JohnSeminal

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?

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.

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?

Jackskeleton

Widescreen isn't better. OAR is.

It's not about seeing more picture or less picture. It's about seeing the CORRECT picture.

djones6746

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.

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.

flashburn

1:2.35 and 1:1.85, those are some crazy ass ratios.

milo bloom

Bless you

TomOpus

Not if your TV is sideways

nemein

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.

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.
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!"

ianholm

OAR. I want to remember it as I had seen it in the theater.

marty888

"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

Admiral7

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.

PixyJunket

Christ. Make it stop. Please.

RobCA

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

LasVegasMichael

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).

EPKJ

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.

BMAG

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.

Easy

Exactly. I didn't see that as an option in the poll so I couldn't vote.

talemyn

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.

NaturalMystic79

As said above, I will say that OAR is the best.

sracer

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."

littlefuzzy

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.

sn9ke_eyes

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.