Just dont get it....Some plz explain...[Pan&Scan vs. Widescreen issues]
11-20-01, 06:49 PM
#26
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by phild
I will maintain that the 4:3 aspect ratio is a good size for the average loungeroom and WS is what I expect to find in a theatre.
I will maintain that the 4:3 aspect ratio is a good size for the average loungeroom and WS is what I expect to find in a theatre.
11-22-01, 10:16 PM
#27
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally posted by phild
Somehow average 'Joe Blow' has been ignored in the debate on future technology and is being forced to accept the ideals of others.
Somehow average 'Joe Blow' has been ignored in the debate on future technology and is being forced to accept the ideals of others.
11-23-01, 02:53 AM
#28
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
On a non-widescreen TV, black bars are added to the top and bottom to maintain the proper aspect ratio, but without the added benefit of increased resolution.
FYI on some widescreen TVs, 4:3 images have to be "squeezed" horizontally, because the TV treats them as 16x9-enhanced widescreen. Very annoying!
Widescreens are too small for a living room.
RD
11-23-01, 11:52 AM
#29
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Camp Crystal Lake
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by phild
...unfortunately DVD did not fully deliver on its promise. It was to inlude both WS and P&S. This is why I think WS sux, becuase it is all that is available and I have been denied my choice of want. Somehow average 'Joe Blow' has been ignored in the debate on future technology and is being forced to accept the ideals of others. I will maintain that the 4:3 aspect ratio is a good size for the average loungeroom and WS is what I expect to find in a theatre.
...unfortunately DVD did not fully deliver on its promise. It was to inlude both WS and P&S. This is why I think WS sux, becuase it is all that is available and I have been denied my choice of want. Somehow average 'Joe Blow' has been ignored in the debate on future technology and is being forced to accept the ideals of others. I will maintain that the 4:3 aspect ratio is a good size for the average loungeroom and WS is what I expect to find in a theatre.
11-24-01, 09:56 PM
#30
Cool New Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: College Staion, TX
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, I don't think it's anyone's "choice" how they should watch movies. A director chooses his Aspect Ratio for very specific reasons. If you can't respect that, don't watch his or her movies. Whether you watch a movie in pan-n-scan or in open matte, it isn't the way the director intended it to be. So you are basically saying that your idea of how the movie should be watched is better than the director's.
Consider this-- Wouldn't you think it was a little wierd if you went to an art museum and there was only half or 2/3's of each peice there?
Watch OAR.
Consider this-- Wouldn't you think it was a little wierd if you went to an art museum and there was only half or 2/3's of each peice there?
Watch OAR.
11-25-01, 09:50 PM
#31
Cool New Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the example provided by CKMorpheus - I prefer the image on the left in this actual size and shape. The ws example on the right is very misleading because it is shown to the same scale. The ws example on the right is not the appropriate way to compare this. For what most people have and can afford, this image will in comparison, be smaller with far less height. It is easy to imagine how lousy the picture impact would be if the frame on the right was reduced in height so that it fits the frame width of the example on the left.
As for comments about directors artistic intent - hogwash. The director is simply meeting the ws requirement for theatres. As very little consideration is given to the most enjoyable aspect ratio in the lounge room, then I don't care if there was a moment when the director's intention was chopped off. Go to the theatre release for your most critical viewing - anything else is a compromise anyway. I looked at some ws TV's today and I just can't understand anyone wanting one no matter how much I try to understand. Every comparison I look at, the ws tv always gives the smaller image. The 4:3 aspect just gives more image area per weight of picture tube - the absolute best technology for picture delivery.
As for comments about directors artistic intent - hogwash. The director is simply meeting the ws requirement for theatres. As very little consideration is given to the most enjoyable aspect ratio in the lounge room, then I don't care if there was a moment when the director's intention was chopped off. Go to the theatre release for your most critical viewing - anything else is a compromise anyway. I looked at some ws TV's today and I just can't understand anyone wanting one no matter how much I try to understand. Every comparison I look at, the ws tv always gives the smaller image. The 4:3 aspect just gives more image area per weight of picture tube - the absolute best technology for picture delivery.
11-25-01, 09:54 PM
#32
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally posted by phild
As for the example provided by
image on the left in this actual size
on the right is very misleading
scale. The ws example on the right
compare this. For what most
image will in comparison, be smaller
easy to imagine how lousy
frame on the right was reduced
width of the example on the
As for comments about
director is simply meeting the
very little consideration is
ratio in the lounge room, then
when the director's intention
release for your most critical
compromise anyway. I looked at
can't understand anyone wanting
to understand. Every comparison
gives the smaller image. The 4:3
area per weight of picture tube - the
picture delivery.
As for the example provided by
image on the left in this actual size
on the right is very misleading
scale. The ws example on the right
compare this. For what most
image will in comparison, be smaller
easy to imagine how lousy
frame on the right was reduced
width of the example on the
As for comments about
director is simply meeting the
very little consideration is
ratio in the lounge room, then
when the director's intention
release for your most critical
compromise anyway. I looked at
can't understand anyone wanting
to understand. Every comparison
gives the smaller image. The 4:3
area per weight of picture tube - the
picture delivery.
11-25-01, 11:54 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by phild
I looked at some ws TV's today and I just can't understand anyone wanting one no matter how much I try to understand. Every comparison I look at, the ws tv always gives the smaller image. The 4:3 aspect just gives more image area per weight of picture tube - the absolute best technology for picture delivery.
I looked at some ws TV's today and I just can't understand anyone wanting one no matter how much I try to understand. Every comparison I look at, the ws tv always gives the smaller image. The 4:3 aspect just gives more image area per weight of picture tube - the absolute best technology for picture delivery.
It's plain and simple; when you watch a Pan & Scan movie you don't see the whole picture. The picture may be bigger when viewed on a 4:3 TV, but you are only fooling yourself.
You do realize that whenever HDTV becomes the standard, everything will be widescreen, right???
11-04-03, 05:34 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Beeeil
Everytime I hear a heated discussion about P&S vs. WS (countless times), I want to say the following:
People who prefer P&S are frequently referred as "uneducated" or "unformed" about this issue. However, I submit that the vast majority of them are "educated" and "informed" about this issue. Yet they still prefer the P&S because the image fills up their screen.
Personally I prefer WS because I have a 120" WS FP system, but I totally understand and repsect others who have a 4x3 set not wanting to watch the black bars above and below their movies. They can watch it their way, and we can watch it our way. I think everybody here should all respect their "educated" and "informed" decision. Nobody is really "wrong", it's a personal preference of either seeing "more" of the movie with smaller images, or "bigger" images but less of the movie.
People who do not want to compromise "more" vs. "bigger", like me, would have go out and purchased a 16x9 format FP, RP, or tube tv.
The only thing I worry about is the studio making market-based decisions (not offering WS edition any more because most people prefer P&S), because then their decision would have affected our choices.
Beeeil
Everytime I hear a heated discussion about P&S vs. WS (countless times), I want to say the following:
People who prefer P&S are frequently referred as "uneducated" or "unformed" about this issue. However, I submit that the vast majority of them are "educated" and "informed" about this issue. Yet they still prefer the P&S because the image fills up their screen.
Personally I prefer WS because I have a 120" WS FP system, but I totally understand and repsect others who have a 4x3 set not wanting to watch the black bars above and below their movies. They can watch it their way, and we can watch it our way. I think everybody here should all respect their "educated" and "informed" decision. Nobody is really "wrong", it's a personal preference of either seeing "more" of the movie with smaller images, or "bigger" images but less of the movie.
People who do not want to compromise "more" vs. "bigger", like me, would have go out and purchased a 16x9 format FP, RP, or tube tv.
The only thing I worry about is the studio making market-based decisions (not offering WS edition any more because most people prefer P&S), because then their decision would have affected our choices.
Beeeil
a. they are ignorant on the subject
b. they dont belong in a forum for dvd/HT lovers
There's nothing wrong with tolerance in choices; everyone has their own preference, and these people who think they are always in the right need to open their eyes and realize how they're looking.
11-04-03, 09:38 PM
#36
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Easton, PA
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PhYbEr
Wow.. brought this one back from the grave...
Wow.. brought this one back from the grave...
Since I've decided to respond I also throw in my two cents. In my opinion ignorant is the correct word to use even if you do prefer to watch a pan and scanned, butchered picture. You might prefer to see the whole screen of the TV filled regardless if the TV is a 16:9 or a 4:3 model but you're still ignoring the director's intent and creative look that he wanted to show. So if you're ignoring that then the word ignorant applies.
Now this doesn't mean that you don't belong in a HT/DVD forum and aren't welcome to post and ask questions. It just means that you're ignoring that which is correct and missing out on the whole viewing experience by your own choice.
11-05-03, 12:27 AM
#37
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by chipmac
Why not it's a subject that will never die.
Since I've decided to respond I also throw in my two cents. In my opinion ignorant is the correct word to use even if you do prefer to watch a pan and scanned, butchered picture. You might prefer to see the whole screen of the TV filled regardless if the TV is a 16:9 or a 4:3 model but you're still ignoring the director's intent and creative look that he wanted to show. So if you're ignoring that then the word ignorant applies.
Now this doesn't mean that you don't belong in a HT/DVD forum and aren't welcome to post and ask questions. It just means that you're ignoring that which is correct and missing out on the whole viewing experience by your own choice.
Why not it's a subject that will never die.
Since I've decided to respond I also throw in my two cents. In my opinion ignorant is the correct word to use even if you do prefer to watch a pan and scanned, butchered picture. You might prefer to see the whole screen of the TV filled regardless if the TV is a 16:9 or a 4:3 model but you're still ignoring the director's intent and creative look that he wanted to show. So if you're ignoring that then the word ignorant applies.
Now this doesn't mean that you don't belong in a HT/DVD forum and aren't welcome to post and ask questions. It just means that you're ignoring that which is correct and missing out on the whole viewing experience by your own choice.
11-05-03, 01:02 AM
#38
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Easton, PA
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by GMLSKIS
In my opinion your ignorant to like widescreen and turn a 32'" TV into a 20" TV in viewable area. Don't chide me for my preferance and I won't care what you like. Truck owners and car owners can get along so why do anal retentive widescreen lovers always have to try and push their preference onto others. I will buy a 1.85:1 over full which is my limit but I will never buy for my 4:3 TV a 2.35:1 when I have a choice. And trust me I can enjoy my fullscreen movie as much as you enjoy your widescreen and I do know the difference.
In my opinion your ignorant to like widescreen and turn a 32'" TV into a 20" TV in viewable area. Don't chide me for my preferance and I won't care what you like. Truck owners and car owners can get along so why do anal retentive widescreen lovers always have to try and push their preference onto others. I will buy a 1.85:1 over full which is my limit but I will never buy for my 4:3 TV a 2.35:1 when I have a choice. And trust me I can enjoy my fullscreen movie as much as you enjoy your widescreen and I do know the difference.
Oh and I'm not chiding anyone for their choice but ignoring something that is correct even if you prefer what is wrong is being ignorant. I'm not a anal retentive widescreen lover who is pushing my choice on anyone. You can watch whatever version you choose. I don't care. However I feel you might be limiting your viewing pleasure by only purchasing 1.85:1 or smaller DVDs. That leaves out a lot of superb movies IMO.
One other thing. What do truck and car owners have to do with this? A better analogy might be people who read novels of great literature and those that read the crib notes version. Both have read the story but only one has read the right version. Yes they can discuss what each other has read but only the one who read the whole novel can be certain nothing was missing.
11-05-03, 11:00 AM
#39
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by audrey
For movies originally shot in 1:33 a tiny portion of the image is cropped to fit a conventional 4:3 television. For all intents and purposes, these titles are presented in their original aspect ratio. Examples include older titles such as Citizen Kane, DOA, The Third Man, etc.
For movies originally shot in 1:33 a tiny portion of the image is cropped to fit a conventional 4:3 television. For all intents and purposes, these titles are presented in their original aspect ratio. Examples include older titles such as Citizen Kane, DOA, The Third Man, etc.
11-06-03, 10:52 PM
#41
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: wishing I was in Vegas
Posts: 6,646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by drmoze
Actually, it's 1.33:1 and no cropping needed because 1.33 is 4:3.
Actually, it's 1.33:1 and no cropping needed because 1.33 is 4:3.
And, as long as there are so many folks throwing around the word “ignorant” consider:
using phrases like “your ignorant” and “you’re argument” is a piss poor way of trying to prove the point.
JMO.
Resume the entertainment, please.
11-07-03, 01:37 AM
#42
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Easton, PA
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Wizdar
While 1.33:1 is 4:3, 35mm film is 1.37:1.
And, as long as there are so many folks throwing around the word “ignorant” consider:
using phrases like “your ignorant” and “you’re argument” is a piss poor way of trying to prove the point.
JMO.
Resume the entertainment, please.
While 1.33:1 is 4:3, 35mm film is 1.37:1.
And, as long as there are so many folks throwing around the word “ignorant” consider:
using phrases like “your ignorant” and “you’re argument” is a piss poor way of trying to prove the point.
JMO.
Resume the entertainment, please.
I know and understand the difference so I don't feel it's being ignorant but my typing skills suck when I'm posting from work in a hurry so I plead guilty for not proofreading.
