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-