you've got all kinds...weekly regulars and the casual buyers. ppl who just feel they need to watch a full image on their 4:3 sets. most ppl aren't educated about OAR.

Well Mike I like fullscreen better because I am just used to watching a fullscreen on my tv. Maybe if I had a widescreen t.v. I would like it more. But with the black bars and little picture I just don't like it at all.

and Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek: Enterprise, Band of Brothers, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, Beastmaster, Farscape Season 4, and DVD versions of Babylon 5.

And I'm sure there's more...

Maxflier, looks like we just roasted this guy's butt...

Well, get un-used to it....because when you do get a widescreen TV, those black bars will be on the SIDES of your screen with your Fullscreen DVDs.

What size of TV do you have? 27" or less?

Anyway...you're missing the point. With a Fullscreen picture...you are MISSING, yes, that's right...you are MISSING a good portion of the picture. On movies like Star Wars, LOTR, Indiana Jones, Matrix Trilogy, etc., you are missing approximately 40% of the image.

Just wondering, but have you heard of the term OAR (Original Aspect Ratio)?

When you go to see a movie in the theater, what shape is the screen? That's right, it's a rectangle, not a square like your television! In this rectangle there is much more footage of the film being shown that is cut out of the so-called full-screen version that is modified to fit your square television. So, with your argument stating that you are seeing less in the widescreen verison of the movie, you're dead wrong, you are seeing less when you watch the fullscreen version.
Nearly every television show is filmed in fullscreen (or fullframe since that's it's OAR) since they are INTENDED to be shown on a square televison set. This will slowly change in the future as nearly all TVs will be widescreen.
And that is why TV is usually fullscreen and films (save for some direct-to-video and made-for-tv) are not.

Foolscreen Supporters think OAR is something that you row a boat with!

thank god!! another full screen thread. i was thinking we'd go an entire week without one. phew!!!

who the hell cares? people like what they like and buy what they want. who are any of us to criticize or whine about it and spread the gossip with this so called "education" of what is better and why in watching a freaking movie on a freaking tv!

I cannot believe that someone who reads this forum regularly would think that fullscreen is better. Widescreen is better for many reasons. One, it presents the film in the same ratio as it is shown in the theater, meaning it does not chop off the sides so that it fits on a square television screen. Granted, there are a few films that are filmed in a square aspect ratio, and then matted for theaters. In that case, the full screen version would show more information on the top and bottom, but that information is not seen in the theater, and it is not supposed to be seen at all. And in the case of these open matte transfers, the picture is not any bigger than what would be on a widescreen version. It just has extra picture on the top and bottom. Information that you aren't supposed to see.

The key to getting people to buy widescreen, is to educate them. There are several resources on the net to help you do that, but I'll let you find them. The answer is not far away from this post.

In many cases, stores that realize the way the tide has turned (statistically proven) order less fullscreen discs than widescreen, so it might be (don't know the specifics here) that it sold out quicker because there were less of them.

Anybody else think it's funny that "moviesaregreat" is espousing the values of television?

Anyway, boiling it down to strictly "WS is better" is almost as bad as "FS is better". It depends on the thing. A television show shot for fullscreen should be watched in fullscreen. A movie shot in the 40s should be watched in fullscreen. A movie shot for 2.35 should be watched in 2.35. Any other way of watching it runs counter to the way it was created; the cinematographer composed the shots for a certain ratio, the director placed the actors in the frame, and the actors acted based on whether they'd be on camera or not. Basically, you're saying that the creative work of the person who pan and scanned the film is more important than that of every other person who worked on the film. That's totally your right, but understand that, in many cases, panning and scanning can actively interfere with the storytelling. [I always give credit to James Cameron for actually taking the time to prepare the fullscreen version of (at least) Terminator 2, because he wanted to make sure the movie still worked.]

I assume that if you like fullscreen versions of widescreen movies, you also listen to music with one speaker turned off, right? I mean, since you only hear one sound either way, who needs the right and the left side?

Hey sonny! Don't poke the DVD Geeks with a stick, it just makes them mad.

Well, given how moviesaregreat has been slammed for stating his preference for fullscreen that is not too surprising. Not having been here that long, I am a little surprised at the strong responses his posts have provoked.

Now having the equipment to enjoy it properly, I completely agree with you. And given that eventually nearly all tv's will be widescreen, it seems inevitable that full screen dvd will soon become quite rare.
At least for someone like myself who has vision problems, watching a full screen version of a movie on a regular tv is much to be preferred simply because I can at least see enough of it well enough to enjoy it. With the widescreen versions I would miss too much because everything was too small for my crappy eyes.

its that kind of simplistic thinking that got MGM in trouble.

i have a screen that is 8 feet wide in a 16:9 aspect ratio. no "little picture" here.

a sig that never goes out of style...
\/
\/
\/

*mulch* not again...

I live in Germany. This is the first time I read about wrong aspect ratio, when it comes to new releases. Here studios are not releasing fullscreen versions [no market] unless they goof up the right aspect ratio, which is rare. Anyhow most DVD players have a 4:3 screen option. Needless to say that most of the widescreen picture gets chopped off.

Why do people keep posting question about "Why do people buy Full Screen DVDs"?

isn't that actually the age where you are legally considered an adult?

i think the answer to the question of "why do people buy full screen?" is:

because they like it. beause they want to.

we may like WS better than FS, but that doesn't make it 'correct'.

there are probably cases where people were confused by the diffs between FS/WS. but in the end, let them do what they want.

God, you people are gullible.

Actually, I disagree with you there. If someone chooses to listen to a music recording with one of the channels missing, wouldn't you say that it's not correct? It's the same thing. Watching a movie in Pan & Scan is like reading an abridged copy of a book.

Why do you care? Is it because you wanted a fullscreen version and they were sold out?!

must i endure electric shocks to watch The Tingler correclty?

must i read beowulf in old english, the canterbury tales in middle english or les miserables in french to read them correctly?

am i even allowed to watch dracula, frankenstein, lord of the rings, romeo and juliet, les miserables, and the MILLIONS of movies adapted from books?

"correct" is a subjective term. if all i want to get from watching the rainmaker is the storyline, having the sides cropped won't make a lick of difference.

sure, some crucial drop of blood cut out of the scene. but we're not talking about a fault to pan and scan, we're talking a fault in editing. because some moron decided to leave the focal point of the scene out of the picture.

a lot of star wars has changed. explosions look different, scenes are extended. but *predmoninatly*, the story line is exactly the same.

it won't look as cool, i'll miss maybe some of the more artistic scenes. but if that's not my cup of tea, if i prefer story over picture, then fullscreen or widescreen won't make a difference and correctness either one will be equally 'correct' for my viewing interests.

i'm having trouble reading your post on my display.

cute. you just failed pan and scan 101. do not cut out important information.

which one of these aspect ratios displays the "correct" visual picture?

3.0:1, 2.77:1, 2.76:1, 2.75:1, 2.66:1, 2.59:1, 2.55:1, 2.35:1, 2.20:1, 1.96:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1, 1.33:1

You forgot one... 2.40:1

For all those who are defending the so-called "choice" of someone preferring and/or buying FS, you are missing the point.

The point is that the longer the public goes uneducated about the issue, the longer we videophiles will have to wade through the separate FS and WS versions.

Just like the guy from Germany said, studios don't bother releasing fullscreen titles over there because the the demand is nill because the public is informed. And just as Robert Ebert is quoted, studios release fullscreen titles here just to placate the stupid.

I don't get why some people are opposed to teach the uneducated about OAR. Is it too hard for you? Don't feel the need for the effort?


The question here is that whenever we finally get an HD disc, will they continue to release stuff non-OAR just to placate the ignorant? Yeah, like I want to watch a 4:3 HD version of STAR WARS.