Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD & Home Theater Gear
Reload this Page >

Just dont get it....Some plz explain...[Pan&Scan vs. Widescreen issues]

DVD & Home Theater Gear Discuss DVD and Home Theater Equipment.

Just dont get it....Some plz explain...[Pan&Scan vs. Widescreen issues]

Old 11-09-01, 03:59 PM
  #1  
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
Just dont get it....Some plz explain...

Alrighty then, I am totally new to this whole DVD thing. As some of you know we just bought a new Sony DVD and receiver to upgrade our old Pioneer system. Our first movie we watched was Shrek. Loved it, the sound, the picture and all. Now the next movie we put in is the Matrix. Now I guess this a Widescreen version because we have black bars on top and bottom. We have a 27" RCA regular tv..nothing fancy yet...We tried pan scan to get the full screen to no avail. Can it be the DVD player? I enjoy the full screen so much more. Is it that I am not used to the widescreen? Now when I look at the DVD's they are almost all widescreen. Is there anyway to get these full screen or what? What am I missing here? Also thanx for a great forum board everybody.
Pompom2 is offline  
Old 11-09-01, 04:08 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: is everything
Posts: 17,990
You will have to get used to widescreen, also known as the Original Aspect Ratio (OAR). Here is a linky link to help explain why widescreen is preferred over "full screen" also known as Pan and Scan. http://www.widescreen.org/ratios.html
Iron Chef is offline  
Old 11-09-01, 04:10 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CKMorpheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,023
Any information you want about Widescreen is right here.

http://www.widescreen.org/


Remember...
Widescreen =
Pan & Scan =
CKMorpheus is offline  
Old 11-09-01, 04:17 PM
  #4  
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
Thanx for the quick replies. I will check out the links now. But my main question is when I change my DVD menu to pan scan, I still have the black bars. That shouldnt be, right???
Also, what does widescreen Anamorphic mean??

Last edited by Pompom2; 11-09-01 at 04:20 PM.
Pompom2 is offline  
Old 11-09-01, 05:14 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,468
IIRC, DVD players have the ability to dynamically pan & scan a widescreen movie. However, this would require the studio to pre-program the instructions onto the disc, but that is more expensive and time-consuming than just including a panned & scanned version. So nobody actually does it. If there is no panned & scanned version on the disc, you're out of luck.

You can go ahead and set your DVD player to "pan & scan" but this menu option won't do anything.
DigIt is offline  
Old 11-09-01, 05:18 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,468
Originally posted by Pompom2
Also, what does widescreen Anamorphic mean??
In short, it means that the image was squeezed horizontally on the disc.

When used with a widescreen TV, it is unsqueezed to the proper ratio, with the added benefit of a higher reolution.

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.

You should set your DVD player to "4:3" if you do not have a 16:9 (widescreen) TV. Otherwise, the image will appear "tall and skinny" to you on your standard TV, because the proper aspect ratio is not being maintained.
DigIt is offline  
Old 11-09-01, 05:58 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
 
jfoobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 37,812
Edited vague thread title, moving from Movie Talk...
jfoobar is offline  
Old 11-09-01, 06:36 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,522
I'll try to keep this short:

Movie theater screens are not the same shape as stand TV screes, they are more rectangular. This is a generalization, but most movies these days are filmed in one of two "aspect ratios": 1.85:1 (the picture is 1.85 times as wide as it is tall) or 2.35:1 (2.35 times as wide as tall). "The Matrix" is 2.35:1.

When a film is transferred to video it has to be made to fit the shape of a TV screen. There are several ways this can be done. A widescreen presentation with black bars at the top and bottom of the screen preserves the way the movie was originally photographed and seen in theaters. So-called "fullscreen," however cuts as much as 43% of the picture off to make it fit a squarish TV screen.

That's why widescreen is preferred. You should try to get used to it. Think of it as watching the film, not your TV.

Some people will incorrectly set their DVD players to output the picture as if it's connected to a widescreen TV. This can eliminate or minimize the black bars with anamorphically enhanced DVDs, but it stretches the picture vertically by one-third in doing so. It's like watching the movie reflected in a funhouse mirror.

Whether it's called full-screen, full-frame, pan-and-scan or whatever, it's evil. Widescreen is the only way to go.

Go to www.widescreen.org/examples.html and click on a movie title to see some side-by-side comparisons.
Mr. Salty is offline  
Old 11-10-01, 09:37 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
JimRochester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Rochester, NY. USA
Posts: 18,008
Welcome to the Forum. I would ask you check out this thread in detail as it will answer mnay of these questions and has numerous links to the widescreen issue.http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=124102
JimRochester is offline  
Old 11-10-01, 01:04 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,041
I am at a complete loss to understand why so much misinformation about screen formats and aspect ratios abound. Although these terms are used interchangeably by some, Full Screen is not synonymous with Pan & Scan. True, both FS and P&S formats fill the screen on a 4:3 display but there the similarities end.

Pan & Scan refers to a process that modifies a widescreen movie to fit the aspect ratio of a 4:3 display by cutting off the edges of the image or panning across the frame to selectively present the area of greatest interest. In P&S, a portion of the original image is always lost.

On the other hand, Full Screen encompasses widescreen movies that were filmed “open-matt” and movies originally shot in the squarer 1:33 aspect ratio. In the case of an open-matt title, the frame is masked during the theatrical presentation to create the widescreen image and opened up for home video to fill the tv screen. Thus the full screen home video image presents more visual information than was seen in the theater. Although the resulting framing is different from the theatrical presentation, unlike P&S, no information is lost. Examples include most of the Kubrick titles such as The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, 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.
audrey is offline  
Old 11-10-01, 01:20 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,514
Re: Just dont get it....Some plz explain...

Originally posted by Pompom2
Our first movie we watched was Shrek. Loved it, the sound, the picture and all. Now the next movie we put in is the Matrix. Now I guess this a Widescreen version because we have black bars on top and bottom. We have a 27" RCA regular tv..nothing fancy yet...We tried pan scan to get the full screen to no avail.
I have a feeling that you watched the 1st disc of Shrek instead of the 2nd. The first is P&S, the second it the widescreen version.
Mitsurugi is offline  
Old 11-10-01, 06:28 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,522
Originally posted by audrey
I am at a complete loss to understand why so much misinformation about screen formats and aspect ratios abound. Although these terms are used interchangeably by some, Full Screen is not synonymous with Pan & Scan. True, both FS and P&S formats fill the screen on a 4:3 display but there the similarities end.

Pan & Scan refers to a process that modifies a widescreen movie to fit the aspect ratio of a 4:3 display by cutting off the edges of the image or panning across the frame to selectively present the area of greatest interest. In P&S, a portion of the original image is always lost.

On the other hand, Full Screen encompasses widescreen movies that were filmed “open-matt” and movies originally shot in the squarer 1:33 aspect ratio. In the case of an open-matt title, the frame is masked during the theatrical presentation to create the widescreen image and opened up for home video to fill the tv screen. Thus the full screen home video image presents more visual information than was seen in the theater. Although the resulting framing is different from the theatrical presentation, unlike P&S, no information is lost. Examples include most of the Kubrick titles such as The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, etc.
Pompom2 didn't really seem like he was looking for a lengthy dissertation on the finer points of home video transfer. There are plenty of links around here for anyone who wants to truly educate themselves on the issue.

That said, I would have to respecfully disagree with the central argument of your post, which is that DVDs labeled "full screen" are not pan-and-scan.

The mistake you've made is in assuming that the studios themselves are using all of the terminology correctly. They quite obviously are not. While it's certainly true that not all DVDs labeled as being "full screen" are by definition pan-and-scan, the full screen moniker does not in turn necessarily mean they are open matte either.

A good example is Universal's "The Mummy Returns." The movie was shot with anamorphic lenses and is available in an alleged "full screen" version, yet it is clearly panned-and-scanned.

You probably will never see a DVD labeled as "Pan and Scan." It's too technical for the average consumer. The studios have latched onto "Full Screen" as the preferred term for modified DVDs, regardless of whether the transfer is actually pan-and-scan or open matte.

In fact, to be even more accurate, the term you were actually looking for was full frame, not full screen. The difference is that an open matte transfer uses the full frame of exposed negative. The latter term is used to help Joe Sixpack understand that his entire TV screen will be filled up.

When it comes down to it, the semantics don't matter. Whether you're seeing open matte, pan-and-scan, zoomed, cropped or recomposed (e.g. "A Bug's Life"), you aren't seeing the film the way it was created for the theater. And even if a transfer is open-matte, there will usually be cropping off the sides of the picture if there are any special effects shots.

Of course, to confuse matters even more, the title that Pompom2 asked about, "The Matrix," isn't pan-and-scan or open matte either one. It was shot in Super 35, which opens a whole other discussion that has been beaten to death.

Last edited by Mr. Salty; 11-10-01 at 06:34 PM.
Mr. Salty is offline  
Old 11-10-01, 08:07 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 328
I remember a long time ago i was in your shoes. Didnt like widescreen. again that was a long time ago. Once you start watching widescreen for a little while, you will get use to it. Which everyone will need to get use to it before to long. Anyway some movies (like a few good men, (old version)) you can really see the difference when it comes to the whole pan and scan versus widescreen. There is one seen where they are showing two of them talking by the window and the picture was going back and forth so fast i could have gotten sick. Flipped it over to check out the same seen in the widescreen version. What a difference. Anyway i always buy widescreen versions when i can. Eventually you will get use to it and do the same. Trust me.
coolmello is offline  
Old 11-15-01, 11:49 PM
  #14  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 22
I still think widescreen sux!
phild is offline  
Old 11-16-01, 08:12 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
JimRochester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Rochester, NY. USA
Posts: 18,008
With all due respect, why would you be on a forum that is dedicated to the finer aspects of Home Theater when you dislike one of the biggest selling points of the format? The one nice thing is that for people who truly can't get used to WS, there is already a format with many more titles.
JimRochester is offline  
Old 11-18-01, 01:58 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
gcribbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Sacramento,Ca,USA member #2634
Posts: 11,965
I like to watch my movies in the original aspect ratio as envisioned by the director to be shown on the screen. If that is a full frame or full screen then fine. However in most cases it is in a widescreen format.
gcribbs is offline  
Old 11-18-01, 10:33 PM
  #17  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 22
I like the aspect ratio of a normal TV. It is enjoyable to look at. Widescreens are too small for a living room. So I miss a bit of information at the sides - guess what, when the movie is shot in widescreen, there is heaps more left off of the image, and yet no one misses that. Widescreen is not for the artisticly talented director but just a gimmick to fill your visual pleasure in a theatre. It just doesn't work well on normal pokey widescreen TV's. Currently looking at getting a Toshiba 1300 player as I understand it has about the best zoom quality for people like me. Not quite Pan and Scan but far more watchable than widescreen. All the people I talk to agree with me.
phild is offline  
Old 11-19-01, 12:12 AM
  #18  
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 144
Originally posted by phild
Currently looking at getting a Toshiba 1300 player as I understand it has about the best zoom quality for people like me. Not quite Pan and Scan but far more watchable than widescreen.
Not to start another widescreen vs. P&S war, but I am curious about what the Toshiba 1300 do. Does it just zoom in the center portion of a wide-screen image?

I have a wide-screen FP so obviously I prefer WS. But I can understand how some may find P&S more enjoyable because it fills up their TV and I respect that.

Beeeil
Beeeil is offline  
Old 11-19-01, 03:04 AM
  #19  
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 106
Originally posted by Beeeil


Not to start another widescreen vs. P&S war, but I am curious about what the Toshiba 1300 do. Does it just zoom in the center portion of a wide-screen image?

I have a wide-screen FP so obviously I prefer WS. But I can understand how some may find P&S more enjoyable because it fills up their TV and I respect that.

Beeeil
Hi Beeeil,

The 1300 does the same thing as several different Toshiba players. If you press zoom one time (while watching a widescreen presentation) the black bars at top/bottom appear to be removed and the movie looks like it's fullscreen.

It's really just an "illusion." The picture (as you suggested) gets zoomed in (centered) and appears to be full screen. I can tell you (as I'm sure you already know) that the picture quality suffers greatly.

The only thing that might be "special" about the Tosh 1300 in this case is that all Tosh players are considered to have great zoom features, but still, picture quality is lessened when you watch an entire movie in zoom mode.

Edit:

Forgot to say something to phlid:

If this is what you are hoping to do with all movies you watch, you might want to consider the Tosh 2300. This is the one that includes the "Nuon" technology, which is pretty much a dead technology, but greatly improves the picture when zooming. When you zoom with a Nuon player, it almost looks like you're not zooming at all.

Last edited by RickG; 11-19-01 at 03:10 AM.
RickG is offline  
Old 11-19-01, 01:42 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,522
Originally posted by phild
Widescreens are too small for a living room.
I know my post will be lost on you, but I'm writing it anyway. Call me a masochist.

Size and shape are two different concepts that don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. If you have a 32" 4:3 TV and replace it with a 16:9 set that is the same width, the widescreen TV is indeed smaller. But if you replace the 4:3 with a 16:9 that is the same height, the widescreen is approximately 25% larger.

So I miss a bit of information at the sides - guess what, when the movie is shot in widescreen, there is heaps more left off of the image, and yet no one misses that.
If the movie was shot in 2.35:1 anamorphic, you're losing more than "a bit," you're losing almost 45%. As far as the rest of that sentence goes, my only response is, "Huh?"

Widescreen is not for the artisticly talented director but just a gimmick to fill your visual pleasure in a theatre. It just doesn't work well on normal pokey widescreen TV's.
Maybe, but it's a firmly-entrenched "gimmick" that has lasted for more than 45 years. You'd better get used to it. In the mean time, generations of directers and cinematographers have learned to use that widescreen frame as their agreed-upon canvas.

I have a question. Let's say you go to a movie theater and two really tall guys with big hats sit in front of you. You can only see a little sliver of movie screen between their heads. Do you sit there happily watching the portion of the movie you can see or do you move to another unobstructed seat?

You know damned well you'd move.

All the people I talk to agree with me.
All the people you talk to are wrong.
Mr. Salty is offline  
Old 11-19-01, 06:16 PM
  #21  
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 144
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
Beeeil is offline  
Old 11-19-01, 11:16 PM
  #22  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 22
Salty

quote:
___________________________________________________
If the movie was shot in 2.35:1 anamorphic, you're losing more than "a bit," you're losing almost 45%. As far as the rest of that sentence goes, my only response is, "Huh?"
___________________________________________________
I don't care! 2.35:1 is far too squeezy to watch comfortably anyway - even on a widescreen TV this aspect gives black bars. My other point is that the camera at some point, crops off information anyway. If you think widescreen overcomes this than you are kidding. The same information can be captured in 4:3 if the camera was pulled back a bit. I like many people don't care what part of the picture is cropped - as long as we get entertainment value on a decent sized screen.

quote:
____________________________________________________
I have a question. Let's say you go to a movie theater and two really tall guys with big hats sit in front of you. You can only see a little sliver of movie screen between their heads. Do you sit there happily watching the portion of the movie you can see or do you move to another unobstructed seat?
____________________________________________________

If these guys obstructed the view of my TV, I would get them to move, anyway. Your point is a poor analogy.

quote:
____________________________________________________
All the people you talk to are wrong.
____________________________________________________

No, they like watching a full screen picture. One of them just bought the new SD1300 (start of a new run of players Toshiba is sourcing from China with higher audio bitrate, 192 I think) and its zoom quality is excellent. No loss of detail. If it seems worse, would be because picture flaws are amplified as well. There are about 4 levels of zooming. No 5.1 output though - shame!
phild is offline  
Old 11-20-01, 01:56 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,522
Originally posted by phild
If these guys obstructed the view of my TV, I would get them to move, anyway. Your point is a poor analogy.
I didn't ask what you'd do if they were in your own living room, I asked what you'd do if they sat in front of you in a movie theater. In that respect, my analogy is dead-on. If you don't mind having nearly half a film's picture blocked from your view when it's transferred to home video, why would you mind having it blocked in another way?

If you prefer full-screen transfers that are panned-and-scanned when there is some creative decision made as to what is left on screen, that's one thing. But buying a DVD player that will simply zoom in on the center portion of the film seems pointless.

If it were me (and I'm not trying to be snide here) I would stick with the lower resolution of VHS and at least know there was a chance I was seeing the important part of the picture.
Mr. Salty is offline  
Old 11-20-01, 02:16 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,522
Originally posted by Beeeil
I think everybody here should all respect their "educated" and "informed" decision.
Sorry, but I have a hard time respecting anyone who drops into a forum dedicated to DVD and home theater only to offer "I still think widescreen sux!"

Last edited by Mr. Salty; 11-20-01 at 02:21 AM.
Mr. Salty is offline  
Old 11-20-01, 07:10 PM
  #25  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 22
If I go to the theatre, I want to see all that is available on the screen. In the theatre, there is a fantastic big screen to view. I am not left wanting for more screen size. The loungeroom is different. I don't have that fantastic big screen opportunity - just a box in the room. No matter how much money you spend on that box, it's still a relatively small screen. To match theatre impact, you need to spend hugely on a respectable projection TV and have a very large room for it. Next time you are in a theatre, approximate your field of view. No widescreen TV will come close.

As I have to compromise this field of view on my TV, then I am unworried about compromising the amount of picture I lose. What I want to do is maximise the picture impact and size in my loungeroom. Widescreen is too much of a compromise for me to want.

I also want good picture quality. Video doesn't deliver this whereas DVD can (even though it can sometimes be worse). 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.
phild is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.