dryars

To me, if there is a WS option, I'll take it, but if its only FF and no alternative in the forseeable future, then I'll bite the bullet and get it. So far this hasn't happened a lot.

Mike Lowrey

Well, in that case, Remo is obviously shot "open matte". And the WS version is actually a cropped image.

In fact, the LOTR movies have a little bit more information on the top & bottom than the WS version, but are missing a buttload on the sides. There was some screenshots of the Fellowship that illustrated this comparison.

DavidK

In my experience, people who prefer Pan-n-scan seem to believe that the black bars in a widescreen version are covering up movie that they should be seeing, and so they're missing out on something. In fact, of course, it's exactly the other way around.

In comparing a 2.35:1 in widescreen versus pan-n-scan, I've used the following arguments:

Would you cut off the top and bottom inch of a new paperback book, just so it could fit in your hand/pocket/purse easier? And do you think you'd understand the plot just as well without those two inches?

Are you happy if the beer bottles in your six-pack are only filled 2/3rds of the way? You shouldn't mind that missing beer - the rest tastes just as good.

Would you care if your new videogame doesn't play the first and last two levels, although the game was originally made with those levels? The other levels work fine...

When you put it in those terms, most people seem to get the idea.

Romerojpg

The thing is its all odd, I wont go into it again, but UK TV 1.85.1 versions are best, more info than dvd or fullscreen, but need to burn em to dvd still its different for most films I guess.

Mike Lowrey

I'm a bit more anal than that. There are movies I won't buy because they aren't anamorphic widescreen. (Of course, when the OAR is 4:3, then it's not an issue.) But if the OAR is WS, then I always look for the 16:9 indication. I don't have a 16:9 TV yet, but when I do, I want to have as few non-16:9 titles as possible. I think I only have 3 right now. Tango & Cash, Marked for Death, and Volcano. That last one is strange because Volcano was one of those movies Fox released in those VHS clam shells in WS. Same thing with True Lies. And that too isn't 16:9.

Josh H

Yeah, I think the OP was on target, as well as a later poster. It's a combination of people who got used to FS on VHS and TV and people with small 4:3 TV's that would rather have the screen filled than have black bars on there already tiny screen.

Personally, I've never tried to convert anyone other than a couple of friends. I couldn't care less what random people do, as long as its not affecting me. And I've never had to pass on a DVD in 6 years of having a player because somethign I wanted was only available in FS, so these people aren't affecting my options.

kitkat

I've known about widescreen since well before the age of DVD's, and no, I never got into buying VHS. I'm not entirely sure how I was first exposed to it. I think it was that one of our PBS stations used to very occasionally show movies letterboxed. There was never a time when I didn't like it.

I can't imagine how people think that the letterboxing is actually covering up part of the picture. Why on earth would there be a format that covers up part of the picture, leaving empty screen? It makes no sense. Why do they think people would want to watch movies that way?

I have a good friend who is quite intelligent and generally has good taste. He prefers widescreen, but it doesn't bother him if a movie is fullscreen. He says he's watching for the story, not analyzing the picture. He seems to see cinematography as a minor, and disposable, art, all the while putting me down a bit for being too anal and not caring about the story.

I think people just get used to seeing P & S on TV and via rentals and accept that as the way that movies should look. How I somehow got exposed to widescreen in the 80's and never went through a period of minding it is probably the real mystery.

ThatGuamGuy

I'm always shocked by threads like this, because they all boil down to the same thing. 50% of the people are completely unable to understand why anybody could prefer fullscreen, the other 50% all tell the story that they used to prefer fullscreen until somebody educated them.

Come on, folks, just look at a regular, 1.33 TV. Of *course* there are going to be people who think the image should fill that screen and haven't learned what letterboxing actually does. Especially when you factor in that studios fueled that for twenty or thirty years (the cynic in me assumes that they deliberately did pan-and-scan at first to make sure that people would be missing out on something when watching movies on television, since 2.35 was created in response to television) by not even bothering to release anything in widescreen at all. Then you factor in the fact that, in the vast majority of recent movies, the widescreen version *does* crop picture out. Sure, those 'Remo Williams' screenshots aren't a great example, but the point is just that open matte became a standard because people didn't want to release shitty pan-and-scan versions of their movies.

I mean, I think fullscreen is bad, and pan-and-scan is often unforgivable, but, at the same time, I don't blame the consumers for accepting the only format movies were available in for many decades. In fact, I've been pleasantly surprised at how much the masses have embraced widescreen, even though the stores themselves lag behind and point to outdated information to justify ordering as many fullscreen discs as they do.

MJKTool

I honestly think most people really don't give a shit if a movie if fullscreen, and I really dont blame em. Most people dont take film so seriously like alot do here, and its just a two hour distraction from life for them.

natevines

I don't agree with your theory, I think people just believe that FULLscreen is full, and widescreen is just annoying, with black bars.

Altimus Prime

Back in the days when VHS was the only choice, I had no idea that a "full screen" movie had been altered. I don't think I became aware of it until they started putting the message, "This movie has been altered from its original format. It has been formatted to fit your screen.", on the backs of the boxes and on screen before the movie.

Doctor Who

Here's a better example of WS vs. FS from Horrordvds.com. They reviewed a Japanese laserdisc of THE MONSTER SQUAD (which preserved the 2.35:1 aspect ratio), and compared two shots from the Japanese LD to the fullframe US LD.

Widescreen Japanese LD:


Fullscreen US LD:


Here's their second example.

Japanese LD:


US LD:

Kevin Phillips

I bought a FS DVD this week (Yours, Mine and Ours). I didn't want to, but...
- It was only $7.50
- Its only available in FS
- It was filmed in 35 mm, so the DVD may be open-matte.
- Most importantly, my wife really wanted it.

nightmaster

When did Remo come out in any format other than pan & scan? To my knowledge, P&S is all that has ever been available in region 1 ........

nightmaster

Same here and as you say, it's rare. I won't bypass the movie altogether. I'll settle for what I can get and hope that it will eventually see a release in OAR.

toccoa_winters

why wasnt widesreen more available in vhs? and why did it become more common on dvd?

jaeufraser

I think lots of people prefer full screen simply because it fills their screen. They don't care about OAR, they don't care about proper framing, they just want to see the story and have the biggest picture possible on their televisions. Reason why edumacating really won't do much good for many, because they just don't care. In the end, I don't mind. DVD has made it so that widescreen is always available on every movie (save for a select few). As long as I can get what I want, then I'm happy. With televisions moving toward 16:9, I'm not at all concerned about FS taking over and WS disapearing, so it's a non issue for me.

natevines

That's a good question...
I suppose people are more informed now

The Infidel

Looks like that Remo Williams example above is matted, which I consider to be false widescreen.

Cameron

great monster squad shots....

WS VHS and Laserdisc........No OAR No Sale......Also why TCM was worth the subscription and a box of blank VHS back in the day

island007

The problem with the Monster Squad examples are the view areas are different sizes.

Yes, a WS image will show more information, on the right & left, than a FS; however, the image itself would be smaller on a 4:3 TV.

I prefer WS myself, but I'm all for options.

Joshua Clinard

It's a big myth that people can't be educated. Learning is a process that occurs all throughout someone's life. Sometimes you may not convice someone to switch formats, but if all you do is plant an idea in their head that the two formats are different for a reason, it is worth doing. Someone may come along later who will be able to convince them of the full benefits. I have educated many people myself, right inside Wal-Mart. I see people picking up Full screen DVD's, and I say to them, do you know what the difference between widescreen and fullscreen is? If they say no, I explain that they are missing up to 40% of the picture with full frame. Sometimes they buy FS anyways, but a lot of the time, they continue to ask questions about it, and after getting more information, they sometimes pick up the WS version instead. I also hand out biz cards that I print out from my site,Widescreen Advocate. We have flyers and brochures too. They can sometimes make all the difference.

If you refuse to tell people the difference, then you have given up on getting widescreen to ever become the default version on DVD, and you make it harder and harder for those that are only able to shop at Wal-Mart to be able to find a widescreen version of their favorite film on DVD.

msdmoney

I think most people who buy full screen just aren't huge nerds like ourselves.

wolverine1028

I am lucky that I started my collection when DVDs had been out for awhile and WS was the preferred standard. I don't think I can stand a FS movie. How can you watch LOTR or Star Wars or any classics with part of the picture cropped off?

GMLSKIS

Why the hell can some people buy trucks and others buy cars and it's okay. But if somebody buys a fullscreen these widescreen lovers come unglued and think they have the right to tell people their way is the right way. There is room for both to enjoy collecting. I buy both myself but that is not anybody elses business. I hate 2.35:1 because I didn't buy a 32" to make it a 17" in total viewing area and I'm not moving my sofa closer. I know as much about the differences between all the formats as anybody else and would never ask you to go the other way. I hate trucks too but don't scream at people that won't buy a car instead. This does however bring me to the question - why do people with trucks go so slow over a speed bump they almost stop on top of it. I have a car and can go over it at 5mph at least without throwing it out of alignment.

Lets stop all these full vs. wide threads and live together in harmony okay.
To each their own !