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

Is widesreen better? Fact or opinion?

View Poll Results: Is it a fact? Is widescreen best?
Widescreen is better, and it is an absolute irrefutable fact!!
115
70.55%
Only the 1:2.35 widescreen is best
3
1.84%
Only the 1:1.85 widescreen is best
4
2.45%
4:3 is best
2
1.23%
It is all a personal preference. Nothing is best except what you like.
39
23.93%
Voters: 163. You may not vote on this poll

Is widesreen better? Fact or opinion?

 
Old 04-30-04, 05:31 AM
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is widesreen better? Fact or opinion?

Some people seem to know widescreen is better, and everyone else is a dimwit. So, is it a fact? Is widescreen superior in all instances? Is the widescreen aspect ratio inherently better?

Last edited by JohnSeminal; 04-30-04 at 05:35 AM.
JohnSeminal is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 05:48 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,326
Received 313 Likes on 234 Posts
Hasn't this been asked 1000 times already in this forum?

The answer is widescreen is best when a movie was shot in widescreen; full frame (4:3) is best when a movie (or TV show) was shot full frame.

The debate has never been over which is "best" - it's always been over seeing the material in question in the format in which it was originally shot and in which the director intended it to be seen.
Shannon Nutt is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 05:57 AM
  #3  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I started this tread because of a response in another thread (I did not want to hijack it, and this is a narrow question). Anyways, the person wrote:

Originally posted by talemyn
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.

After reading that, I kina wonder if people agree with him?
JohnSeminal is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 06:02 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Widescreen isn't better. OAR is.

It's not about seeing more picture or less picture. It's about seeing the CORRECT picture.
Jackskeleton is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 06:09 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio/Aguadilla, Puerto Rico
Posts: 10,201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Shannon Nutt
Hasn't this been asked 1000 times already in this forum?

The answer is widescreen is best when a movie was shot in widescreen; full frame (4:3) is best when a movie (or TV show) was shot full frame.

The debate has never been over which is "best" - it's always been over seeing the material in question in the format in which it was originally shot and in which the director intended it to be seen.


I was looking for that selection to pick in the poll and it was not there. Neither form is better than the other as long as the material being viewed is in it's original form.
djones6746 is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 07:31 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Times Square
Posts: 12,135
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Definitely -as others have said - OAR is the crucial consideration.

Having said that, when deciding what AR to use, I would suspect that movie-makers have noticed that our peripheral vision is greater horizontally that vertically - nature has basically provided us with widescreen.
marty888 is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 07:36 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 9,687
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
1:2.35 and 1:1.85, those are some crazy ass ratios.
flashburn is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 07:52 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 18,173
Received 1,350 Likes on 997 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
Widescreen isn't better. OAR is.

It's not about seeing more picture or less picture. It's about seeing the CORRECT picture.
Bless you
milo bloom is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 08:00 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
TomOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 40,030
Received 1,265 Likes on 923 Posts
Originally posted by flashburn
1:2.35 and 1:1.85, those are some crazy ass ratios.
Not if your TV is sideways
TomOpus is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 08:01 AM
  #10  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,196
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
The fact for me is OAR is best... the bottom line is it's all personal preference. Some people just don't like WS, don't expect me to agree w/ them (or watch a movie w/ them if I can help it ) but I don't get bent out of shape over it either.
nemein is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 08:24 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by marty888
Definitely -as others have said - OAR is the crucial consideration.

Having said that, when deciding what AR to use, I would suspect that movie-makers have noticed that our peripheral vision is greater horizontally that vertically - nature has basically provided us with widescreen.
That doesn't make sense as the original aspect ratio was 4:3 (my assumption is that common photographic plates were that ratio at the time of motion films development). Widescreen didn't come into play until the 1950's when television was gaining popularity and consequently, fewer people were going to the movie theatre. To draw people back, they offered something that people couldn't get on their TV screens: widescreen. Maybe your point is that this development was partially determined by our natural eyesight aspect ratio.
Now that widescreen TVs and home theatres are becoming widely accessible, I fear that in a few years some jackass is going to say, "I know! Let's make the movie screen taller!"

Last edited by RKillgore; 04-30-04 at 08:29 AM.
RKillgore is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 08:56 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OAR. I want to remember it as I had seen it in the theater.
ianholm is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 09:31 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Times Square
Posts: 12,135
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by RKillgore
That doesn't make sense as the original aspect ratio was 4:3 (my assumption is that common photographic plates were that ratio at the time of motion films development). Widescreen didn't come into play until the 1950's when television was gaining popularity and consequently, fewer people were going to the movie theatre. To draw people back, they offered something that people couldn't get on their TV screens: widescreen. Maybe your point is that this development was partially determined by our natural eyesight aspect ratio.
"Widescreen" wasn't invented in the 50's - but you are right, it became a survival tactic in the fight against TV.

There were, however, many attempts to make movies in widescreen, undoubtedly hampered by the technical limitations. Check out the Abel Gance silent masterpiece Napoleon, or the 1930 John Wayne movie The Big Trail.

Lots of fun information at this great site:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm
marty888 is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 09:32 AM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry to disagree somewhat, but when it comes to movies (and many TV shows these days), widescreen IS better. The fact that most movies since the 50s has a widescreen OAR is because widescreen IS better. It's not just about the OAR on DVD. It's a question of why widescreen is the OAR. Again, it's better. If Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lord of the Rings, Lawrence of Arabia, Patton and other great epic films had been shot full screen, would they be the same movies they are today? No. And if Hollywood started shooting all their movies in full screen today, the way they did prior to the 50s, I don't think many of us would be too happy about it.

Widescreen IS better.
Admiral7 is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 09:37 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 23,225
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Christ. Make it stop. Please.
PixyJunket is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 09:39 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,444
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by PixyJunket
Christ. Make it stop. Please.
It'll stop if you don't open these threads.

I see plenty of topics here, over and over again, that don't interest me. So you know what I do? I don't read them. It's a radical concept, I know, but it works.

Back on topic: OAR is always better.

Rob

Last edited by RobCA; 04-30-04 at 09:41 AM.
RobCA is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 10:03 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 11.5 Miles from the Strip
Posts: 2,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, I will go along with the OAR comments, but I must say that what I enjoy most are films that are "Enhanced for Widescreen Tvs" (irregardless of aspect ratio).

If they are enhanced, I don't have to "stretch" the picture to fill the plasma (don't like the bars mainly due to burn in issues in the future).
LasVegasMichael is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 10:28 AM
  #18  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Woodbridge, Virginia
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It was clear to me that the poll question was asking about widescreen versus full screen on widescreen films and not whether one should convert Academy standard films to widescreen. In this rather obvious context, widescreen is clearly superior.
EPKJ is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 10:44 AM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As Jackskeleton states, OAR is most important. Widescreen is inherently better because, if you are a human being with two eyes, it better fits your natural field of view. And since you brought it up, yes JohnSeminal, you probably are a nitwit.
BMAG is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 11:07 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 2,720
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
Widescreen isn't better. OAR is.
It's not about seeing more picture or less picture. It's about seeing the CORRECT picture.
Exactly. I didn't see that as an option in the poll so I couldn't vote.
Easy is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 11:32 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 7,466
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by JohnSeminal
I started this tread because of a response in another thread (I did not want to hijack it, and this is a narrow question). Anyways, the person wrote:

After reading that, I kina wonder if people agree with him?
Hey! My post started a new thread!

Please understand, JS, that I am a full supporter of OAR, not widescreen. To me a film that was originally created in a fullscreen format but got chopped into a widescreen ratio would be just as offensive as the reverse.

What I was trying to imply is that just as someone cooking a nice meal would would be hurt if people told them that they wanted a bastardized version of why they made instead, I would think that it is offensive to the film creators (as well as those of us who appreciate what they do to create there works) when somebody willfully chooses a bastardized version of their film, generally because, A) they don't know any better, or B) because fullscreen is what they are used to and that overpowers the idea of artistic effort and intent.

Sorry . . . that was an insanely long run-on sentence . . .



Edit: Oh yeah . . . and as for usung widescreen for the OAR vs. Fullscreen, I think that is really up to the artist. I tend to like widescreen better because it provides a larger and more encompassing canvas to work with, but Fullscreen works well in certain situations (e.g., I think that The Blair Witch Project did a good job at using it effectively). It all depends on what works best for the director and for the specific work.

Last edited by talemyn; 04-30-04 at 11:37 AM.
talemyn is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 11:47 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Empok Nor
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As said above, I will say that OAR is the best.
NaturalMystic79 is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 12:19 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
sracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 15,380
Received 58 Likes on 37 Posts
I agree, OAR is the best... but so is:

OFC - "Original Film Content" (no newly added scenes)
OAF - "Original Audio Format" (no synthetic Stereo Surround)
OIC - "Original Image Coloring" (no colorization)

Many times I see people who are vehement OAR advocates who also demand that mono films be synthesized Stereo Surround... which makes me draw the conclusion that they aren't so interested in OAR as much as "whatever happens to exloit the HT hardware they have."
sracer is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 12:23 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: In my secret underground lair, plotting to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!! Bwuaaahahahaha!!
Posts: 4,590
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
On movies that were originally intended by the director to be widescreen presentations, and were shown that way theatrically, yes... Widescreen is better, and that is a fact. This includes films that were shot in a video-friendly mode in fullscreen, but matted for a widescreen theatrical release.

The director intended these films to be widescreen, and chose "open-matte" as the lesser of two evils compared to "pan&scan," for home video. The open-matte releases may show things that weren't intended, such as boom mikes, cabling, etc., as well as lowering the dramatic intensity of shots. Also, many special effects shots are composed for the widescreen portion only, and may not be complete in an open-matte presentation.

On films (usually pre-1950's) that were shot in "Academy Ratio" which is around 1.37:1, then "fullscreen" is the correct aspect ratio, and that is a fact, as well.
littlefuzzy is offline  
Old 04-30-04, 12:25 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton

It's not about seeing more picture or less picture. It's about seeing the CORRECT picture.
I wonder what the count would be of how many times this exact thing has been posted on this forum? It's got to be approaching 1000 times by now.
sn9ke_eyes is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.