Widescreen Better than Fullscreen An Opinion
#102
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Peep
Funny how whenever somebody doesn't agree with you then that makes them "stupid". I prefer OAR over any other format and tend to not by modified titles. That being said, why is it when people say "I hate those black bars" then that makes them stupid? What they are really saying is "I'd rather give up some image on the edges of the screen than watch a smaller (or really smaller) picture on my current TV. What's wrong with that? They probably bought the largest screen that they could afford and they don't want to watch tiny images on it - even if those images look more look what the movie looked like in the theatre.
I think that people that don't get that this is an acceptable opinion are the "stupid" one that need "educating".
I think that people that don't get that this is an acceptable opinion are the "stupid" one that need "educating".
#103
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eXcentris
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.
Listen people, there is more to life than correct aspect ratios.
#104
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Jason
And you're going to see a lot more movies shot in 1.85:1 as well.
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.
#105
Senior Member
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.
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.
#106
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 15,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
When I worked at Circuit City I never sold anyone a full screen one.
#107
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 2,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kenbuzz
Ah, this whole thread makes me pine for the Letterschlocking FAQ.... http://web.archive.org/web/200402181.../savetele.html
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.
#108
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: toronto
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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~!
i'm glad that fullscreen dvd's is not an option in Southeast Asia. over there, it's widescreen only, baby~!
#109
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Drexl
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.
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.
Last edited by Josh Z; 11-06-05 at 10:48 PM.
#110
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by Josh Z
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.
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.
DJ
#111
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Josh Z
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.
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.
#113
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by PatrickMcCart
I don't think Scorsese has made a 1.85:1 film since Goodfellas.
#114
DVD Talk Reviewer
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 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.
#115
Originally Posted by mzupeman2
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.
a bit OT...
#116
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Malvern, PA
Posts: 5,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Altimus Prime
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.
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.
#117
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.
'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.