Forget the open matte discussion.

It's as simple is...

What shape is a movie screen?
"Rectangle"
What shape is a standard TV?
"Square"
Now how do you fit the entire rectangle into a square?
"silence"
Well, then, let me show you...

Facts, schmacts.

The tip of a boom mike wouldn't be funny, but one of the grips crawling underneath the table next to a bunch of wires and coke cans would be. I'm just trying to liven up the speech with some beautiful lies.

Read up on this site. It has good examples of films in P&S and widescreen.

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/starwars/index.shtml

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/l...de/index.shtml

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/l...rs/index.shtml

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/l...ip/index.shtml

There's more on that site but those above are good examples.

That might be more effective if it was actually true, but it isn't. A 4x3 TV is not square, but rather a rectangle. Not as wide a rectangle as 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, but a rectangle nonetheless.

DJ

I did a widescreen/full screen speech for my speech class a couple semesters ago as well.

The room we were in was not equipped to do powerpoint presentations. So what I ended up doing was printing out comparison images on transparancies to use on the overhead projector. Then using a marker to show everyone what was missing or the differences. Seemed to work out fine.

I'm thinking you could get around the "one picture" requirement. Could you use a big canvas with several smaller picures on it and argue that it is one picture? What if it is a picture of several pictures?

For an example of what could happen when the mattes are opened, you could show that part in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory where you can see the hose attached to Violet's blueberry costume. Or show the other end of the chain coming out of the bike in Pee Wee's Big Adventure.

BTW, how did your business speech go?

My portion went pretty well, and she said that I was a pretty natural speaker, but the rest of my group was not the best. It didn't help that our subject matter was boring, and not everyone showed up every day.

I'll have to think about whether I want to risk part of my grade to skirt the system...heh.

Thanks for all the replies today...now I just need to start gathering the stats on Widescreen and Fullscreen.

Typical [liberal] POV. Yep, there's definately never a right or wrong way to do things. :rolleyes: Please.

I'm not big artsy fartsy type person, but I surely don't think it'd be proper to cut and trim down a famous piece of artwork just to fit it in a particular frame I have.

I even feel this way when people cut up their vacation photos to put in scrap books because they won't fit in there in their full 3x5 or 4x6 sizes.

Believe it or not, there's still some people out there who can't even grasp this concept. My retired teacher aunt who goes to movies alot still can't figure this out. You think it'd be :brickwl2: by now.

Debating widescreen vs. full screen can be tricky because of the open matte issue. When open matte films are formatted for widescreen presentation, you do lose some picture information. Not anything that's important to the director, but you still lose it. So if you're seeking to demonstrate the merit of widescreen by showing what more you actually see, your point could be nearly DOA, applying mostly to older films. And with more and more films being done in open matte these days, your point has ever declining value to those who simply don't care.

One angle you could use instead is advocating the director's intent for his or her work. That is something that cannot be argued against, even though there are those who scoff at the idea of honoring what the director wanted. They want their screen filled--to hell with anything else! So be it. But you could emphasize the artistic side of filmmaking. The composition of a scene is as important as the performances of the actors. Find screen shots of open matte films where OAR clearly has a better composition than its open matte equivalent. Open matte may show more on top and bottom, but that doesn't mean the picture is any better.

--THX

The images we used for my newspaper series "Widescreen 101" are very persuasive. It's also a fairer representation of widescreen (on a 4:3 set, which is what most people still have) because it truly shows how each format looks on a 4:3 screen. Even with a "smaller" widescreen image (because of the black space; don't call them "bars"), it's hard to see how anyone could argue for P&S after seeing how this scene from "The Mask of Zorro" looks in each format.

http://www.widescreenadvocate.org/pdfs/lesson1a.pdf

If you print out this newspaper page, it could be the one image to which you have been limited.

My entire series is indexed here:

http://www.widescreenadvocate.org/download3.html

Rasalas,

Thanks for the articles.

I think I am going to have to lean toward the director intent for the persuasion of widescreen/OAR.

That way, I can briefly touch on open matte, but still emphasize the widescreen preference by almost every director.

:) I don't believe PixyJunket used the term "never," nor clearly applied the comment to anything other than the topic at hand.

--THX

I just started a new job at a music & movies store. I can't even tell you the number of times I've had people pick fullscreen over widescreen, and then tell me a misinformed answer as to why they don't like widescreen.

So good luck with your speech. These people need it ;)

It can also be said that a fullscreen version of a film - more of conversion, actually - is an alteration and a distortion of the film.

If you want to see a movie at home the way it was seen in the theater, then widescreen/OAR is the only way to go. A movie screen can't be made to fit a TV screen. You can't put a rectangle into a square and make it fill the square.

And in time, the adopting of widescreen TVs will make fullscreen pointless. Except for those stuck with fullscreen DVDs who are suddenly complaining about bars on the sides, and have to pay to replace all their DVDs. Ha!

I hope to see the day that fullscreen DVDs go the way of the dodo.

I took the liberty of writing your speech for you.

"Foolscreen gives teh gay. Thank you."

Shortest presentation ever:

Good afternoon, my presentation is going to be on Widescreen vs. Full Screen...

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...tios/fist1.jpg
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...tios/fist3.jpg

any questions?


[the Die Hard (5 Star) DVD has an excellent comparison scene with commentary by the director]

as does Walt Disney's Sleeping Beauty

If only that were true. The first movie that was available to me in HD when I first hooked up my widescreen happened to be SW Ep II. Guess what, it was fullscreen 16:9 P&S shit. TV shape doesn't change the nature of the beast. See sig.

AS my visual aid, I present Mr. Ernie Hudson. ;)
http://www.gencon.com/images/SC04/MGOH-Ernie-Hudson.jpg

Is that because he is cut out of some of the Ghostbusters scenes on Fullscreen?

Some? :)

What's this shit? I'm as liberal as they come and I agree with you. Sometimes people say dumb shit without political leanings having any play...

Mike, there isn't any need to make political statements in a thread like this. Frankly, I'm getting tired of having to deal with threads that you seem to be trying to intentionally derail. In the future, if you cannot learn to keep to the topic, we will be forced to take further action.

You're wrong. Anything other than the original aspect ratio is WRONG. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if you see more or less inside the intended frame. What matters is the composition by the director and the DP.