ignorant and makes you out to look like a zealot for not "UNDERSTANDING" the reality of the situation. Yes, being a zealot would be a bad thing... as it means you're forming an opinion without an education, on a knee-jerk reaction, on a whim. This is the same mentality that causes wars... both of the flame type, and of the political and religious type.

Quite simply, it's improving the quality you get. Yes it costs more initially, but over time... the costs come down. Hell, look at DVD... a few years ago the DVD players you bought were $300, now you can almost get a DVD-R for that much (Best Buy has one for $499, they were $1,000's of dollars), and a DVD player for around $50. High Definition TV's will eventually be to the pricepoint we're accustomed to, but for Christ's sakes give it time...

Just don't bitch when all your 4:3 movies have borders in the future. Then you'll "WISH" you went widescreen, rather than have to buy movies to make up for poor choices through lack of educating yourself to the "REALITY" of the situation...

Why else would a major manufacturer of DVD's not bother to indicate the format of their movies. Only to list the aspect ratio in tiny 4 point characters that gets covered up by a merchant's sticker.

Because the sizing/format wasn't perceived to be a marketability issue? The movie itself was. True, more people nowadays bicker over the format (i.e. the Wal Mart/Kmart crowd of moviephiles), that is also why more and more movies either come with both formats on disk with the option to switch, or more typically (and more modern, due to more companies shifting to single-sided DVD's from double-sided)... we end up with stores carrying discs in both formats, widescreen and pan-n-scan "full-screen". Irony, "full screen" is an oxymoron... it should be called "filled screen" or "Small % of original screen". That is EXACTLY what it is.

The labelling of such fashions has gotten more prominent as newer DVD's have come out. Some of them even put FULL SCREEN or WIDESCREEN right up there by the title on the newer releases. Why? ::whacking your forehead:: DUH!

Personally, I'm a widescreen supporter, because it'd be like the car makers making the hood and nose of their cars bigger and lopping off 1/2-3/4 of the car. NO THANK YOU... I'd rather have the full artistic design statement, much as I'd rather have the full movie/car. It's much more "functional". The same as driving a giant hood and nose around without doors, a roof, fenders, trunk, seats, etc. etc. would be a royal pain in the Heineken... much as Full Screen movies are.

Would you pay for 1/2 a song? Why pay for 1/2 of the original movie content?

Why else would a merchant lie and say it was a full screen version after he had to remove the DVD and use a magnifying to see it.

Merchant = store. If the store lied to you, that's not the movie industries' fault, nor is it the mfg. of the discs. Odds are, with half the dolts and dimwits working at Best Buy and other stores like Wal Mart/Kmart, that only do so for some scrappy wage, most really don't "CARE" what quality of service you get, as they have little incentive to put up with ignorant bitchy customers and bust their butts for $5.75-$8, especially as the rate of inflation continues ever onward. Customer service is fast becoming a dying breed "ANYWHERE" you go. Expect more of this, it's the wave of the future at most stores. Part of the promise of skimping on costs via the "Superstore" mentality. Like the old quote... "You get what you pay for."

Why else would I end up watching the move with a pair of binoculars because it was a fifty-mile round trip to return it.

If you had to watch your TV with a pair of binoculars, you might wish to upgrade to a new TV. I watch Widescreen movies quite often on my rather "miniscule" and "antiquated" 19" bulb-tube RCA that has more distortion in it's convexity than many TV's made 30 years ago. Do I bitch and moan? No... I'd rather watch it as the director envisioned, rather than see 30-40% of the movie as it was intended for the silver screen.



FROM: Warren
DATE: Tuesday April 8, 2003 -- 10:13:12 pm
Don, listen to yourself. You're talking like an idiot. The widescreen version is the same version of the movie that played in theaters. IT IS NOT the full screen version with black bars added to the top and bottom. That's not what widescreen is. Get it through your head.



FROM: Don
DATE: Wednesday April 9, 2003 -- 3:00:39 pm
Name-calling! That's just what I would expect from you bunch.

When you can't convince somebody to buy the same expensive toys you do, you resort to calling them idiots and dummies.

And for your information, I don't care if it's not the same version as played in a theater. However, what I do care about is loosing half my viewing area just so a little more picture can be seen on each side. The majority of the time, that's all there is a little more picture without any content relating to the story.

And before you give me the "full artistic design statement” and "the way the director meant it to be seen" clichés, remember we talking about mass-produced entertainment which is more-often-than-not rated by it gross revenues rather than its artistic content.



FROM: Paul
DATE: Wednesday April 9, 2003 -- 3:38:21 pm
The only reason people are calling you a dummy is because you are coming across as extremely ignorant, and slightly arrogant, which does nothing for your argument.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Wednesday April 9, 2003 -- 4:12:47 pm
And for your information, I don't care if it's not the same version as played in a theater. However, what I do care about is loosing half my viewing area just so a little more picture can be seen on each side. The majority of the time, that's all there is a little more picture without any content relating to the story.

Tell you what -- pick your favorite movie that was shot in 2.35:1 ratio and watch it on widescreen and then on full screen, then come back and tell me the same thing.

By the way, I have yet to read a shred of evidence from any of your claims regarding the "widescreen conspiracy." Show me something... anything.




FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Sunday April 13, 2003 -- 10:07:54 pm
"When you can't convince somebody to buy the same expensive toys you do, you resort to calling them idiots and dummies. "

Don,

First all you, you don't need expensive equipment to watch Widescreen. Widescreen is viewable on all televisions.

"And for your information, I don't care if it's not the same version as played in a theater. However, what I do care about is loosing half my viewing area just so a little more picture can be seen on each side. The majority of the time, that's all there is a little more picture without any content relating to the story."

Your statement above is totally wrong. You lose more than half of the picture when watching pan & scan movies. Don, you are just a screen filler. Watch a pan & scan version of many movies which are filmed using an aspect ration of 2.35:1 such as Ghostbusters. You lose a lot of picture space when watching pan & scan versions of 2.35:1 movies.

"And before you give me the "full artistic design statement” and "the way the director meant it to be seen" clichés, remember we talking about mass-produced entertainment which is more-often-than-not rated by it gross revenues rather than its artistic content."

Movies are also a form of art. Directors do have a vision when filming movies. Don, why do you ask directos such as John Carpenter, Martin Scorsese, etc what they fell about pan & scan. In fact, you can read about what directors think about pan & scan at http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2001_06_jun.shtml
http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2002_10_oct.shtml

Even though movies are made for money, there are film makers who make films who believe that film is an art. Take artwork for example, even though people paint artwork for money, there are painters who make paintings just for art.

Don,

People are calling you names because you are acting ignorant & arrogant.

Widescreen is here to stay. Even television stations & cable networks such as SCI-FI, etc are showing movies in Widescreen. Pan & Scan is dying & you must get used to it.



FROM: Matthew
DATE: Saturday April 19, 2003 -- 12:19:20 am
I love Widescreen Movies, But you have to have a big enough T.V. Or a Widescreen Tv. Also Widescreen T.V's are not a high in price as they use to be. Check Wholesale places for them. I got a 30" Widescreen. It is better to have Widescreen.



FROM: Warren
DATE: Thursday April 24, 2003 -- 10:51:20 pm
You still don't get it, Don. I'm not even going to bother now. Your idiotic comments speak for themselves. Here's my advice: try watching the movie for once. Ignore the "black bars". It's quite obvious your watching the black bars and not the movie.



FROM: MarshallC
DATE: Saturday April 26, 2003 -- 11:17:47 am
Widescreen Sux BIGTIME. I have
a 31 inch TV and that means I expect the picture to take up the screen. Widescreen means a smaller picture. If I wanted a smaller picture I would have bought a smaller TV set. I would buy more DVD's if I didn't have to worry about them being in that WideDumb format.



FROM: Rob [E-Mail]
DATE: Saturday April 26, 2003 -- 11:22:27 am
I'm going to close my eyes now and refuse to believe that this debate is actually still going on...



FROM: MarshallC
DATE: Saturday April 26, 2003 -- 11:52:20 am
Why is there even a controversy about this?

I think Hollywood does terrible job
letting us know if a DVD is in Widescreen (or WideDumb that I like to call it) format or in 4:3 format.

You have to turn the DVD over and read through whatever to try to figure what formats they are in and sometimes it does not tell us it's in widescreen.

They should have some icon on the front of the DVD..good size in plain site..that we can tell before we even pick the stupid clamshell up that tells us what format(s) the movie is in.

There are enough intelligent people who understand 4:3 sets should be in "normal format" and 16:9 sets should view "widescreen format" and they should make the movies available in both formats.



FROM: Warren
DATE: Sunday April 27, 2003 -- 2:38:30 am
MarshallC, you aren't too bright, are you? Haven't you read anything that's been written here?

Let me get it thru your head.... movies are filmed for the theater screen first and foremost. Theater screens are WIDE. They DON'T film movies for TV. This is why the "widescreen" format exists. So that the film can be seen the way it was meant to be seen. Pan-n-scan is a terrible format. You not only lose 40-50% of the picture; it's both bad quality and very tacky to boot. I would rather sacrifice a little bit of screen space rather than miss out on half the movie. Of course, you still won't get it. You're too stubborn. It's all about filling up empty space to you. I'll give you the same advice I gave Don and the other ignorant ones: WATCH THE MOVIE.... don't watch the black bars.

I know I am just repeating myself here. I think you are just trying to get us going... there is no way someone could be so stupid like that.



FROM: Moi
DATE: Sunday April 27, 2003 -- 2:40:27 am
MarshallC, I hope you are enjoying your full-screen copies of XXX and Rollerball. Those are the only kind of movies that are available in pan-and-scan anymore; because only dumb people buy that crap.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Tuesday April 29, 2003 -- 3:31:34 pm
To Don & MarshallC, goto these sites to understand Widescreen & Pan & scan goto:

http://www.widescreen.org/index.shtml

To see what Widescreen is about goto & why pan & scan is bad goto these sites:
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/
http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen.shtml
http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml
http://www.hkfanatic.com/widescreen
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html
http://www1.tripnet.se/~adler/wide2.html
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/
http://www.howstuffworks.com/video-format.htm

Screeshot examples of Widescreen Vs Pan & scan goto these sites:
http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml
http://dvd.ign.com/news/16377.html
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/element/index.html
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/attacks/index.html
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/mask/index.html
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/suspects/index.html
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/rumble/index.html
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/axe/index.html
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/mummy/index.html
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/demolition/index.html
http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/few/index.html






FROM: Jason
DATE: Tuesday April 29, 2003 -- 3:53:56 pm
I just came across this web site today and I can't believe the number of people who like watching only half of a movie. I have been a proponent of (for all you full-frame idiots, that means I like) widescreen years before DVD came along. You don't know how hard it was to find widescreen movies on VHS, but I did find several. I'm not going to try to convince the idiots that widescreen is better because I know people. People get in a mind set and won't get out of it. People have their preferences, and mine (as well as my whole family) is wide screen. I have a cousin who was an extra in one of Mel Gibson's movies who, in the chopped up full-screen version, would have been lopped off the side. This is how I convinced my family. I just say, "Give the babies their bottles and send them away happy." These babies will be crying when the FCC does away with the 4:3 signal in a few years. Existing VCRs and DVD Players will still work, but there will still be black bars, people, but on the sides. So it's get used to them now or don't come crying to us!



FROM: Jayson Kennedy
DATE: Sunday May 4, 2003 -- 12:27:37 pm
I don't know if anyone already stated this but placing Widescreen and Full Screen versions of one film on one single sided disc can actually drop the image quality down of both versions, especially if the disc is supplement packed.

I've always thought widescreen was better, even when the seldom aired letterboxed (widescreen) film would appear on television when I was a kid (I'm 20) I thought those particular films were 'special' in someway! Of course now I definitely know they are!

You know what you'd see if you removed those 'stupid black bars'? black bars or (if the film was wide screen matted) grips holding light sheet reflectors, mic booms or/and wires.

Films are in this format for a simple reason, to be shown theatrically. But many directors really use the format to an extreme artistic measure. Viewing films in this format is an absolute must. I own a Sony 36" Flat screen Trinitron and even though slim black bars appear on the top and bottom when viewing 2.35:1 Widescreen films anamorphically, it's still miles better than seeing actors talk to others who are partially or COMPLETELY off screen or getting a headache watching extreme blurred close-ups during an entire film (Ridley Scott's Legend is especially unwatchable full screen)

As John Carpenter once put it:

"Let the idiots have they're pan and scan."



FROM: Paul
DATE: Sunday May 4, 2003 -- 4:02:26 pm
I dunno, something tells me John Carpenter would use proper English. (rimshot)



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Sunday May 4, 2003 -- 10:22:27 pm
Here at the Ping, we make fun of everyone! Even people we agree with!



FROM: Paul
DATE: Sunday May 4, 2003 -- 11:06:58 pm
That's right! If we don't make fun of you, your visit is free!



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Wednesday May 7, 2003 -- 5:34:46 pm
Looks like pan-and-scan suckers--er, fans--have lost their #1 ally:

Blockbuster to give preference to widescreen versions

Nice.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Thursday May 8, 2003 -- 7:23:43 pm
It's excellent that Blockbuster (aka Pan & scan central) is going to give perference to Widescreen versions. Blockbusters is going in the right direction. Here's hoping that stores such as K-Mart & Wal-Mart start giving preference to Widescreen versions (wishful thinking but it could happen)



FROM: Lev
DATE: Wednesday August 20, 2003 -- 7:19:02 pm
Man, pan and scan supporters need to grow up and deal with the fact that not everything is going to fit nice and neatly inside their perfect little square boxes (pun MUCH intended). Hate the black bars? Then watch "full-screen" and lose out on up to HALF (1/2, 50%) of the existant picture! That's not "a little bit" of the picture so why is this a problem? Why be so ignorant and arrogant in your mentality? It doesn't change the fact that you are only seeing 50 - 65% of the movie at a time! It seems that the general public has been spoiled rotten with the advent of the television and it's limitless value (cable, satellite, videogames etc.) and seems to think that they are somehow a major dominant factor when they buy or rent and view something on their screen!



FROM: KC [E-Mail]
DATE: Sunday August 31, 2003 -- 7:28:37 pm
I, too, am a hardcore widescreen supporter. I think the Joe-6-Packs on this thread are a bunch of ignorant morons. Face it. Pan and Scan sucks big time. I'd rather see the whole picture in a smaller space than see half of the picture using all the space.

If I'm at the video store and only see a fullscreen copy of the movie I wanna rent, I complain. I ask the clerk if she has it in widescreen. She says no, and I say, "Ok, I'll go buy the widescreen version then," as I walk out the door. There's another video store in our area that will NOT supply Fullscreen, unless fullscreen was the original aspect ratio. So, I'm happy for that place. My brother rented the Fullscreen edition of Goldmember. I got mad, hopped in my van and went to Wal Mart and bought the widescreen edition.

I will NOT buy, rent, or watch any movies that have been chopped up to shit. If I'm in the living room and somebody with the remote turns it on a Pan and Scan movie, I'll walk out of the room. I won't watch it. I was even at a friend's house who had Signs on VHS. She was gonna put it on while we ate dinner. And then I saw that message. So, I turned my head away and paid more attention to my dinner. She was blocking my view too and she knew it, so she said she'd get outta the way. I said "Don't worry about it. I'm not interested in seeing the movie." Why? Because it's Pan and Scanned.

If the movie is available ONLY in Pan and Scan, like Snow Dogs, I will NOT buy it. It's either OAR or nothing. No OAR = No Sale



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Monday September 1, 2003 -- 1:11:17 pm
You probably shouldn't be buying a movie like Snow Dogs, no matter the aspect ratio. :)



FROM: KC
DATE: Monday September 1, 2003 -- 4:06:36 pm
I heard Snow Dogs was dumb anyway.



FROM: KC
DATE: Monday September 1, 2003 -- 4:10:36 pm
Oh, I also laugh at the Joe-6-Packs on here who say "Duh, I didn't pay for a So-and-So inch TV just so I can only see half of it being used up." That excuse is the has got the be the dumbest one out there. To me, there are NO advantages to Pan and Scan. Someone commented on here about resolution because the "foolscreen" movies are using more lines. But here's a problem. It actually looks WORSE because you're blowing up the pixals and the grain of the film. So then it looks like crap. I've compared Letterbox to Pan and Scan on some movies and the letterbox actually looks much sharper.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Saturday September 6, 2003 -- 9:41:00 pm
"Oh, I also laugh at the Joe-6-Packs on here who say "Duh, I didn't pay for a So-and-So inch TV just so I can only see half of it being used up." That excuse is the has got the be the dumbest one out there. To me, there are NO advantages to Pan and Scan."

I totally agree. This is all we hear from pan & scan lovers. Every pan & scan lover says that they hate the black bars & that they need their screen filled. What the pan & scan lovers need to understand is that even when they buy a Widescreen TV, there will still be bars on 2.35:1 movies & bars on 4:3 material.

It comes down to one thing & that is that pan & scan lovers believe that Widescreen makes their TV's look inferior because their screen isn't being filled.

Pan & scan is evil & it must die. In fact, last month, I ordered a used copy of Minority Report: Widescreen Special Edition DVD thru Amazon.com Marketplace & when my ordered arrived, I noticed that the seller sent me the fullscreen version. I emailed them right away & I sent the DVD back to them & I got a refund several days later. I then order Minority Report: Widescreen Special Edition from another seller & they sent me my Widescreen version.



FROM: Aaron [E-Mail]
DATE: Saturday September 6, 2003 -- 10:28:11 pm
There were some painful examples of pan-n-scan on TV recently. I forget which movie, but there was a tight shot of two characters exchanging a knowning glance. The 4:3 frame didn't fit both characters, so there was this weird pan left-to-right and back again to try and capture the fact that the characters made eye contact and were on the same wavelength.

With regards to Blockbuster and widescreen DVDs, I recently rented some Frankie and Annette bikini movies from my local Blockbuster and the DVDs are double-sided: one side 4:3 the other 16:9 -- excellent!
I was pleasently surprised to find the widescreen format on such old movies.



FROM: Duck_King
DATE: Wednesday September 24, 2003 -- 11:03:52 am
The irony of the idiots saying "Hurrrr! I wan't teh full pictar!! Mah teevee ain't teh wied screene! It si 2 small!", is that essentially, their shitty pan and scan version IS a smaller pictures. It takes up the whole screen. Whoopdeedoo. They also losing half the movie just so they can zoom in on the center.

As for anyone claiming that the picture isn't as clear on widescreen as it is in fullscreen, you sir, are a fricking moron. Using that same logic, if you sit three inches away from the TV, why, the images must get twenty times better, right?! Wrong. You lose resolution when you have to zoom in on the image like that. A good example is Die Hard Five Star DVD. If you watch the special feature about letterbox, they explain this in detail, but many of the pan and scan 'tards will probably miss this, because they are too busy a-yellin' at Dakota to brin' 'ol Russ the hound dawg back inta the trailer and clean up the spilt corn offa dat dere floor!

If you like pan and scan so much, do us a favor (read: Us being people who actually CARE about movies as an art), and throw out your DVD player and go back to betamax with the other mongrel idiots. (Oh yeah, and take your shitty movies like "Enough" and "xXx" with you)



FROM: Brody
DATE: Wednesday September 24, 2003 -- 11:53:03 am
Can I fix pan& scanny by putting a couple tvs next to each other?

Also Maury, I still need your email.



FROM: KC
DATE: Wednesday September 24, 2003 -- 11:11:29 pm
I went bin diving at Wal Mart and picked up Jackie Chan's First Strike. It was $5.88, so what the hey? It has both wide and full screen version on the disc. My brother's friends and I kept going back and forth comparing both versions and basically pointing and laughing at the fullscreen version. "OMG, that looks like shit!! Put it back on widescreen." So I did and they go "Oh man, that looks a hell of a lot better." I'm like, "Yup. Widescreen is da best!!" The Joe 6 Packs just dunno what they're missing. It's hard to watch and understand a movie if it's been modified. That's why I refuse to watch them. I don't wanna waist my time trying to watch it with the sides cut off and then wonder why the hell I didn't understand the movie.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Friday October 3, 2003 -- 7:18:51 pm
"The irony of the idiots saying "Hurrrr! I wan't teh full pictar!! Mah teevee ain't teh wied screene! It si 2 small!", is that essentially, their shitty pan and scan version IS a smaller pictures. It takes up the whole screen. Whoopdeedoo. They also losing half the movie just so they can zoom in on the center."

I agree. This is the only thing that pan & scan lovers complain about Widescreen because they think that they are loosing picture space when watching Widescreen movies. It's the same thing with some audio people. For example, there are people who own 5.1 audio systems who complain when watching movies which only contain a mono or stereo audio track. For example, Christine only contains a stereo dolby digital track. These type of people say that "I brought a 5.1 audio system & all movies must use all of my speakers"

Sorry for that but these people who complain about movies not having a 5.1 audio track are still as bad a pan & scan lovers but pan & scan lovers ruin more movies than audio complainers.



FROM: KC
DATE: Saturday October 4, 2003 -- 2:15:47 am
Oh, yes. I know what you mean. We were watching Roy Oribison Black and White Night and my uncle was wondering if they were gonna colorize it. I says "No." I guess he doesn't realize that it was meant to be black and white it depends on the preference and art of the director.



FROM: Josh
DATE: Sunday October 12, 2003 -- 12:44:13 am
If all you guys love your screen filled so much.........push that little zoom button on your player. That should make y'all happy! Good grief. Give me my widescreen, and as stated by Carpenter, "give the idiots their pan & scan.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Monday October 13, 2003 -- 12:59:21 am
Here is a little something that I just found: Circuit City actually has a little seqment about Widescreen & it is located at http://www.circuitcity.com/learnabout.jsp?c=1&b=g&category=DVD+Players+and+Recorders&department=DVD+Players+and+VCRs&learn=Basics



FROM: KC
DATE: Tuesday October 14, 2003 -- 1:02:35 am
Samsung's DVD players now have a "letterbox eliminator" feature. Now that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. It probably wouldn't stop me from buying one though as long as I didn't use that rediculous feature. And it says "Remove Ugly Letterbox Bars with Letterbox Eliminator." Which is a dumb statement to make. I think fullscreen looks uglier on my 4x3 TV than letterbox. Why? Because the top and bottom are not perfectly square. It's more rounded. Now, you put widescreen material on the screen and you get black bars, it actually looks sharper and more natural.



FROM: hbdragon88
DATE: Tuesday October 28, 2003 -- 2:22:30 am
I used to have no trouble with fullscreen - I never knew anything different. Then when I enrolled in a film class and saw the fullscreen and the widescreen versions of "Blade Runner" fullscreen's fate was sealed - I vowed never to rent or buy a fullscreen movie if I could help it.

Unfortuanantely, there are the dammed rental stores that I go to. Often they don't have the widescreen of a movie, like for Minority Report and the Hours. What was worst was that one time, I picked up the widescreen Chicago case to rent- and they gave me the fullscreen version!

Another thing is VHS widescreen. I rented "The Graduate" once and I was aware that it would be fullscreen - it's a VHS, most are fullscreened. But when I start watching it - it starts as widescreen! At the party scene though, it switches to fullscreen! I just am pissed the whole way through - why didn't they letterbox the whole movie?



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Tuesday October 28, 2003 -- 9:37:26 am
hbdragon88 -- re: the switching. I think it has something to do with the opening credits... often, even on full-screen transfers, they're shown in widescreen format. Probably because they'd look like garbage if they were squashed or trimmed to fit the full-screen image.



FROM: Joe
DATE: Wednesday October 29, 2003 -- 10:30:28 am
I just happened to come acroos this website, and I would like to say THANK GOD for WIDESCREEN! I am not going to repeat all the reasons why it is obviously superior, as they have all been said a few times on this board. I wish people would wake up and realize that Pan and Scan is NOT the way to see a movie. I don't even notice the "black bars" anymore. I DO notice if they aren't there!! I don't care if they come out with 2 versions of each movie, WS & P&S, just as long as I can have my Widescreen! I have screwed up twice and bought full-screen by accident, and believe me, it will NEVER happen again. Pan & Scan is for VHS, and I wish it would die out with VHS. John Carpenter, who is one of my favorite directors, said it best.

Those who say that they don't care what the directors intentions or original vision for the film was, should not be allowed to watch movies anymore. They should only be allowed to watch the mind-numbing reality shows. Without these directors, you wouldn't have these movies!

Widescreen is the best, shows the most even though it may be "slightly" smaller. Bigger is not always better.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Sunday November 2, 2003 -- 12:14:20 am
Well, the biggest problem is that the pan & scan lovers are only watching the black bars of Widescreen movies. People should be watching the movie & not the black bars.

I was the same way at one time, I used to want my screen filled but I changed several years ago. I only watch movies in OAR. Pan & scan is bad. Open Matte is tolerable (tolerable for B movies because B movies aren't that good) but I prefer to see Open Matte movies in Widescreen because Open Matte movies which use special effects, the special effects are pan & scanned in Open Matte because special effects are composed for Widescreen.



FROM: half_pint
DATE: Sunday November 9, 2003 -- 4:02:28 pm
A few facts about widescreen.

1) It is an artificial format, the shape of a cinema wall,
you can cram more mugs into a low wide cinema.

2) Its is not the directors choice to film in WS, he is forced
to by the big cinema chains, only a crackpot would film
through a letter box.

3) All human vision is "pan and scan" our eyes have a circular
sensitive region and lens, Eyes move and refocus to pan and
scann a real world image.

4) Because cinemas are very large you dont notice the 'thin slot'
so much, but when you see in at home on a TV you realise what
a horrible shitty little format it is. Its like looking at the
world through a partially opened car boot.

5) 16:9 is a horrible artistic format only 10% of Leonardo di Vinci's
paintings were in such a shitty format , The same goes for all
artists.
http://www.21cec.com/painting/leo/

8) It is really sad and disturbing that WS is being forced upon us,
it is only suitable for the cinema (if that) where about 0,1% of
all video is watched. 99.9% is watched on TV.

So remember, no director given a free choice would film through a
letter-box, the cinemas demand it so more mugs can sit near the
front, and they will not pay to watch a blank wall.

All 8 of the above points are undeniable facts. Few film directors
will admit it because doing so would mean less cinema revenue and
thus less money for them.
I challange any film director to dispute any of the above 8 points,
if they do you know they are either idiots or liars.



FROM: KC
DATE: Wednesday November 12, 2003 -- 1:03:31 am
We have 2 eyes side by side. Not only do they give us a 3D perspective, but they also give us a panoramic view of the world.



FROM: Paul
DATE: Wednesday November 12, 2003 -- 9:17:23 am
All 8 of the above points are undeniable facts.

Uh, no. They're all your opinion.

3) All human vision is "pan and scan" our eyes have a circular sensitive region and lens, Eyes move and refocus to pan and scann [sic] a real world image.

But as KC says, our eyes actually have a panoramic view - closest to widescreen, not pan-and-scan. That's why widescreen works so well; it's not just an economic boon for theaters, but it actually works best with our eyes.

Now, your other "facts:"

1) It is an artificial format, the shape of a cinema wall, you can cram more mugs into a low wide cinema.

The TV's square format is just as artificial. The only "natural" format is a full-on panorama. What's that? Yes, that's just like widescreen. Burn!

2) Its [sic] is not the directors [sic] choice to film in WS, he is forced to by the big cinema chains, only a crackpot would film through a letter box [sic].

Got any proof of this? I highly doubt that everyone hates letterbox. But you know what else? I've seen a few movies in the past few years (such as the Blair Witch Project) that were not letterboxed. So, apparently, there's a choice involved. Most choose letterbox. Besides, who wouldn't want to work with the format that 100% of theaters have? (Burn!)

4) Because cinemas are very large you dont [sic] notice the 'thin slot' so much, but when you see in at home on a TV you realise [sic] what a horrible shitty little format it is. Its [sic]like looking at the world through a partially opened car boot.

I don't watch movies from inside my car's trunk; do you?

In any event, this is your opinion and not a fact. (Burn!)

5) 16:9 is a horrible artistic format only 10% of Leonardo di [sic] Vinci's paintings were in such a shitty format , The same goes for all artists. http://www.21cec.com/painting/leo/

Again, this starts out with opinion. Get it? Opinion. Not a fact. Now, insofar as Leonardo's paintings go, that is an entirely different medium. Comparing a motion picture to a painting for format is like comparing a dog's bone to a magazine and asking, "Why can't the bone feature flashy, color pictures?" You need more support for your weak, weak argument here. (Burn!!)

8) It is really sad and disturbing that WS is being forced upon us, it is only suitable for the cinema (if that) where about 0,1% of all video is watched. 99.9% is watched on TV.

First, this too starts with - yep! - opinion. And then you reference an alleged fact without anything to back it up. Show me stats that say 99.9% of movies are watched on TV.

Face it, pal, widescreen isn't going anywhere. Hey, did you notice something? Newer TVs are... rectangular! What! That means that, yes, people are going to be able to watch widescreen films without said black bars! Oh, gosh! This means that there's no creativity left and that everyone is a lemming! Aaaah!

Anyway, nice try. Ring the bell, school's in, sucka.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Wednesday November 12, 2003 -- 9:58:20 am
Of course, those also weren't eight facts to begin with -- only six.



FROM: Aaron [E-Mail]
DATE: Wednesday November 12, 2003 -- 7:15:37 pm
Quite funny that our poster's "facts" use the poor comparison of Da Vinci's paintings dimensions to movies given that one of Da Vinci's most famous paintings, "The Last Supper" measures 460cm by 880cm, which is a ratio of 1.91:1 quite close to the 1.78:1 (16:9) ratio.

So, which apostles would you cut-out for the pan-and-scan version?



FROM: Lev Szczesniak
DATE: Thursday November 20, 2003 -- 12:07:49 am
Hey remember why people watch pan and scan: IGNORANCE IS BLISS.

Who cares what it looks like, right? I mean, who cares WHAT we are watching in the first place! All that can be said about this stupid debate is that when given a decision to view a film in it's entirety, un-cut, there are people who choose not view it like this. In other words, they could care less if the film they are watching is cropped, therefore they obviously don't care about the film itself. That is just plain simple logic. So then why should their input count for anything at all? The sad thing is, we were bullsh*tted into thinking that pan and scan VHS was normal, and now that the truth is out, some people see it like this is a new fad, and it is not normal. Hey half_pint, since you feel so strongly about the 4:3 ratio, why don't you pull your head out of your ass and stop being a hypocrite by going to the movie theater because apparently "16:9 is a horrible artistic format and only 10% of Leonardo di Vinci's paintings were in such a shitty format , The same goes for all artists." What a complete moron. Yeah, a wider picture is DEFINITELY a scam because that is how audiences have demanded it for 50 years you genius.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Sunday November 23, 2003 -- 9:42:50 pm
half_pint,

Your full of it. The stuff you posted are nothing but lies.

"2) Its is not the directors choice to film in WS, he is forced
to by the big cinema chains, only a crackpot would film
through a letter box. "

Your full of it. There are directors who love filming in Widescreen. half_pint, time to get your head out of your ass. Here is one example, John Carpenter (John is my favorite director) totally loves Widescreen & hates pan & scan. John Carpenter films all of his movies in 2.35:1 Panavision.

In the words of John Carpenter:
Just put an extra disc in there and give the original (widescreen) version . . . and then give the idiots their pan-and-scan version.

Yes, John Carpenter actually called Pan & scan lovers idiots. Why? Because John Carpenter totally supports Widescreen.



FROM: scooter
DATE: Tuesday December 2, 2003 -- 9:30:34 pm
i have scan n pan .and i jus t change the setting on my dvd player,if i get a widescreen dvd



FROM: KC
DATE: Thursday December 4, 2003 -- 1:47:38 am
Say again? Didn't really understood. But I do have an idea.

Your DVD player should be set to 4x3 Letterbox if you have it hooked up to a 4x3 TV. It should be set to 16x9 if it's hooked up to a Widescreen TV. There is also a 4x3 Pan and Scan setting, but that setting does not work. So far, no DVD has been released that uses this setting. Any DVD today you use in the DVD player with the Pan and Scan setting will still play in letterbox. You want the full picture, you 4x3 Letterbox if you have a 4x3 TV. Or use 16x9 Wide if you have a widescreen TV.



FROM: matt
DATE: Sunday December 28, 2003 -- 11:33:50 am
widescreen sux ass! full screen forever!



FROM: Paul
DATE: Sunday December 28, 2003 -- 12:19:09 pm
More and more every day, more children are using the Internet.



FROM: KC
DATE: Monday December 29, 2003 -- 12:30:22 am
Oh great. Another screen filler.



FROM: jack
DATE: Monday December 29, 2003 -- 3:10:16 pm
Widescreen sucks - and this Ryan guy is annoying.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Monday December 29, 2003 -- 5:28:29 pm
You don' t know the half. I have to live with him.



FROM: Lev
DATE: Tuesday December 30, 2003 -- 5:56:34 pm
Jeez, the fool screeners have made some valuable points about "suck". My POV is TOTALLY reversed! I can't believe how not-retarded I was being!



FROM: Kate
DATE: Wednesday December 31, 2003 -- 12:08:43 am
Either one works for me, but I prefer widescreen when using subtitles. Then they don't block the picture and give the black bar at the bottom something to do.



FROM: KC
DATE: Wednesday December 31, 2003 -- 5:58:51 pm
If I was in control of all the movie studios, I'd ban Pan and Scan. Even for movies being shown on Starz, HBO, Cinemax, and on network TV. I'd even ban Pan and Scan on VHS as well and definently have it banned on DVD. It should only be Fullscreen if "Fullscreen" is the original aspect ratio. If it was originally filmed in widescreen, it should STAY in widescreen no matter what media it is on. If those Fullscreen Lovers out there don't like it, tough titty. Modified films SUCK ASS!! They are unwatchable pieces of crap!



FROM: chuck
DATE: Sunday January 11, 2004 -- 9:27:04 pm
Bottom line: People want to use their big screen tv for a theatre-like experience. BIG! Widesceen is disappointing with the "black bars".
No need to call names on either side, though. We ALL want the complete view of the movie and we want it as big as possible. It'll happen...next thing up? We will bitch about the size of our holographic images :)



FROM: KC
DATE: Monday January 12, 2004 -- 6:58:56 pm
"Bottom line: People want to use their big screen tv for a theatre-like experience. BIG!"

Since when is seeing only half the picture a "theater-like" experience?

"Widesceen is disappointing with the "black bars". "

Why would it be disappointing with black bars? It's the only way to preserve the original aspect ratio when you're trying to place it on a screen at a different shape.

"No need to call names on either side, though."

I'm sorry, but people who support the destruction and the butchery of art ARE morons. At least this number is decreasing as widescreen gets more popular. I'm glad Disney did the right thing and sold Pirates of the Caribbean in widescreen only. And it still sold like hot cakes.

"We ALL want the complete view of the movie and we want it as big as possible."

You are NOT getting the complete view of the movie with Pan and Scan. You want it bigger? Buy a bigger TV. Better yet, get a 16x9 TV.

"It'll happen...next thing up? We will bitch about the size of our holographic images :)"

You and I will probably be long, dead, and forgotten by the time this technology ends up in every home.



FROM: Hapondragon
DATE: Tuesday January 13, 2004 -- 2:05:35 pm
Wow KC, it's so flattering to be quoted line per line!
However, I disagree with you on a few points. Some people can not afford to buy a larger TV screen, imaging a widesceen viewing on a 19 inch monitor. The size of the picture itself would strain the eyes, artistically correct or not.



FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Tuesday January 13, 2004 -- 2:18:48 pm
I disagree. I had a 19" screen for the quite a while before upgrading to 32" and I still preferred watching movies in widescreen to full-screen.



FROM: KC
DATE: Tuesday January 13, 2004 -- 5:36:45 pm
We were watching on a 25 inch for a while until it broke down. We can't afford a new TV right now, so we're stuck using the 19 incher I had in my bedroom. For 1.85:1 movies, I pop in the DVD and watch it. But 2.35:1 movies are a different story. I scoot the chair maybe about an inch closer, maybe pull the TV forward just a little, turn out all the lights, and enjoy. My eyes then focus on the movie and I can pretty much see it perfectly. I'm hoping to get a new TV soon. Hopefully to get a widescreen RPTV.




FROM: andrew
DATE: Tuesday January 27, 2004 -- 2:23:58 am
I dissagree totally with widescreen programs and commercials. I get headaches when trying to give it a chance and tollerate it , but I say why tollerate it when you should get the best if your paying for it. Just make the dvds one side with widescreen and the other side fullscreen and everyone will be happy for alittle while until something else comes up. Try watching a program on a 4" portable TV that has widescreen and you'll have a two inch picture after the bars



FROM: Paul
DATE: Tuesday January 27, 2004 -- 9:18:01 am
A DVD player with a 4" TV, and a computer without a spell checker. Sounds great to me, pal.



FROM: KC
DATE: Thursday January 29, 2004 -- 4:55:56 pm
OAR is way more important than your TV. No matter what size it is. Pan and Scan must die!!!!



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Thursday February 12, 2004 -- 6:52:09 am
I watched Widescreen movies on a 19" TV for many years & it didn't bother me because I am getting the full picture. I now own a 27" Samsung HDTV.



FROM: KC
DATE: Sunday April 25, 2004 -- 7:07:12 pm
Went to the video store today for the first time in a long time. Those motherfuckers are STILL supplying fullscreen only on most of their DVD rentals. Even if they supply 2 of the same movie. All fullscreen! This is bullshit!! I think they just lost theirselves a customer. I'm gonna "buy" from now on.



FROM: Adam
DATE: Tuesday May 25, 2004 -- 4:13:16 am
matted widescreen is what sucks. it ruined the usual suspects. it matted a 4:3 picture to a 2.35:1 picture. talk about losing half the picture! im glad it comes with both widescreen and fullscreen. and in the menu it shows thumbnails of the widescreen version and full screen and the full screen one is the same as the widescreen but just with the sides cut off. thats BS. why do they lie like that? because they know that people will hate matted widescreen, thats why. and please nobody say anything like "the open matte version of the usual suspects sucks because in a fish called wanda you can see john cleeses boxers". and i know of a ton of movies that are open matte and dont have any boom mics visable.



FROM: Joe
DATE: Thursday May 27, 2004 -- 10:31:48 pm
Adam, the Super 35 process used for the Usual Suspects is not as simple as simply hard matting a 4:3 image. Sometimes they do just matte it, other times (most frequently) the WS has more information at the sides as well as less at the top and bottom, and other times there is no image cropped from top to bottom at all. Just remember that the movie was framed , shot, and presented in the theaters in WS.



FROM: Adam
DATE: Friday May 28, 2004 -- 12:41:28 am
i think the director made the wrong choice about how to show this movie in the theaters. the widescreen picture is so skinny it does its own little version of pan and scan; instead of the frame maving left and right, it moves up and down to keep the action in the center. i find that extrememly annoying. i mean they could have matted it to a 1.85:1 but no...

nobody can fit into the frame in a 2.35:1 movie. every movie i see like that they always have the tops of their heads cut off.

and twice i have seen the matts ruin something in the movie. like in Dumb and Dumber and in The Wrong Guy. in both of those there was something going on in the bottom part of the screen and it was matted out.

which tells me that they were directing it to be a 4:3 movie, but had to matt the top and bottom out because movie theaters are not equipt to play 4:3, or it would look really bad on such a wide movie screen as that.

basically what i am trying to say is that the way a movie is shown in theaters, and the way a director intended you to see it, are not always the same thing. and sometimes, like in the usual suspects, the director made a bad choice how to frame the movie.

pan & scan needs to die though, i agree with you people on that.



FROM: half_pint
DATE: Sunday June 6, 2004 -- 8:41:41 pm

FROM: KC
DATE: Wednesday November 12, 2003 -- 1:03:31 am
We have 2 eyes side by side. Not only do they give us a 3D perspective, but they also give us a panoramic view of the world.

Acutally the image presented to the brain is circular, the sensitive region of the eye is circular, unless you are a seagull in which case if is panoramic
(widescreen). The reason is seagulls
focus exclusively on the horizon.
If you required proof disect an human and a seagullss eye.



FROM: half_pint
DATE: Sunday June 6, 2004 -- 8:44:25 pm

FROM: KC
DATE: Wednesday November 12, 2003 -- 1:03:31 am
We have 2 eyes side by side. Not only do they give us a 3D perspective, but they also give us a panoramic view of the world.

Acutally the image presented to the brain is circular, the sensitive region of the eye is circular, unless you are a seagull in which case if is panoramic
(widescreen). The reason is seagulls
focus exclusively on the horizon.
If you required proof disect a human and a seagull's eye.



FROM:
DATE: Sunday June 6, 2004 -- 8:55:29 pm
Wednesday November 12, 2003 -- 7:15:37 pm
Quite funny that our poster's "facts" use the poor comparison of Da Vinci's paintings dimensions to movies given that one of Da Vinci's most famous paintings, "The Last Supper" measures 460cm by 880cm, which is a ratio of 1.91:1 quite close to the 1.78:1 (16:9) ratio.

So, which apostles would you cut-out for the pan-and-scan version?

Most people would say the Mona Lisa
was the most famous.
*Obviously* the subject matter could
be in any format, either tall, wide or
square, however the best compromise for viewing such random formats is *round*. That is why the visually most sensitive region(s) of the eye are *round*.
The more you move away from round the poorer the system is as a viewing medium.
Its not just my opinion it is a undeniable mathematical fact.
Still enjoy you widescreen TV, I am sure you paid through the nose (not eye - lol) for it.



FROM: half_pint
DATE: Sunday June 6, 2004 -- 9:08:48 pm
"Hey half_pint, since you feel so strongly about the 4:3 ratio, why don't you pull your head out of your ass and stop being a hypocrite by going to the movie theater"

I don't go to the movie theater, I havent been in 10 years.
Cinema owners like to fill the otherwise wasted space on the front
wall with something, otherwise folks on the ends of the rows feel cheated.

Also widescreen lovers who hate 'pan and scan' please remember
that that your eyes *have* to pan and scan a WS picture anyway.
It is not *possible* to see both sides of the screen (in detail) without doing
so.
So if you want to see all the "action"
you will have to watch the film several times.
"As the director intended" is a pretencious and meaningless phrase.
The director has no idea where your eyes will be focused at any moment in time.
The only was he can come close to achieving this is by panning and scanning, and only an idiot would pan and scan through a letterbox shaped apperture.



FROM: half_pint
DATE: Sunday June 6, 2004 -- 9:28:07 pm
Many movies are wider than the 16:9
of widescreen TV's anyway (2.35:1 etc) so you are getting ugly black bars anyway, (either that or losing resolution).
Movies were made for the cinema so if you want to watch them go to the cinema.
Why should I forever have to have ugly black bars on my TV to satisfy a few misguided 'film buffs'?
The problem is it is more economical to build low wide cinemas - more bums on seats per unit volume.
If it was more economical to build tall cinemas you would be watching tallscreen movies.
"Thats all folks" - as they say.

PS.

My most favourite widescreen movie?

Got to be "Towering Inferno" - lol.



FROM: half_pint
DATE: Sunday June 6, 2004 -- 9:33:15 pm
"4) Because cinemas are very large you dont [sic] notice the 'thin slot' so much, but when you see in at home on a TV you realise [sic] what a horrible shitty little format it is. Its [sic]like looking at the world through a partially opened car boot.

I don't watch movies from inside my car's trunk; do you? "

I think you missed the point bud, watching a WS movie *is* the same
shape as the view from a partially opened car trunk.

Nice own goal.




FROM: half_pint
DATE: Sunday June 6, 2004 -- 9:51:40 pm

"First, this too starts with - yep! - opinion. And then you reference an alleged fact without anything to back it up. Show me stats that say 99.9% of movies are watched on TV. "

So you spent 99% of your time at the cinema rather than at home?
Are you an usserette?

I know noone who does even 1% of their viewing at the cinema.

I doubt I have spent more than 48 hours in the cinema in my entire life.
I could probably watch 48 hours of TV in a week at a push.



FROM: half_pint
DATE: Sunday June 6, 2004 -- 10:03:27 pm
"In the words of John Carpenter:
Just put an extra disc in there and give the original (widescreen) version . . . and then give the idiots their pan-and-scan version. "


I had to look this guy up on the web,
I had never heard of him, I don't think I have heard of any of his movies either, these sound lilke real 3rd rate stuff.

Here is a quote from a 'fansite'

"His last theatrical release was Ghosts of Mars, a film from his own script. It wasn't a huge success and was savaged by many critics."

He sounds like a bit of an arsehole in my opinion.
Still some people enjoy watching garbage.
Each to his own eh?






FROM: Aaron [E-Mail]
DATE: Tuesday June 8, 2004 -- 9:22:24 pm
Most people would say the Mona Lisa was the most famous.

So then should our movies be pan 'n scanned to a ratio of 0.688 -- the same as La Gioconda (77 cm tall x 53 cm wide)? Do we subject ourselves to the tyranny of da Vinci?

No, of course not, you say it yourself that the subject matter can be in any format. And in making that admission, you deny one of your very own "undeniable" facts. Making such foolish assertions makes you appear the fool and casts doubt upon the validity of your other claims.




FROM: KC
DATE: Thursday June 10, 2004 -- 2:34:54 pm
Half pint. You are still full of shit. I do believe the image I'm getting from my eyes is more of an oval and not round. It's still wide. So I'm seeing a widescreen image. And you know what? I prefer to do my OWN pan and scanning with my own eyes when I watch a widescreen movie. Since widescreen is what I prefer and find more pleasant, even on a small TV with black bars, I will always continue to buy and watch movies in their original aspect ratio. I'm sorry, but most movies that are panned and scanned for you look like shit.



FROM:
DATE: Friday June 11, 2004 -- 1:02:34 am
The only was he can come close to achieving this is by panning and scanning, and only an idiot would pan and scan through a letterbox shaped apperture.

he's obviously trolling this board so let's just ignore him and his inane comments.



FROM: half_pint
DATE: Sunday June 13, 2004 -- 6:21:41 pm
kiss my a$$ biotch. pan and scan rulez!!!!1



FROM: KC
DATE: Sunday June 13, 2004 -- 8:47:31 pm
Pan and scan is for alcoholics and child molesters.



FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Sunday June 13, 2004 -- 9:46:43 pm
I sense a dumb-ass mode in the near future.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Monday June 14, 2004 -- 5:42:20 am
"The only was he can come close to achieving this is by panning and scanning, and only an idiot would pan and scan through a letterbox shaped apperture.

he's obviously trolling this board so let's just ignore him and his inane comments."

Yeah, I agree, half_pint is trolling this board. Maybe Ryan should have to ban half_pint's IP address.

half_pint,

John Carpenter is one the most respected directors in the history of the movie industry & one of my favorite directors. John Carpenter created many great movies such as Halloween, Assault On Precient 13, The Fog, Big Trouble In Little China.

Back to the subject, I agree with John Carpenter. John hates pan & scan because it ruins his vision of his movies. He likes filming all of his movies in 2.35:1 Panavision & it shows how much he cares about his movies.



FROM: KC
DATE: Monday June 14, 2004 -- 6:38:20 am
Have there been directors that refused to have their movies panned and scanned for any media type whether it was VHS, DVD, TV, or whatever? If I was a director, I'd sue for "censoring" my art.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Monday June 14, 2004 -- 7:11:59 pm
Well, for people who want to know, here is the history of Widescreen.

Before 1953, all movies were filmed in Academy Ratio which has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1. During the 1940's, when the TV standard was being worked out, the group called NTSC decided on an aspect ratio of 1.33:1 which is close to 1.37:1. This is the reason why old movies full up the screens on 4:3 TV's because they both have the same aspect ratio.

Well, during the late 1940's/early 1950's, people stopped going to the theaters because they can stay at home & watch TV instead of going to the movies. People stopped going to the theaters duing this time period & the film studios were loosing a good amount of profits. The studios needed something to get people back to the theaters so they started working on a new format which was to film movies which are larger than TV screens. This new format was called CinemaScope. CinemaScope was one of the first Widescreen format created. The first movie to use the Widescreen format was called The Robe which was released by 20TH Century Fox. Well, this new format worked & it brought people back to the theaters. This is how Widescreen came to be. But since this new format was larger than 4:3 TV's, this lead to the dread pan & scan format. Pan & scan is when a Widescreen movie is formatted to fit 4:3 TV's. Basically, a film technician has to watch the movie & decided where he/she want's to focus the camera for each part of the scene.



FROM: KC
DATE: Monday June 14, 2004 -- 10:40:57 pm
Yeah. The Robe was the movie that jumpstarted the Widescreen revolution. The first actual widescreen movie was made in 1930 called "The Big Trail." It was filmed in a 70 MM Fox Granduer Format. My grandma did play in this movie as an extra, but I don't think I'd ever be able to point her out.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Tuesday June 15, 2004 -- 7:25:00 am
KC,

Thanks for the info. I've never heard of the movie called The Big Trail. I've just researched the movie at IMDB & the IMDB lists this movie as having an aspect ratio of 2.10:1 for the 70 MM version.

The IMDB trivia page at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020691/trivia says that this was the only movie filmed in the process Grandeur & it mentions that Grandeur is similar to Todd-AO.

I just learned something new. Thanks KC.



FROM: KC
DATE: Thursday June 17, 2004 -- 3:41:25 am
Hey, no problem. I was pretty amazed myself when I heard about The Big Trail being the first widescreen movie.



FROM: Billy J
DATE: Saturday June 19, 2004 -- 12:32:27 am
"Pan and scan is for alcoholics and child molesters."

--------------------------------------------------

I find that comment both untrue and offensive.

I have been a child molester for a number of years now and nothing gets on my nerves more than pan & scan. Even I was molested as a child and I heard my father complain numerous times about the pan & scan on our old VHS tapes. And he was an alcoholic too so I guess your statement has no credibility.

So next time you decide to post something, KC, why don't you make sure it is actually true.



FROM: Billy J
DATE: Saturday June 19, 2004 -- 12:34:06 am
(just kidding! you over-senstive clods)



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Wednesday July 14, 2004 -- 7:19:56 pm
I was at Circuit City last Saturday looking for DVD's of Rocky Horror Picture Show & Buffy The Vampire Slayer (the 1992 movie). Circuit City had Rocky Horror but I had to pick up Buffy from Best Buy. While I was there, I saw Death Wish 2 & 3 which I like but I put them back on the shelf when I saw the modified to fit your TV on the back. Bad news, MGM, you just lost a sale on Death Wish 2 & 3, I would have bought them if they were released in OAR.



FROM: Adam
DATE: Wednesday July 21, 2004 -- 2:30:57 am
2.35:1 sucks and 1.85:1 rules.
end of discussion.



FROM:
DATE: Tuesday August 10, 2004 -- 2:40:04 am
Adam, 1.33:1 (pan and scan) of a 2.35:1 frame (widescreen) is 57% of the movie. Therefore, you suck. :)



FROM: Adam
DATE: Thursday August 12, 2004 -- 6:05:45 am
no pan and scan sucks even worse than 2.35:1. see like with my blade runner dvd on one side it's pan and scan, and on the other side it's 2.35. It's a no win situation. the bars are way too thick for me to see the picture well and the full screen cuts off the sides. therefore, it would make sense for all directors to film in 1.85:1, which will be the standard ratio of widescreen TVs. i am not saying that directors should cut off the sides to fit a 16:9, i am saying they should have included more of the top and bottom of the picture. does that sound so horrible?

and something on a different topic, does anyone here realize how much super 35 sucks? if you go www.widescreen.org you will see a screen shot of terminator 2 and you will see how much the widescreen actually cuts off. the exact url is http://www.widescreen.org/images/super_35_example.gif
no director should use super 35. ever.

i already said this in an earlier post but the usual suspects is better in full screen too, even though the menu lies about it and doesnt show that you do lose a lot of information with the widescreen.

and then there are are times when the menu doesnt lie about it, like with Freaky Friday. it shows that it is a matted widescreen and my sister was like "what the hell? the widescreen doesnt show more, it shows less! thats so stupid. why would anyone want to watch that?" and i said "i have no idea". so then we watched the full frame version and it was the best time i had ever had.



FROM: half_pint
DATE: Friday June 3, 2005 -- 8:08:26 pm
Here is some new foryou widescreen mugs, if God had meant us to watch widescreen he would have given us widescreen eyes.

Key facts, our vision is round, eyeball, iris,
pupil, lens, fovea and macula (visual areas of the retina) are *all* round.
Our field of vision is 180 degrees horizontal and 150 vertical which is a ratio of 1:1.38 which is almost spot on 4:3 1:1.333 and nowhere near 16:9 and miles away from 2:35:1 so I guess all you widescreen monkeys know better than God and/or evolution being such a clever conceited bunch. Oh and John Carpenter, the expression two short planks springs to mind.
Oh and as for me being a troll, does a troll mean someone who actually tell the truth and backs his arguements up with undeniable facts rather than resorting to childish name calling? If that is the case I guess I am a troll.



FROM: Ryan [E-Mail]
DATE: Friday June 3, 2005 -- 10:24:23 pm
Hey, you're not Half Pint!



FROM: Aaron [E-Mail]
DATE: Saturday June 4, 2005 -- 1:54:03 am
I deny your facts. There, see, they are deniable.



FROM: KC
DATE: Tuesday June 14, 2005 -- 2:03:43 am
You're only talking about one eye. We have two eyes side by side. So the way we see the world IS close to 16x9. But who gives a shit? In a large room, such as a theater, a wide aspect ratio is always gonna look more natural than 4x3.



FROM: half_pint
DATE: Sunday June 19, 2005 -- 6:42:37 pm
u guys r crapzors! widescreen sux my @$$!!!!!!1



FROM: Markyyy
DATE: Friday July 8, 2005 -- 11:52:14 am
Am I right in saying that the only thing the antiwidescreen guys dislike about widescreen is the black bars along the top and bottom. The answer of course is to buy a widescreen TV, that way the picture fills the whole screen and you get "what the director wanted you to see" - the best of both worlds right? (I don't know why you guys think widescreen tvs are any more expensive than normal ones)
However, there is one problem with this, and that is that most TV programs (here in the UK at least) are transmitted in 4:3. Whether they are filmed this way I just don't know.
So, when watching this on a widescreen TV, the picture is either stretched horizontaly to fit the screen, or there are black bars on the sides. Personaly I watch more TV than DVDs, so I have a 4:3 tv to reflect this. I put up with black bars on widescreen DVDs. (over here you just can't find pan'n'scan DVDs anymore)
Clearly what needs to happen is that the industry needs to decide on one standard format, be it widescreen or pan'n'scan (1:1.85 IMHO) and discard the rest. After a period of time, all tvs will be built to display just this format, and there will be no more black bars for anyone. Yay!
However, untill this day arrives, I am seriously considering getting 2 tvs, one widescreen and one 4:3, using the widescreen tv for DVDs and the 4:3 for normal tv.
Some tv shows are starting to be shown in widescreen now, which is very noticable on stargate sg1. On my 4:3 tv, the title comes up as "targat" !



FROM: snaily
DATE: Friday July 8, 2005 -- 12:11:56 pm
i like widescreen, but only if its a big tv. I have a tiny tv in my bedroom and when something is widescreen i can hardly see it at all!



FROM: Adam
DATE: Saturday July 9, 2005 -- 5:22:47 pm
I hate matted widescreen. What's the point in putting black bars over the picture? Compare and contrast the FS and WS versions of John Woo's "Windtalkers." They matted a 4:3 to 2.35:1 !!! And stuff like taking Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange" (which was shot in FS, as are many Kubrick films) and putting black bars over the picture should be criminal.

I have said this before, but I'm also against Super 35. http://www.widescreen.org/images/super_35_example.gif
Even James Camron admitted that he likes the FS version of Terminator 2 better.

Tim Burton, however, is a genius. His movies (his Batman movies at least) are filmed so that in the widescreen: the sides are *slightly* extended, but 10% of the top and bottom is cut off; and in the FS, 10% of the sides are gone, but the top and bottom is extended by 10% to fill the 4:3 tv. It's a 10% loss either way (and 10% is not at all noticeable).

It's better than filming a movie in 16x9, then cutting off 20% of the sides for the pan & scan.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Monday July 11, 2005 -- 3:05:38 am
Well,

It has been over a year since I have posted to this article.

I was at Wal-Mart one day last week & I was looking thru their bargain bin & I found a movie which I haven't seen it in years. The movie is called Trapped in Paradise but I didn't purchase it because it said the dread words on the back which are 1:33:1 Modified to fit your TV.

Jeez,

After all these years, the studios still can't seem to get their heads out of their asses & stop releasing pan & scan movies.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Friday July 15, 2005 -- 7:42:28 am
I made a mistake about Trapped In Paradise. I went back to Wal-Mart after work this morning & I rechecked Trapped In Paradisce & it is a dual layer DVD, it has both a fullscreen version & an anamorphic Widescreen version, 1 on each layer.



FROM: Ryan
DATE: Saturday July 16, 2005 -- 8:23:13 pm
They should not offer Full Screen on the disc. Nobody should buy this movie until Full Screen is taken off the disc.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Monday July 18, 2005 -- 6:03:49 pm
Oops,

My mistake. Trapped In Paradise isn't a dual layer DVD. It's a double sided/single layer DVD. Full Screen (it's actually pan & scan since the disc says modified to fit your TV) is on side A & Widescreen is on Side B.

Even though there is both a fullscreen & A Widescreen version, 1 on each side, full screen DVD's need to be eliminated.

Trapped In Paradise is a Fox release & FOX is starting to release double sided DVD's with full screen on 1 side & Widescreen on the other side. I remember when FOX used to release movies with only a Widescreen version.

It seems that FOX is starting to do what MGM has been doing all these years, release double sided DVD's with Full Screen on 1 side & Widescreen on the other side.

This doesn't bother me since I won't buy DVD's which are full screen only but this only adds fire to the full screen/Widescreen argument. How can full screen/pan & scan die out when studios are still releasing Widescreen movies modified to fit 1:33:1 TV's aka 4:3 TV's.



FROM: Adam
DATE: Wednesday July 20, 2005 -- 10:53:18 am
You don't know that. The 'modified to fit your TV' message doesn't mean it's pan & scan. Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Windtalkers, The Usual Suspects, Terminator 2, and many other movies have that message, and the Full Screen still shows more of the picture (in those movies) than the widescreen ever will.

The only way to find out for sure is to buy the DVD and actually look at both the WS and FS versions and compare. And don't trust thumbnail images in the menu either; they ALWAYS show the widescreen version as showing more (which is definitely not always the case).

I wish I knew how to take screen shots of my dvd movies to show you the terror of matted widescreen and super 35.



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Saturday July 30, 2005 -- 9:00:01 pm
Sony Pictures (formally Columbia/Tristar) isn't helping Widescreen because of what they did several months ago.

I was reading over at Widescreen Advocate ( http://www.widescreenadvocate.org ), that in May 2005, Sony Pictures did a stupid move.

Back in the old days, Sony Pictures released a good amount of DVD's which contained the Widescreen & Fullscreen version, one on each side. But the stupid move which I am talking about is that Sony is re-issuing 91 of these DVD's but 75 of them are being re-issued in fullscreen & the versions which contained both a Widescreen & a fullscreen version are being discontinued.

The DVD department over at Sony must be run by morons to even consider a stupid move like this.

You can read about this news report at http://www.widescreenadvocate.org/news.php



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Saturday July 30, 2005 -- 9:47:29 pm
Actually, I now what Matted Widescreen aka Open Matte (aka Soft Matting) is & I also know what Super 35. Even though you do get more screen space on Open Matte/Super 35 movies, I still prefer Widescreen.

Most Open Matte movies aren't truely Open Matte. Most are a combination of Open Matte & Pan & scan since many of these movies use special effects & special effects are created for the Widescreen aspect ratio.

An example of this is the Jim Carrey movie called The Mask. The Mask is an open matte film but this movie shows the dangers of Open Matte. Look at the screenshots at http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/mask/index.html

You do see more in the fullscreen version until you get to the special effects. Because the special effects are created for Widescreen, they have to be panned & scanned since.

Here is a Super 35 example. This example is for The Usual Suspects & you can view screenshots at http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/suspects/index.html

You do see more in the fullscreen version up to a point. In the screenshot of the pool table, Kevin Spacey is cut out in the fullscreen version but you see him in the Widescreen version.

But there are dangers to Open Matte/Super 35 & this is why I support Widescreen. You can read about the dangers of Open Matte/Super 35 at http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Saturday July 30, 2005 -- 10:09:41 pm
Movies filmed using an Anamorphic lens have to be pan & scan since there is no addtional picture information on the original film frame to use for the "fullscreen" transfer.

The page at http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/film.html explains the terms soft matting, Anamorphic, et al.

Here are some screenshot examples of anamorphic movies & this will show people why Widescreen is better:

http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/attacks/index.html (Mars Attacks!)

http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/rumble/index.html (Rumble In The Bronx)

http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/mummy/index.html (The Mummy)

http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/demolition/index.html (Demolition Man)

The next link shows hard matting:

http://home1.gte.net/res0mrb7/widescreen/axe/index.html (So I Married An Axe Murderer)



FROM: Eugene Esterly III
DATE: Tuesday August 2, 2005 -- 6:02:42 pm
One big problem is how the film studios/DVD producer's label DVD's.

Fullscreen & fullframe are used a lot. Believe it or not, even pan & scan movies are called fullscreen.

Universal labels their old movies such as the Abbott & Costello, Dracula movies, et al as 1.33:1 Full frame. Yes, I know that 1.33:1 is the Original Aspect Ratio for these old movies but new comers to old movies might not.

Goodtimes Entertainment lists their 1.33:1 films as standard full frame even though most are not.

Goodtimes lists Jack & The Beanstalk (Abbott & Costello movie) as 1.33:1 Standard Full Frame which is correct since this movie was made before Widescreen came out.

Goodtimes lists Dr. Giggles as 1.33:1 Standard Full Frame which is incorrect. Dr. Giggles is Pan & Scan since Dr. Giggles was filmed in an aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

I own the DVD of the 1936 movie called Mr. Deeds Goes To Town. The DVD is from Columbia Tristar (now known as Sony Pictures) & the back of the box says Presented in a FULL SCREEN version which preserves the original theatrical aspect ratio, approx 1.33:1.

Stanley Kubrick's: The Shining says This feature is presented in the full aspect ratio of the original camera negative, as Stanley Kubrick intended.

I own about 281 DVD's but I'm using a few of these DVD's as an explanation.

Each studio uses their own terms when dealing with DVD's & this confuses people. The terms don't confuse me but it might confuse the common person who doesn't know what Widescren is.

For old movies, I like the term that Columbia Tristar (aka Sony Pictures) used for Mr. Deeds Goes To Town which is Presented in a FULL SCREEN version which preserves the original theatrical aspect ratio, approx 1.33:1. I like this better since it explains that this was the original aspect ratio.

What I don't like is how Goodtimes Entertainment labels all 1.33:1 DVD's as Standard Full Frame. Movies made before Widescreen became the norm are Standard Full Frame but Pan & Scan is not Standard Full Frame.

I like how Warner mentioned on the back of The Shining that the 1.33:1 version is what Stanley Kubrick wanted & I like how they followed Stanley's wishes. Well, Stanley Kubrick was a master filmmaker & he filmed every scene to perfection.








FROM: Adam
DATE: Thursday August 25, 2005 -- 12:38:01 am
My copy of Clockwork Orange has black bars over it. I know that Stanley Kubrick filmed it in 1.33:1 though. And since I have a 4:3 tv I feel like I've been raped over by the distributors.

It tries to justify it on the back of the box by saying they matted it because it was the ratio of the theatrical exhibition. Well guess what bitches? My tv isn't the theater and I want to see the rest of what Kubrick filmed.

Hell, if I had a widescreen tv, I could zoom in, and it would cut off the top and bottom of the frame anyway. But with this crappy matted mode on a 4:3 tv, I'm kinda stuck.



FROM: -
DATE: Saturday September 24, 2005 -- 10:26:45 am
Adam, yes that's how he did shoot it indeed, but have you ever considered looking at IMDB's before posting? It was filmed in Full Screen but was INTENDED to be 1:66, maybe you'll see more on a fullscreen vertically, but consider the fact that it was FILMED matted, so that way it would cover up if he did leave a microphone or something like that, and about your T2 argument and the 2:35:1 ratio being bad, rewatch T2 and pick a scene where you get the chance to see huge special effects...they were intended to be viewed in WIDESCREEN...which means wider, and not higher. Well it's your TV and it's your Movies, but I would never consider watching a movie that is not in is appropriate ratio. I do have fullscreen movies but those were meant to be that way, so it's all good.



FROM: Stuart
DATE: Saturday September 24, 2005 -- 2:12:24 pm
Wide-screen rules, when appropriate. Unfortunately, I hate the local restaurants that have installed flat-panel wide screen TVs and then stretch the standard pic to fit the wide screen. Everyone looks short and fat. I know the other choice would be black bars on the two sides, but at least the aspect ration would be correct. Why would anyone want to stretch 4:3 to something else when the original signal is in 4:3. I almost wish that somehow the cabinet of my widescreen had retractable plastic "curtains" that would close when I was watching a 4:3 program, in effect, making the front part of the case smaller to hide the black bars. But then when watching true widescreen, they'd roll back into the cabinet somehow. Some TVs also have a zoom option that enlarges the 4:3 to fit the widescreen with no aspect change, but the result is the top and bottom are cut off!



FROM: Michael Scarpitti
DATE: Tuesday November 15, 2005 -- 9:58:14 pm
Wide screen sucks. I don't like it at all, even in the theatre. People are tall, not wide, (except Orson Welles) and we need HEIGHT, NOT WIDTH when people are on the screen.

In close-ups, the top and bottom of the head are chopped off, but we see tons of 'air' around the face.

WIDE SCREEN IS STUPID!

I HATE WIDE SCREEN!



FROM: Paul
DATE: Tuesday November 15, 2005 -- 10:36:20 pm
That's okay, Mike. I'm sure widescreen hates you, too.



AmyRose August 27, 2007, 6:27 am

Well, I only object to widescreen-only laptops… I do generally prefer “black bars” on my TV, especially Star Wars looks a lot nicer letterboxed.

However, it seems laptop manufacturers are using this to cut production costs, giving you less screen space. (I seem to have gotten one of the last non-widescreen laptops…)

I do think widescreen is best for movies (I even argued with my parents about this…), but I wish computer manufacturers wouldn’t have taken it as “widescreen is great for everything, and we’re saving money too!”

What is this then?

The Daily Ping is the web's finest compendium of toilet information and Oreo™® research. Too much? Okay, okay, it's a daily opinion column written by two friends. Did we mention we've been doing this for over ten years? Tell me more!

Most Popular Pings

Last Week's Most Popular Pings

Let's be nice.

© 2000-2011 The Daily Ping, all rights reserved. Tilted sidebar note idea 'adapted' from Panic. Powered by the mighty WordPress.