Neither would be nirvana, but both would be better than 4:3's reigning o'er the masses.

I agree completely. Now if I were a "foolscreen" lover who happened to stumble upon this forum, I would take solace in the fact the the "stupid" comments mostly come from people who apparently don't have lives and spend most of their spare time on a geek forum, whining about incorrect aspect ratios, bad cover art, lack of DTS tracks, and a couple of missing frames of a crotch shot from a cartoon character. :)

QFT...

Listen people, there is more to life than correct aspect ratios.

I hope not, as I really like 2.35:1.

Actually, it may make directors more comfortable working with the wider ratio since the movies wouldn't get chopped up as much on a widescreen set. Super-35 is quite popular now, and that allows for an intended ratio of 2.35:1 without having the 4:3 version hacked as badly.

I remember reading somewhere that Martin Scorsese said he would love to shoot his movies in the scope ratio, but didn't like how they would get panned and scanned for TV. Well, that must have been before his last two movies, which have both been 2.35:1. Maybe the acceptance of widescreen and the proliferation of 16x9 TVs has made him more comfortable with it.

It's possible that the guy suggesting "full screen" to the lady was just trying to deceive her. Fullscreens don't really sell as well as widescreen, do they? So maybe he was just trying to sell one, knowing that most people would buy widescreen. That's my opinion. It seems very unlikely that he sells dvds and yet TRUELY thinks that full screen is the way to go.

Every time I see the Anchorman dvd at Best Buy, there are about 10 to 12 fullscreen versions, and 0 to 1 wide screen versions. Who's going to buy those 10 to 12 fullscreens? People who ask "Should I buy fullscreen or widescreen?". I'd probably tell them to buy one of the fullscreen. :)

Sales people at any of those chains get zero out of selling someone a disc. There's no commission to be made on DVD's.
When I worked at Circuit City I never sold anyone a full screen one.

That is one of the biggest loads of complete and utter horseshit I have ever read.

I'd love to challenge the author of that site to go into a Best Buy with me, and get two TVs side by side, the same move in fullscreen on one and widescreen on the other, and let the truth speak for itself.

only in america....and canada, can you get foolscreen dvd's of hollywood movies....
i'm glad that fullscreen dvd's is not an option in Southeast Asia. over there, it's widescreen only, baby~!

All of Scorsese's features since 1991 have been 2.35:1: Cape Fear, Age of Innocence, Casino, Kundun, Bringing Out the Dead, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, and (upcoming) The Departed.

The prevalence of letterboxing on laserdisc convinced him that there was sufficient outlet for viewers who wanted to see his movies in their full widescreen ratios (Scorsese was a big laserdisc fan back in the day). DVD and 16:9 TVs have only bolstered that decision.

But how many of those films were shot using Super35, allowing them to be reformatted for 4x3 sets without necessary panning and scanning?

DJ

Wow, I thought there was a 1.85:1 movie in there somewhere. I guess the interview must have been a long time ago. :)

I don't think Scorsese has made a 1.85:1 film since Goodfellas.

Yes, that's exactly what I posted in this thread 2 hours before you, isn't it?

I'm not one for blasting off people because of a personal preference, and it's good to see a little open minded-ness in this thread.

I personally feel that the OAR is the way to go. The standard for TV's is that HDTV is coming in, and that slowly but surely, widescreen is going to be a standard in the future as well.

I actually just upgraded from a Toshiba 32" tube flat screen set, to a 42" Sony LCD Rear Projection HDTV that's widescreen.

Now, I've always been a supporter of widescreen, but even if I wasn't, I would be grateful for my widescreen DVD's now because I've got a widescreen set! I say, inform people of their situation.

They may have bought a regular tube set with a flat screen that is large in size, and they want to enjoy the full size of the screen... but just let them know that in the future with a widescreen television they're either going to have to stretch the picture a bit on the sides, or have those dreaded black bars they hate on the left and right sides of the screen. Tell them to think about the future because they'll have these DVD's forever.

And at that point, they can decide what they feel is more worth it to them.

Yes, there ARE a lot of people who are not well informed about OAR and what it may mean to them in the future. But there are those, that you see in this forum, that are informed and have just decided to go against the grain to suit their own personal preference.

I mean I may think personally it's not a good investment because then all of their full screen DVD's won't make the most out of their home entertainment system when they upgrade to widescreen in the future, but they are aware of it and have made their decision to suit what they have right now. In this sense, yes, widescreen being better than fullscreen is opinion based.

But I guess looking at it purely in a technological way, there's no doubt that widescreen is the better format. Everything is turning its gears to widescreen. Television, movies have been forever, widescreen is a standard for many things.

Movies for quite a long time now, have been widescreen. It fills up the theater better and now that having a home theater experience is more accessible now than it ever was, it's only natural that the technology has been made to embrace that format. And the same reason applies here as I said above... the investment.

Investing in fullscreen will eventually probably leave some people very frustrated someday when they realize that they're fullscreen DVD's had been selected by irony to NOT be fullscreen anymore.

So really as you can see, there's people with their own opinions who would rather make use of their equipment they have now, and then worry about the future when it comes to their doorstep, and that's fine. So the argument that these formats being better than one another, can be all about opinion... but looking at how the world has been changing to the format of HD and widescreen, technologically it's really a no brainer to see which format is 'better' to have right now when you invest your money into things like DVD's.

I've actually been to a theater that did not properly handle wider movies. I think it was a 16x9 set up, but it sure didn't handle the 2.35 movie I was watching.
a bit OT...

:lol: I'm pretty sure it's just a joke. But I like your passion.

Re: Widescreen Better than Fullscreen An Opinion
 

Someone i know:

'They make the movies nowadays in widescreen for the widescreen tvs.'

And she's convinced that when saw 3-d comes out she can use her 3-d glasses from the theater on her non 3-d tv with a bootleg screener dvd. :hairpull: