#1 - i like widescreen.

#2 - i like widescreen.

#3 - i think one basic way to look at a "pro" for fullscreen is simply maximal usage of your 4:3 tv. widescreen tvs have not taken on until relatively recently.

a widescreen movie on my 27" set reduces its effective size to, what, 23"? maybe less/more. i dunno. haven't measured.

as buying tvs go, the size of the screen determines where you should sit. and so, if i watch CBS on my television, i should sit at one distance, and if i watch a WS movie, i should sit at another. my couch isn't on rollers. so i either sit too close or too far depending on how i setup my room.

so there's a comfort issue to fullscreen. you can sit further back because you're still maximizing the screen size.

speaking of maximizing, there's the basic issue. there's a 'i paid for a 27" tv but can only watch 23" movies on my tv if i view WS' issue. but at FS, it's bigger and i am using all of the tv i paid for.

#4 - i like widescreen.

#5 - i would say, yes, you should watch in widescreen. but i can understand people wanting to have a bigger picture (even tho cropped) either so they can sit back and relax, or just so they can get the full use of their tv.

#6 - this is what happens when two divergent media - film and television - merge together without anticipating technology. sure, 50 years ago i'm sure home ownership of films wasn't a big concern. but it's happened.

tv grew at one ratio, and film rolled along at others. and now we have the WS/FS debate.

i would imagine WS will take over. but it'll take years. YEARS before that happens.

#7 - i'm not sure that this is a debate. why WS people tend to get so annoyed at FS people i won't know. yes, they probably did cost me a WS version of the powerpuff girls movie. but i'll live. oooh. i should watch that tonight.

#8 - i like widescreen

#9 - it's not an intelligence issue. it's PREFERENCE. i think it's silly to tell someone who says 'i like FS' that he/she is stupid.

To argue that this is an intelligence issue is, well... silly. Are a lot of fullscreen lovers uninformed? Most likely. That does not make them morons. Are there fullscreen lovers that are informed? Most likely again. That still doesn't make them morons. Fact is, they probably have a small tv, or have eyesight problems, or THEY JUST DON'T GIVE A SHIT. As was said above it's a preference issue. You're mostly talking about casual movie-goers/buyers here, not bloody film historians.

And to argue that these heretics have disrespect for art is equally silly. I doubt very much that said heretics spend a lot of time in arthouse theaters and buy Criterion releases. They watch/buy Hollowood stuff, 95% of which does not qualify as "art".

And I'd like to remind fulscreen lovers that most of the comments you read here come from people who seem to be spending most of their spare time on a geek forum, whining about bad cover art, lack of inserts and DTS tracks, and such important matters as a 1/4 sec. crotch shot missing from a cartoon character.

mmm. jessica. wait, my sister's name is jessica. eek.

awesome, more people in the "FS is a sign of preference, not stupidity" camp.

I used to work at Best Buy and they do not always order the same amount of WS and FS.

Maybe they sold out of FS becuase they had more WS DVDs.

Most people who buy FS are uneducated about it. They believe they are getting more picture. The "fill-factor" is important to them. Other "informed" people know they get less picture information if the OAR is a widescreen spec, but still don't care and buy the fullscreen copy.

Personally, as long as they offer OAR I have no care what others buy, nor does it insult me. I have bought a few fullscreen non-OAR movies because I liked the film and it was not available in any other fashion.(Can't buy me Love, Poilce Academy)

Only two things bug me about fullscreen dvds.

1. Buying the FS version by accident
2. Going to Wal-mart on new release day and seeing the movie I want all sold out in WS, with tons sitting there in FS.

Speaking of Wal-Mart.

I was at Wal-Mart recently and was in the electronics department. Two middle-aged women were looking at the DVD of The Grudge and asked loudly if it was available in Full Screen.

The cashier said "No, that more titles are getting released in Widescreen Only everyday".

So instead of putting the DVD back, the two women said "Oh Well" and put it in their cart.

Yes, I've heard that those heretic members of the fullscreen cult often buy widescreen DVD's and burn them as part of their ritual ceremonies.

Mis-informed people about widescreen I can handle. I know people that just refuse to listen to the differences......those people are dumb.
The good news is that I have converted a few people to the wide side of the force.

On 1.85 movies, there doesn't appear to me to be all that much of the screen filled by the "black bars". I can't imagine that requires squinting.

Since the difference between 1.85 and 1.78/16x9 is not much different, I wonder how many people refuse to watch widescreen television shows due to the squint factor.

Considering that the difference in optimum viewing distance between a 27" and 32" television is only about a foot, I don't know why the picture would require squinting. I don't have to squint to watch my 27" television despite it being more than the optimum viewing distance away from my couch.

And I guess he must squint during open matte films, too, even though they're filling up the screen.

Personally, I don't really care if someone wants something other than what I want as long as it doesn't interfere with what I want (and, in this case, it rarely does), but it is fun to listen to the excuses (the true reason is likely something along the lines of "I just like it better", which is perfectly fine, but people often like to find more complex reasons for their preferences. And I suspect a lot of widescreen advocates don't accept that as an answer, either).

Tell me if this doesn't sound like an intelligence issue. Let's take a wide image, such as DaVinci's The Last Supper. If I purchased a copy and it obviously wouldn't fit a 4X3 frame, would it be better to view it as is, or crop it just so it will fill my frame? The correct answer is that it should be displayed the way DaVinci painted it. Unfortunately, there are people who will argue that they want there entire frame filled, even if it means cropping the sides of an image.

i guess i've been fortunate in that the films i admire and wished to add to my collection have all been available in their OAR, with one exception. that being the case, i can't imagine why anyone would get their panties in a twist over people that opt for fullscreen releases.

If the studios believe there is a market, they will capitalize on it. Buying fullscreen sends a message that people will buy cropped films. There are dozens of films I would buy if they were available in their O.A.R. but unless the studios see a demand for widescreen they will continue to placate the people who have little respect for filmakers.

what films are we talking about here? generally speaking, the only films i know of that are only available in fullscreen are usually nothing more than artless studio "hackery" -- films that placate the peoples' desire to be entertained. buying these titles sends a far more dire message, regardless of the aspect ratio they're presented in. the real problem i have is titles that aren't available because there's no money in it. everyone has their own priorities, i suppose.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=343298

You lost me at DiVinci.

Bingo. Which is what I have stated previously

I agree there as well. Considering all the formulaic crap that is being produced, ranting about fullscreen DVD's is rather ridiculous and misguided. I can't for the life of me understand why people elevate their standards concerning DVD tech specs to new heights of analness while simultaneously losing all sense of criticism when it comes to the actual films. They will then argue that fullscreen lovers are unintelligent morons but that taste in film is "subjective". Go figure...

Come on guys! Anchorman and The Jerk are all about "art" and we should do whatever we can to achieve the artists' final goal -- to have the movies seen in their OAR whilst on DVD. THIS IS WHY FILMMAKERS MAKE MOVIES!!!

we've had 'foolscreen', now we have 'whinescreen'.

This thread is like asking why do some buy a Mercedes and others absolutely have to have a BMW. It's all about choice. Personally, I prefer OAR where my films are concerned. Others may not share my opinion and that's just fine by me. It's truly pointless to demean a person because they don't share your taste in or care for your opinion on the "proper" way to watch Gilligan's Island. It has nothing at all to do with intellect but everything to do with personal preference. Five pages and counting...

That is a poor example. In order for it to be applicable you'll need to reduce the widescreen image (1) until it fits in the same area the full frame image (2) occupies.

Kinda off topic, I figured you guys might be amused by this. I have complained about my dad on here before. A few years ago, when he first watched my copy of Goodfellas on dvd on his TV, i heard him hitting it. I came upstairs andhe was yelling because the TV was going bad with the black lines at the top and bottom (this isn't a lie, he actually had never heard of widescreen). I explained it, and he said he was missing half the picture. I explained it again, and he said I wasn't listening. This actually happened atleast three times before he started just complaining about it being widescreen instead of the TV being bad. When i got my widescreen tv, he came over to talk to me, and i showed him how the DVDs looked on it, and he said why cant they look like that on my TV, I said i have a widescreen, he looked at and didn't see what i was saying, i had to take him from room to room, to show him the difference. So, last year we bought him a widescreen TV. I went there the other day, he was watching the news, but the top of everyones heads were cut off. I asked. what the hell?" he said, that's what the news looks like in widescreen.
He isn't dumb, really he isn't, but he is very frustrating...

A 1.85 movie would lose roughly 1.5 inches off each the top & bottom on a 27" television, but since television size is measured diagonally, that doesn't equate to a 24" television.

By my measurements, it would end up being a 25" widescreen image, so I guess you could say you're losing roughly 7.5% of your 27" image.

I don't think the "optimum viewing distance" is that precise as to be substantially different between a 25" television image and a 27" television image, but it may well be.

first, i second the da vinci picture as a bad example. you must shrink the picture to fit the 4:3 ratio. get out your magnifying glass

like i said, didn't measure.

fine. some rough math:

the tv, being a 4:3 tv with 27" diagonal, that makes a 3,4,5 triangle so the sides are 16.2 and 21.6 inches. a total area of 349.92 sq inches.

1.5 inches off the top and bottom, equals 30.9 sq inches each.

losing that means i have a 288.12 sq inch tv.

that's a loss of just under 18%. EIGHTEEN.

and i think 1.5 seems awfully low. didnt get out a ruler but i'd say it has to be between 2 and 3. with 3, that's almost 40% loss. 2 would be, (quick math) 25%?

that's a HUGE loss. no matter what the size of the bars.

here's a better question..

why are you so obsessed with people who don't like WS?

By accident.