Strange though, that still cameras have now moved from wide (35mm) to 4:3 (digital)

Almost all digital cameras have 16x9 modes.

Still cameras have not moved from wide to 4:3, what are you talking about? Oh, you must mean shitty digicams that are meant to be all-in-ones that do everything poorly. Can't take pics, can't take video, and J6Ps of the photo world snatch them up like popcorn.

Real still cameras are still 3:2. Actually, now that I think about it, REALLY real cameras are still square or very close to it, but non-pros generally don't use them, even the rich ones.

This must be what it is like if you make a gourmet version of Chicken Cordon Bleu for your child and they tell you that they want Chicken McNuggets instead.

I've tried explaining to people the benefits of widescreen, but from now on I'm going to try a little reverse psychology and say something like "Yeah, widescreen is worse than the Jews. Seig heil mein fuhler-screen."

: one hundred thumbs up :

Kung Fu is available on DVD in 1.78:1 aspect ratio only. It could be called widescreen. It was originally produced in, and shown on television, in 1.33:1 aspect ratio. This could be called full screen. The 1.33:1 ratio is original and correct (and unavailable on DVD), the 1.78:1 ratio is modified (by cropping the original image at the top and bottom, to the tune of 25% of the image being lost). Why? I haven't heard a definitive answer, but I would guess that trying to appeal to 16x9 television owners who can now watch this without any black bars fits in there somewhere.

Full screen and widescreen are not precise terms, anyway. Widescreen can mean anything from about 1.66:1 to 2.55:1 and beyond. Full screen has a pejorative connotation because, yes, in most cases with pan & scan, it meant that a ratio wider than 1.33:1 was modified to fit on a TV screen. But in some cases it is the correct ratio and has no negative implications.

So ... use the terms original aspect ratio (OAR) to describe the appropriate original presentation and modified aspect ratio (MAR) to describe presentations that do not preserve this presentation. This isn't as simple as saying "widescreen vs. fullscreen", but then the subject isn't either.

My two cents' worth on the topic (and may not even be worth that):

There's no point in trying to convince a stranger (especially one who's already made up his mind) that OAR is better. To quote the old saw, it's like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and just annoys the pig.

When it comes to friends, however, and the topic arises (and, maybe I'm just not as big a DVD geek as others here, but it's only come up about twice or three times among my friends over the years), I make the point once -- something like, "When it's widescreen, they're just keeping the image the same way it was in the theater. Otherwise they're cutting off the sides to make the picture square." No reason to get more complicated than that in most situations -- unless you want to bore someone to tears with information they probably didn't ask for in the first place. After that, the friend can decide for himself.

When I first mentioned the issue to my girlfriend, she made fun of me for being a film geek (or something along those lines), and I dropped the issue. Then, many months later, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" was on cable (in pan and scan). During the scene with Bob Hoskins, Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny free-falling, the panning back and forth among the three characters was very obvious. I didn't say anything, but my girlfriend made a comment about how bad it was. Sure, she still makes fun of me about the issue, but she'd never buy or rent a pan-and-scan DVD.

You can give people the basic information, but then they have to decide for themselves.

Frank probably thinks movies and TV shows are performed by people with hand puppets inside his TV.

IMO, the funniest thing ever is when a black-bar-hater spends mad ca$h buying fool-screen versions of dvds... and 5 years from now when you CANT buy a 4:3 tv anymore... ALL of his DVDs will display with black bars on the sides. lol!!!!!!!!

j

having had this conversation over the years with many people-- both friends as well as strangers in stores--i've decided that it is a problem with a lack of education. these people function on a mathametical level that doesn't reach past Algebra I in most cases. also, many of these people had no meaningful art education in school, beyond gluing glitter on pine cones for Christmas decorations, and pipe cleaner animals.

and that's the problem: visualizing how an image was composed for rectangular presentation, then cropped and edited, with the ramainder forming a square--it's beyond most people's ability to grasp mentally. it's a combination of math and art that is beyond understanding.

many i've spoken to admit never noticing that the shape of the white screen they stare at in the theater before the film begins is a rectangle. without that basic fact stuck in their brain, the comparison to the shape of their TV is impossible to make.

the most success i've had is the dollar bill-folding demo. and i appeal to their desire not to be gyped out of their entertainment. i ask if they gave me a dollar bill, asked for change, and i only gave them back 57 cents, would that be acceptable to them? of course not. so why would you want a 2.35: 1 film cropped to 1.33:1, thus losing 43% of the original filmed image?

every once in a while, they get it....

best quote ever!

When I used to work in customer service at CH, I told people that complained about or didn't understand widescreen to get a panoramic photograph, or at least something which is fairly rectangular. Now cover up a portion of each side of the picture with each hand (and some people I actually had to tell them left hand for left side, and right hand for right side), and that's what you look at with a non-widescreen movie. What you don't see under your hands is what you don't see on your TV screen.

Occasionally, I think I could actually hear a DING! when they got it.

Why don't people realize that aspect ratio is a matter of taste? If people can have preferences regarding which movies they watch, why can't they also choose how to watch them?

I would rather watch Lawrence of Arabia cropped on a 13" screen with half the picture completely missing and digital artifacts filling the screen than Matrix: Reloaded in OAR on a huge high-definition plasma TV.

In keeping with your analogy, I'd say being a widescreen fanatic is like going to a five-star restaurant and ordering a grilled cheese sandwich.

Having a choice and respecting that choice is not the issue. The people I used to talk to (as mentioned in my previous post) were under the mistaken impression that widescreen movies cut off the top and bottom of the picture, and we had to explain to them that it's fullscreen movies that cut off the sides of the movie.

As far as I'm concerned, people are welcome to watch whatever they want.

BTW...your analogy was a little backwards. Being a widescreen fanatic is like going into a truck stop diner and expecting the lobster bisque. IT's fullscreen movies that are the cheese sandwiches of our world.

Your analogy would indicate that you think that widescreen enthusiasts only watch bad movies.

Why not go to a five-star restaurant and order a filet mignon?

Is it really a matter of taste? I think not.

I'm all for people being informed about the differences between WS and FS, but damn if that kind of thinking is pompous as all get out. Because people want (prefer) FS means they lack education? C'mon dude, it's not that serious.

A lot of people do know the difference between FS and WS and choose FS. They like the allusion of more picture, so let those people be. Some people don't know the difference, you can tell them the deal and let them decide whats best for them. Thats it.

What kind of comparison is that? It doesn't make any sense. The issue is full screen versions of films that have a widescreen OAR. What does television size have to do with it? What does the vast diffenrece in movie have to do with it? What do digital artifacts have to do with it?

Let's fix it, shall we? Would you rather watch, on a 32" standard TV screen, the 2.20:1 version of Lawrence of Arabia or a 3:4 version of Lawrence of Arabia (same transfer)?

I think that is more accurate and my analogy fits it just fine.

pompous? honest-to-god, i've heard people ask for these movies. i've divided the words to demonstrate the mis-pronounciation:

that steven see gal movie under see A gay
that harrison ford movie Pat Riot games
that slobberin' dog movie Bee thauv in
that kids cartoon pie Notch e o

if these movie consumers can't pronounce the film's title, should i honestly believe that they're capable of understanding multiple aspect ratios, but consciously choose to do all their viewing in 1.33:1 AR?

no....i think by and large, people are stupid . . .and they're breeding in mass quantities. i suppose i could try handing them a book with every third page torn out to demonstrate how information an artist intended to be seen, but was removed, damages the over-all experience....but i fear these people can't read, either.

i weep for the future.




oh, and it is illusion, not allusion.

I can vouche for this experience. I actually had a lady call in when I worked at CH and ask for that new movie "Liar Liar Pants On Fire". It was all I could do not to laugh my ass off right over the phone at her.

I have this problem explaining WS to my aunt and uncle who are TEACHERS, nonetheless! I generally use the ol' "what shape is the movie theater screen" arguement, and they still don't get it. The basic answer I get back from them is usually the apathetic "I don't care", or the moronic "I want to see the whole picture." The ironic thing is that they go to the movies all the time.

I even went so far as to draw out on a piece of paper all the known and common aspect ratios all in scale. From 1.33 to 2.70. I used 1.33, 1.66, 1.78, 1.85, 2.20, 2.35, 2.40, 2.70.

Tell them to view this site;
http://www.rexer.com/cine/oar.htm

The easiest demo I've ever come across to explain the aspect ration thing? The Dollar Bill! Take a stock dollar bill, tell them that's the shape of a movie screen (more or less). Then fold over an inch on either side - that's the shape of your TV. See how much you miss out?

Simple no - and it gets the point across.

I'd rather be a kid than a stuffy old man.

I like my DVD movies 1:1.85. 1:2.35 sucks. 1:2.35 requires looking left to right too much. 1:1.85 fills my whole vision just about right. 4:3 ain't bad, it is what I watched as a kid and I don't mind it. Now here comes the sardonic SOB: Do any of your widescreen people know there are times you are seeing less than a pan and scan 4:3? Search for the thread dealing with matted widescreen. Also, according to some guy there, all 1:2.35 is nothing but a 4:3 camera matted to eliminate unwanted scenery.

It comes down to the movie. And so far they make the pan and scan movies horrible, less picture quality, less vibrant colors. Sure, widescreen looks better when they improve those kinds of things. But what does it say about aspect ratio???

I think the masses that blindly follow will ruin us all.

Move away from the screen.