Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Archives > Archives > DVD Talk Archive
Reload this Page >

It's official I am a Widescreen Snob

It's official I am a Widescreen Snob

 
Old 04-04-03, 08:22 AM
  #26  
I Don't Use Spoiler Tags
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah but Michael, you buying 24 ( which is a great show in its own rights) pales in comparsion to The Shield, which in IMO and many others to be the best show on the boob tube today
Corky Roxbury is offline  
Old 04-04-03, 09:19 AM
  #27  
dgc
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Corky Roxbury
Yeah but Michael, you buying 24 ( which is a great show in its own rights) pales in comparsion to The Shield, which in IMO and many others to be the best show on the boob tube today
I agree. While 24 is a great show, IMO The Sheild is better.

BTW, I own both dvd sets.
dgc is offline  
Old 04-04-03, 09:23 AM
  #28  
DVD Talk Legend
 
GatorDeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The "Real" Vice City
Posts: 16,340
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I think that it was a bad choice. I own both and The Shield blows 24 out of the water. I buy for the content - heck I even have The Karate Kid and have enjoyed it three times already. If a movie is released in Widescreen Anamorphic, that's the one I buy (with DTS if available) knowing one day I will have a decent system. But if it's not, I get it in the OAR. If it's not in OAR but I love it, I'm not going to sit around waiting for it to maybe be released. Take a look at all the people waiting for Office Space SE while I've enjoyed my regular copy around twenty times.
GatorDeb is offline  
Old 04-04-03, 09:28 AM
  #29  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 8,790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by GatorDeb
I think that it was a bad choice. I own both and The Shield blows 24 out of the water. I buy for the content - heck I even have The Karate Kid and have enjoyed it three times already. If a movie is released in Widescreen Anamorphic, that's the one I buy (with DTS if available) knowing one day I will have a decent system. But if it's not, I get it in the OAR. If it's not in OAR but I love it, I'm not going to sit around waiting for it to maybe be released. Take a look at all the people waiting for Office Space SE while I've enjoyed my regular copy around twenty times.
I agree 100% with you. I'd rather buy one of my favorite movies that's "butchered" in full screen if that's the only version available than not own it at all. If the studio ever releases the movie in its original OAR, then I'll sell my "butchered" version and rebuy the newer version in its OAR.

I mean, almost all movies that are broadcasted on network TV/Cable are presented in full screen and I have no problem watching that esp. since it's free.
Dabaomb is offline  
Old 04-04-03, 09:58 AM
  #30  
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
 
Michael Corvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 58,884
Received 98 Likes on 73 Posts
Having just watched 24 ep. of Law & Order and working my way through NYPD Blue, I wanted something that was a tad different.

I buy for content first. I have enjoyed my Office Space a dozen times as well. My decision was based on what the back of the box told me. Well, I already opened my set so I can't take it back for the shield. It will have to remain on my wish list for now. I also noticed that The Shield is only 13 episodes. for $50? Who do they think they are? HBO?

I am looking forward to 24. My only concern was replay value. But for $25 after discount, I'm not too worried about it. I figured The Shield would have a higher replay value, but like I said I wanted something different and the anamorphic widescreen appealed to me.

Last edited by Michael Corvin; 04-04-03 at 10:30 AM.
Michael Corvin is offline  
Old 04-04-03, 01:39 PM
  #31  
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit area
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I dont have a problem with tv shows being shown in full frame, however I do have a problem when OAR films are reduced to pan and scam.....
techdude0912 is offline  
Old 04-04-03, 02:45 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Hokeyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 19,214
Received 38 Likes on 29 Posts
What color were your ribbons?
Hokeyboy is offline  
Old 04-04-03, 03:43 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Michael Corvin
I don't see the misunderstanding here. I said I bought and watched over a half dozen tv seasons all full frame. I don't have a problem with it at all. I even said I'm all for OAR. But I said that after 100 hours of watching full frame tv on my widescreen tv, that I wanted a show that took advantage of my setup. So that is wrong?

Talk about snobs.



.
.
.

-
See, Mike. You aren't really a widescreen/OAR snob until you can yell at people with the same viewpoint because you THINK they might be a J6P. You've got a long way to go, man. Just prefering OAR doesn't quite cut it.
Spiky is offline  
Old 04-07-03, 01:16 PM
  #34  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Jah-Wren Ryel
Since human eyes are in a horizontal plane we have a wider field of vision in the horizontal than we do in the vertical. Thus "widescreen" of some aspect ratio, which has probably been calculated by scientists that study that sort of thing, is going to yield the most immersive experience. That doesn't mean that more square aspect ratios are bad, just less immersive.
Non-sense. Which scientists and researches are you alluding to? This is a common misconception that people usually use to back up the (non-existent) inherent superiority of widescreen. It's pretty commonly known that one of the main reasons, if not the main one, widescreen were used was to lure people away from the TV. Lawrence of Arabia looks great in widescreen because of the wide composition, but Citizen Kane surely won't because of its use of low camera angles and high ceilings.
bwfilms is offline  
Old 04-07-03, 04:27 PM
  #35  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm a 'more screen' fan...

...and I think I'm gonna patent the phrase.

Generally I'm all for OAR, but I do enjoy more visual information. If a film is shot in super 35 then I love the option of seeing the extra info on the top and bottom of the frame. If a film is shot in widescreen I love the OAR over the chopped 'fullscreen'.
CheapBastid is offline  
Old 04-07-03, 08:34 PM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by bwfilms
Non-sense. Which scientists and researches are you alluding to? This is a common misconception that people usually use to back up the (non-existent) inherent superiority of widescreen.
While you can debate its validity as an argument for widescreen it is a physiological fact. Observe your own field of view, your cheekbones obstruct some of the downward angle, the brow obstructs some up the upward angle, the left and right have limited obstruction due to the placement of the eyes.

It stems from our evolution. Predators which are a threat to human beings are surface dwellers like us. It is more important to have a wide horizontal field of view than to have a vertical field of view to detect land based threats.

If you don't want to believe your own observations, Jah-Wren or me, maybe you'll take some other references:

http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publi...dwell/ch3.html
http://www.opticalphysics.com/Vision.htm
http://www.siggraph.org/education/ma...ss/percept.htm
http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/ih...rFoyle_FOV.pdf
jim_cook87 is offline  
Old 04-07-03, 09:18 PM
  #37  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 8,494
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by Jah-Wren Ryel
Since human eyes are in a horizontal plane we have a wider field of vision in the horizontal than we do in the vertical. Thus "widescreen" of some aspect ratio, which has probably been calculated by scientists that study that sort of thing, is going to yield the most immersive experience. That doesn't mean that more square aspect ratios are bad, just less immersive.
Eh...huh?

No offense, but that really doesn't make any sense. How can making an image smaller make it more immersive? I could see if you're talking Widescreen TV's, but if you're just talking Widescreen on a regular 1.33:1 like it sounds like you are, well isn't that like saying humans hear better out of the right side of their heads so it would be more immersive to get rid of the left channels?
Joe Molotov is offline  
Old 04-08-03, 01:39 PM
  #38  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by jim_cook87
[B]While you can debate its validity as an argument for widescreen
Which is exactly what we are debating about. However, those are cool links and are quite interesting to read. Thanks (sincerely).

BTW, even if we are talking about the human field of view when it applies to watching films, most of the viewing devices (TVs, computer monitors, and maybe even theater screens) aren't "wide enough" (meaning, from the viewer's viewpoint, they aren't wide enough to require the viewer to excercise her peripheral perceptions - unless one sits very close to these viewing devices) to make that physiological fact applicable in this context. I am always open to other interpretations, however, and would like to hear them.
bwfilms is offline  
Old 04-08-03, 03:38 PM
  #39  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,688
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Well i think it's pathetic to avoid all fullframe 1:33 OAR presentations just because you have a super duper HD,WS model #4845328525435346346346363 set.

So while WS is great(for films shot that way),i prefer OAR all the way.


Yet taking 1:33 material & cropping it to WS is horrible. Just as bad as pan & scan itself. Now i'm not talking about films shot in 1:33 but intended to be shown at 1:85. But films shot & intended to be shown in 1:33(basically all the old classic films).


In fact i watched abit of Casablanca & Citizen Kane on TCM a few weeks ago. I imagined a matte at the top & bottom of the screen in the 1:85 ratio to see just how much would be missing if this was done. The result was disasterous as the framing was off,heads,lips & so on chopped off. All of which are important visual information & never intended to be cropped btw.

So saying you won't buy any 1:33 material until it is available in cropped form is preposterous.


I have still avoided both V releases by Warner because of the cropping. I know some say their's a tiny tiny bit of extra info on the sides. Yet so what...V:The Final Battle appears to been intended for 1:33,matting it(which i imagined on it's current cable airings) would look horrible just as bad as my Casablana example.

IT seems like another overmatting disaster that i thankfully avoided. This despite what people may claim(by refering to V) was not intended for WS at all. Then again i don't really like the movie & think it is a pretty bad adaption to one hell of a interesting & creepy book.

Though i am glad i picked up Salems Lot when i did. Afterall if Warner ever rereleases this. They will crop it to 1:85 & it will look extremely bad since again it was not intended to be cropped!



So as comfortable as i feel when i see those black bars onscreen & knowing(finally) i'm seeing the film in it's OAR. I don't have a heart attack when viewing 1:33 material & seeing there are no bars on the screen. So i watch my Evil Dead,It's A Wonderful Life & other 1:33 OAR dvds without a problem at all. They look fine as they are & cropping them would only lead to disaster.
Julie Walker is offline  
Old 04-08-03, 04:48 PM
  #40  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Rypro 525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: a frikin hellhole
Posts: 28,264
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
When the Shining Stephen King version came out there was contraversy over the fact that it is in widescreen even though it aired in full frame. At least in my opinion, I think the director meant the movie to be shown in this way since I don't see any chopping off the heads or any major problems with the video.
Rypro 525 is offline  
Old 04-09-03, 11:23 AM
  #41  
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit area
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
as far as I know it was shot in 1:66, on the dvd it was released in 1:37 (shining)
techdude0912 is offline  
Old 04-09-03, 11:43 AM
  #42  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,435
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally posted by Michael Corvin
Having just watched 24 ep. of Law & Order and working my way through NYPD Blue, I wanted something that was a tad different.

I buy for content first.

Same here.

CSI is the perfect example for me. I started watching it in Season 2, so except for 1 or 2 times (during Season 2) that they rebroadcast a Season 1 episode, I had not seen Season 1. I always thought the images on CSI were brilliant on my regular tv. I had seen some episodes in HD and obviously those were even more stunning. I really wanted CSI - I knew that even in full frame it would still look great on my regular tv. I watched the 1st 6 episodes last weekend and I was not disapointed. The picture quality was amazing.

Now I could see if you have a WS TV, why you would avoid CSI.
Red Dog is offline  
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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