It's official I am a Widescreen Snob
 

I pre-ordered NYPD Blue from BestBuy.com and got the $25 coupon good towards the Shield: Season 1 or 24: Season 1.

I went to BB yesterday to buy one. I am interested in both and never seen either. So I checked the features to help me decide. Well 24 is Anamorphic Widescreen and the Shield full frame. Needless to say I walked away with 24.

There is no reason that a show should be shot full frame anymore. Especially a new one like The Shield.

Anyone else with a similar occurence?

No, sorry. I'm an OAR snob, but I'm a bit more forgiving of television series that haven't made the jump to 16:9 presentations than you seem to be.

I'll go with content and OAR over widescreen any day. If it's OAR I don't care about the dimensions. To limit yourself to widescreen only seems foolish, because I assume you buy the discs to watch the content, not the shape.

But NYPD Blue is in fullscreen...

Snobbery Rating -5

;)

This is where the whole widescreen advocacy thing astonishes me. When we say we want widescreen, what we are really saying is we want OAR. I don't give two ****s about how wide the image is, I have absolutely no preference on the matter. All I care about is that I'm seeing the image how it should be seen. That means if I watch a TV shot in 1.33, it damn well better be full frame. This whole <i>wanting only widescreen simply because its widescreen</i> is just ridiculous.

Now I suppose if you owned a 16:9 TV, and it was a decision between two shows that you wanted equally, I could see how the widescreen factor would help the decision, but all other factors should be taken into consideration first.

So you would never buy Sunset Boulevard of Full Metal Jacket?

Pro-widescreen just for widscreen sake is just plain wrong. You wouldn't want to see Citizen Kane, Rules of the Game, Tokyo Story, etc. butchered into widescreens.

And I can't agree with those who think the widescreen aspect ratio is somehow inherently better than the original Academy Aspect Ratio. Take a look at the composition in any of the classics mentioned above!

Widescreen and Academy Aspect Ratio are artistic choices, and they can both co-exist quite well.

I'm pro-OAR all the way...

If it's shot in 1.33:1 that's fine with me. Most TV content is fine that way. Granted an action show like that would benefit from WS but it's not essential.

:thumbsup:

I do that.... and that's probably what the guy is talking about?

The whole notion of choosing based on the shape of the picture still seems silly to me. I don't have a widescreen television and would never choose an Academy-ratio movie/TV show over a widescreen movie/TV show simply because of the shape of my television. As long as it's presented in the ratio it was originally intended to be shown in, who cares if it's widescreen or Academy? Seems like people are paying more attention to the parts of their televisions without any image than the image itself.

Super Lame.

No scratch that..

Super Lame EX Plus Alpha Champion Edition.

:up:

:thumbsup:

I can't imagine skipping something like Farscape just becuase it was filmed fullframe.

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.

I have a (relatively)new widescreen hdtv and based on my first post(knowing nothing about either show) I went with one that would look great on my tv. Yes, NYPD blue is full frame but it wasn't filmed last year either. I just think that is ridiculous. You have shows like X-files and Stargate that have been doing widescreen for a few years. It should be a requirement for all these new shows.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for OAR but after watching sets like Law & Order, Highlander, Friends, Mad About You, and NYPD Blue, I wanted a show that floods my room with image. :up: Wider is better.

Wouldn't you rather go with one that you would just flat-out rather watch? Would you pick up "Dude, Where's My Car?" over "Citizen Kane" due to the anamorphic enhancement?

The X-Files was filmed in 1.78:1 for it's last 5 seasons but it certainly wasn't composed for that ratio (with the exception of the Season 6 episode "Triangle", which was composed for and aired in that aspect ratio). Many objects that you shouldn't see have been rendered visible by the process of opening the mattes on the sides of the frame.

This is absolutely absurd. There shouldn't be any "requirements" for what aspect ratio is chosen when creating film or television. Can you imagine if movies were all filmed in the same aspect ratio? Your statement is hands-down one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on the internet.

What a stupid generalization. It's this EXACT reasoning that fuels the pan & scan market. Watch the movie, not the equipment.

Uh, I don't think so. Full respect for OAR need not be in any conflict with a desire to make full use of one's equipment. After all, what is the point of *buying* a widescreen tv if all the shows you watch are 4:3? There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a preference for 16:9 material if your display is also 16:9, just as long as it is a preference and not a requirement.

Really, it is no different from people who own DVD players bitching and moaning about movies that are on vhs but still not available on DVD. Would you rather watch a clean, high-resolution, progressive image than a noisy, desaturated, fluttery one if you had the choice?

:hscratch:

How can you be such a horrible person?

What's the point of buying a 4x3 set if all the things you watch are widescreen? (Because it's about the content and not the equipment?)

What's the point of buying a 5.1 receiver if all the things you watch aren't 5.1? (Because it's about the content and not the equipment?)

What's the point of watching anything at all? Let's just stare at our precious equipment for an hour instead and forget why we bought it all in the first place.

DJ

Ok, I give up. You are right, it isn't about the PRESENTATION at all. Since you are so admant in your belief, I'm sure you will have no problem with trading your current system for my portable 12" black&white tv with the built in 2-head mono vcr. Even-steven, right?

I don't see how wanting to use my equipment to watch things in their proper format means that any equipment is therefore acceptable to me (especially a B&W set, given that it would make watching color films properly impossible). Yes, I want the best possible equipment within my budget, but I want to use that equipment to watch things as they were meant to be seen, not to just fill up my screen and speakers indiscriminately. My HT equipment is a tool which I use to watch films, etc., as best possible, and not the other way around. I don't see what's so mind-boggling about that.

DJ

[quoteI went to BB yesterday to buy one. I am interested in both and never seen either. So I checked the features to help me decide. Well 24 is Anamorphic Widescreen and the Shield full frame. Needless to say I walked away with 24.[/quote]


I enjoyed 24 - Season One, but I LOVED The Shield. If you decide not to buy it, it's your loss.

Only the strawmen were indiscriminate.

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.

-rolleyes-

.
.
.

and yes I would rather watch "dude, where's my car?" over Citizen Kane. That is EXACTLY what I was getting at. How did you know? -other-

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.

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.

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. :down: 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.

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.....

What color were your ribbons?

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.

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.

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'.

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

Eh...huh? :hscratch:

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?

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.

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.

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.