vaindioux

Hi

I am just wondering why most people seem to prefer W/S over F/S versions?
I for one prefer F/S since i find those black bands on top and bottom of the screen sometimes annoying.My wife is worse than me and won't watch W/S at all, she can't stand it.
But on these boards i read often people saying they didn't buy such DVD because it was F/S only.

Thanks to clue me in

Pat

antennaball

Widescreen Advocate

Seriously, one look at the screen caps should be enough to make you reconsider.

The Infidel

Very simple...

I'd rather see all of the picture than some of it.

I have two guesses here. One, you really don't understand what widescreen entails, and two, you don't own a widescreen TV, do you?

Congratulations...you're "widescreen/fullscreen" thread starter number 1,000,000!!!

OldBoy

Get out of this forum now!!!

Me007gold

its not a matter of being better, its wanted to see the film the way the directer wanted you to see it. plus if you watch movies in the dark you wouldnt even notice the black bars

d2cheer

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=160736


Start here, this will not only help with that but many other questions you probably have...

Dazed

When you finally get a widescreen TV, youll hate those black bars on the side a lot more

djones6746

Take the Clint Eastwood movie Unforgiven for example.......

One part in the movie has three men on horseback I believe standing in a line talking...they may have been riding but it has been awhile since I have viewed this movie. Full screen version depending on the screen shot...I believe the close ups....shows only two riders as the third rider on the far right of the screen has been cut off due to the improper aspect ratio in which the movie is being displayed. The widescreen version obviously has all three riders in the shot.

If you do not mind missing out on what you are suppose to be viewing, I guess full screen movies rule. If you wish to see all that is there to see, then you would understand why people are so gung ho about the widescreen/fullscreen issue. I do not mind watching material in full screen if that is the original apsect ratio for the material being viewed.

I will try to find some pics showing the comparison.

BTW...tell your wife that when you go to a movie theater you are watching a movie in it's widescreen presentation. Guess she will not want to go to the movies any longer knowing it is not full screen.

OREOSpeedwagon

I used to prefer FS over WS but I've found now I can barely watch FS movies. I still have a few but the majority of my collection is WS. By watching FS you miss out on part of the movie. The way I see it, if you're going to watch a movie, watch it the way the people who made it intended for you to.
For example, I watched the movie The Sandlot so many times when I was a kid that I almost wore out the VHS. I bought the widescreen DVD and one thing I noticed the first time I watched the DVD was when they're in the treehouse at the "campout" when Ham is showing Smalls how to make s'mores, when he says "When the mallow's flaming...." he blows it out a bunch of the ashes fly off the marshmallow and get in Smalls' face. Kinda funny that all the times I watched it on VHS I was missing this part.

Corky

Just pick whatever works best for you..

Here most members are dvd AND movie enthusiasts. Many have invested a lot in their collections and their home entertainment centers with widescreen tvs and everything.. or some are just die-hard fans of original aspect, and the black bars don't bother them on normal tvs... knowing they might want to upgrade to widescreen in the future.

Static Cling

He's also a new member, and he was very polite. Let's cut him some slack.

FiveO

Fullscreen....never again.

Its all about widescreen.

I'll never even own a 4:3 tv again.

2-50" Toshiba 16x9's. One in the main setup...one in the bedroom.

DodgingCars

FULLSCREEN.......................WIDESCREEN

pro-bassoonist

I think he did....


Pro-B

Novasonic

DodgingCars, that's a great way to explain it to him.

Der Zorn Gottes

Look at your body. Imagine it without your head and legs. Scary, isn't it? That's full screen.

stevevt

I tried this, but when I imagined myself without a head, I could no longer see myself at all.

Brian Shannon

Because I prefer to watch the film that way it was made and not altered to fit a square box.

cruzness

Welcome to DVDTalk vaindioux, hopefully you won't be put off by some of our members comments but trust us when we say that the debate over WS vs. FS is a vicious and ongoing struggle. I'm sure that most of the negative comments that are tossed around are tongue in cheek.

I personally used to love movies in any aspect ratio until I came across a friend's house when I was like 15 and he had WS laserdisc versions of Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I realized how much of the picture was missing when we watched them and I compared them to my FS VHS copies (those are long gone and have been replaced with WS copies). I was converted instantly and now I can't stand to watch FS (unless it is OAR - Original Aspect Ratio) I've converted (sounds like a religion) my younger brother and my wife now won't buy FS because she realizes that there are parts of the screen that are missing. Definately check out widescreenadvocate.org and take the time to educate yourself on the differences.

The Infidel

Oh, good God. Did I call him names? No. Did I put him down? No. Did I give him a simple answer to his question? Yes. Did I make a joke that anyone would be able to take as harmless ribbing? Yes.

I'd like a small cut of that slack, please.

obscurelabel

If this is the 1,000,000th thread debating fullscreen vs. widescreen, then for the 1,000,000th time I will respond:

THE QUESTION SHOULE BE PHRASED: WHY IS OAR BETTER THAN MAR?

Or, why is the original aspect ratio better than a modified aspect ratio?

Because sometimes "fullscreen" is the correct ratio and "widescreen" is the wrong one (re: KUNG FU).

... and questions about aspect ratio on home video are much more complicated than a simple yes or no answer to widescreen vs. fullscreen ... as further checking into these topics will attest:

Kubrick (the Shining)
Storraro (Apocalypse Now)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Superscope
Star Trek VI
Once Upon a Time in Mexico
Super 35
Open matte
Pan & Scan
Ben Hur
VistaVision

and probably more

... sometimes there isn't a clearly defined "original aspect ratio" at all, so choosing one for home video is an informed choice. VistaVision was designed to be projected at anywhere from 1.66:1 to 2:1, with directors instructed to leave enough "head room" to accomodate these ratios ... Paramount chose 1.85:1 as their preferred ratio, but I (for one) don't have any problem with home video presentations of VistaVision films being framed at 1.78:1 (16x9) for widescreen TVs, since that is very close to 1.85:1 and is within the most common 1.66:1 - 1.85:1 ratios.

... and with Super 35, directors can attempt to frame the action so that it can be shown at a widescreen ratio in theaters but at a narrower ratio for TV, so it could be argued that there is an "original theatrical ratio" and also an "original video ratio" for some (not all) of these films. So the presentaion on video can depend on a matter of choice, since to some extent anyway, a narrower ratio was in the filmaker's mind at the time of production.

I was going to try to come up with a simple answer but couldn't. So I hope that I have at least inspired some curiosity ...

marty888

You wouldn't accept a DVD with 40% of the sound missing .... so why accept a DVD with 40% of the picture missing?

obscurelabel

... this is an example of why this can be a complex issue ... I'm not sure but it appears that this was a Super 35 film and that the so-called "fullscreen" version has more information at the top and bottom of the screen than the "widescreen version". I'm not that big a fan of the LOTR films so I don't know this for certain, but this doesn't appear to me to be a simple case of a widescreen movie being panned and scanned and simply losing information ... the fullscreen version has gained some information that's not in the widescreen version (and of course lost some as well from the sides). Look especially at the eighth pair of images in DodgingCars's post, the shot of the fellowship ... Sam's hands are visible in the FS version, but not in the WS.

This being said, I would much prefer to see this in the aspect ratio that was used in theaters, which I believe would have been 2.4:1 or so.

Keith123

Great pics, DodgingCars , But I wonder what a Joe-6-Pack would choose when shown these examples:



From
http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/8465

JimRochester

DVD is meant to be "Home Theater", not video. Most people associated with the boards are more interested in the art of the film and the theater like presentation than they are just filling their screens.

Just like you change your environment in a theater vs. watching TV you may have to do the same for HT viewing. Adjust the lighting, you won't see the black bars. Adjust your seating, If the licture looks too big or small you may want to move the couch or chairs a little closer or further away. Adjust the sound, watching a movie has a more varied dynamic range and part of the experince is the awesome sound. Obviously you wouldn't watch a sit-com with the same volume as an action adventure movie.

A simple fact is, if you want it to look like regular TV, why spend the money on DVD's and home theater when VHS already gave you your preferred viewing style?