Full Screen - Wide Screen --What would be better names?
03-27-05 | 10:17 PM
#51
Banned
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: So. Illinois
Originally Posted by Shazam
1) Dumbass version
2) People who care about movies version.
2) People who care about movies version.
"Fullscreen/Standard version" should be changed to "J6P version".
and
"Widescreen version" should be changed to "Film Aficionado version".
03-27-05 | 10:19 PM
#52
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FULLSCREEN is dead term
Originally Posted by NobleRabbit
I think Widescreen should stay Widescreen.
I think Fullscreen should always be called Pan and Scan, whether it is Pan and Scan, or Open Matte.
I'm sure there are SOME, but VERY FEW Fullscreen movies that have a Fullscreen OAR are released in Widescreen, so they just wouldn't have to be labeled as to what their aspect ratio is in those terms, it could just state the aspect ratio on the back.
I think Fullscreen should always be called Pan and Scan, whether it is Pan and Scan, or Open Matte.
I'm sure there are SOME, but VERY FEW Fullscreen movies that have a Fullscreen OAR are released in Widescreen, so they just wouldn't have to be labeled as to what their aspect ratio is in those terms, it could just state the aspect ratio on the back.
to use in error. Its meaningless and obsolete term because NO DVD can be "fullscreen" anymore on all TVS because there are now two aspect ratio TVS in wide usage. "Fullscreen" only made sense when ALL TVs were 4:3 aspect ratio and that is a long time ago...
03-28-05 | 08:37 AM
#53
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Texas
How long before someone sues because the "Fullscreen" version doesn't fill up the full screen of their widescreen tv hehe.
Wouldn't it be easier if they just include BOTH versions on the dvd? Will the new formats have the capacity for both?
Wouldn't it be easier if they just include BOTH versions on the dvd? Will the new formats have the capacity for both?
03-28-05 | 08:49 AM
#54
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hifisapien
You dont seem to understand, "fullscreen" is meaningless term you continue
to use in error. Its meaningless and obsolete term because NO DVD can be "fullscreen" anymore on all TVS because there are now two aspect ratio TVS in wide usage. "Fullscreen" only made sense when ALL TVs were 4:3 aspect ratio and that is a long time ago...
to use in error. Its meaningless and obsolete term because NO DVD can be "fullscreen" anymore on all TVS because there are now two aspect ratio TVS in wide usage. "Fullscreen" only made sense when ALL TVs were 4:3 aspect ratio and that is a long time ago...
03-29-05 | 10:13 PM
#55
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hogfat
Again, I have to point out that fullscreen has been, at least, realistically based on factual circumstances, unlike the term you champion. Original aspect ratio almost never refers to anything original, while the aspect ratio proves meaningless for the relevant argument of the term.
Now that we have 16:9 TVs IN ADDITION to 4:3 TVs, these same DVDs do not "FILL" the screen on a 16:9 TV so they arent "FULLSCREEN" on those sets. Hence the term is now meaningless becuase you cant call it fullscreen DVD if it isnt FILLING THE SCREEN on all TVs and it isnt anymore. It needs to go away.
