My uncle's been saying that for years. I'm a little surprised directors aren't trying to force widescreen on people.

I work at F.Y.E. and it's amazing how often people's responses are similar to my first post when I tell them they are losing up to 50% of the picture.

Oh, don't even get me started on fullscreen Star Wars.

When the class action lawsuit on how "Full Screen" (modified to fit your TV) fails to fill up J6P's new 16x9 TVs is filed and/or wins.

Like others have said, I'm worried about 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 films being altered to 16:9. With "foolscreen" DVDs, the modification is drastic enough that we had a fullscreen version and a widescreen version, and the modification was admitted to on the FS version. Now I'm afraid we'll just get a Widescreen version, but it'll always be 16:9, and there'll be no warning and no OAR version, except perhaps on high-def. Who knows, it could infect the HD world as well, since Wal-Mart is stocking those, too.

I'll probably get some flack for this, but I wouldn't be too upset with everything being formated to 16x9, assuming it's open matte instead of a crop job. Ratios greater than that are really just too narrow. I know, it makes for awesome landscape shots and all that, but it really sucks for close face shots. You can watch the entire Matrix movie and never know Morpheus is bald. Ok, not really, but I find always having people's faces cropped just above the eyebrows to be really annoying.

FLACK! Ha ha, no, just kidding. I sort of agree with you in a way, because what works on a 40-foot screen doesn't necessarily look as good on a 41" screen, and few of us even have one that large. I'd say those instances are the exception rather than the rule though, and I've definitely seen some cases where seeing more image than intended sort of dilutes the experience, for me at least. Those have been seeing a full 4:3 instead of 16:9 (like BTTF, etc.), but even stuff like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which was "opened up" to 1.66:1 instead of 1.78:1 doesn't really look right to me, although there may have been some side cropping on that one.

I'm hoping now that the majority of serious movie viewing is taking place in the home rather than in theatres filmakers will start taking that more into consideration. I throw a 10 ft wide image in my basement and even at that size I think the framing a lot of times is still too narrow.

I think,as long as I have the option to view/buy an O.A.R. version of a film. Who cares if some others don't care to view it that way.

Now those who claim to be 'pro-O.A.R.' and then yearn for open matte films to be framed differently for their WS sets. I say they are hypocrites and just as bad as "J6p" they love to make fun of.

If you're watching something on a large screen and it appears too 'narrow'. Well,um,a wider aspect ratio will have a larger scope,thus more black bars to frame correctly. You tell "J6P" to watch the screen and not the bars. And I'll say,you do the same! Also sitting closer might help,in case you're sitting too far away and the 2.35:1 image seems 'tiny'. And most importantly,stop expecting everything to be in one bland ratio! This is the problem with people it seems. They want everything conformed to whatever ratio their tv is in.

So it's not as black and white as the WS lovers claim. People on both sides are just as guitly of wanting compromised art to fit their sets.

Yikes, chill out. We only brought up that if they're gonna start modifying films, 16:9 isn't as bad as 4:3. However, it really is black-and-white... OAR is OAR. There may be people who want to see the whole image when a film is shot open-matte, and we all love deleted scenes, but come on... isn't the point of home video to preserve the original theatrical experience? There's been a big brouhaha over the Kubrick films... was the theatrical aspect ratio a compromise? Did he want 4:3 instead? You could probably argue that with any open-matte film, especially if the open-matte version is shown on TV so people know there's more picture to be seen. The other open-matte argument is that OAR means how a film was shot, but I think the majority of home theater enthusiasts agree that OAR refers to the original presentation ratio.

I'm not sure if OAR varied from print to print, but I can imagine a lot of theaters fudged the ratio somewhat, intentionally or not. That brings up another point though, what about original soundtracks? I'm sure there are some films that originally had a mono or stereo soundtrack that were re-mixed into 5.1, either artificially or by going back to the original audio elements. There doesn't seem to be such a clamor for original soundtracks, although since I brought up Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I really prefer the original soundtrack to the 5.1 mix with re-recorded narration.

There's been way too much time and energy spent on the OAR debate, and I think SteelWill was just saying that with all this fullscreen nonsense, it's nice that widescreen TVs are becoming more commonplace, even if it means that 16:9 becomes the compromise between OAR and fullscreen. I'm not really satisfied with that, but it could mean the end of pan-and-scan or hard cropping to 4:3, which is at least an improvement. Hopefully it'll mean that if a studio insists on releasing a DVD in fullscreen-only, we'll at least get something close to OAR. I'm not someone who minds black bars, so you won't see me stretching the picture for TV shows, and I'd definitely prefer the original framing, whatever the aspect ratio.

I'd say that fullscreen as we know it is close to going away, or really just changing to 16:9 instead of 4:3. It worries me because studios can put out a modified 16:9 DVD and call it widescreen, but if all the DVDs I have now that are FS-only were 16:9 rather than 4:3, I'd be much happier.

I don't like having relevant parts of the image blocked. Whether it is by cropping for pan & scan or too narrow framing to make it more "cinematic." It's as simple as that for me.

That, my friend, is something you're going to have to take up with filmmakers. It also begs the question "what is relevant?" Does that apply to out-of-focus stuff in the background? Film has a very shallow depth-of-field (well, at least most films are shot that way), so does it upset you that you're forced to focus on stuff in the foreground rather than checking out things in the background because they're all out-of-focus?

I guess you'd fall into the "if it's open-matte I want the full image" crowd, whereas I'm perfectly satisfied with whatever the filmmakers want me to see, although I don't want the studio coming in and chopping it up just to fill Joe Six-Pack's TV screen, whether 4:3 or 16:9. All I was saying earlier was that fullscreen=16:9 is much better than fullscreen=4:3. It's simply the lesser of the two evils.

Of course as someone else said, where does it end? If "fullscreen" becomes 16:9, are we gonna end up with Blu-ray DVD sets of Knight Rider that have either been pre-stretched to fill widescreen TVs, or arbitrarily cropped at the top and bottom? THAT's when I'd start crying foul.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasnt the fullscreen the OAR for Buffy and the european dvd's matted to look widescreen?

Altering 1.85:1 aspect ratio films to 1.78:1 (16:9) is really a non-issue, and has been occurring on DVD since the beginning of the format. This change is on par with the altering of 1.37:1 films to the 1.33:1 (4:3) aspect ratio of SDTV that has been going on for decades. It's a change of only a small percent that's not noticeable to most people. TV overscan typically alters the image more.

Alteration of 2.35:1 movies to 1.78:1 is a more legitimate concern. In fact, that type of aspect ratio alteration has already happened on some DVDs. However, even that type of alteration seems less and less likely. For example, the movie Lord of War was initially released on DVD in the exact way you describe: The altered 1.78:1 DVD was labeled as "Widescreen," with no mention of the aspect ratio being changed on the box. Fans protested, and protested loudly, and although Lionsgate never publically admitted their mistake, they quietly repressed the 2-disc edition so that it contained the OAR. When it came time for the HD release, Lionsgate just stuck with OAR for the film.

I think the market demand from film enthusiasts will keep OAR at least as an option for films, even as we migrate to HD and a wider TV aspect ratio.

Takeshi357 was asking about Back to the Future (BTTF) , not Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BTVS).

You're also incorrect about BTVS: The TV series. The TV series was shot on Super16 in the first few seasons and Super35 after that, both at an aspect ratio of 16:9. The shots were framed for a 4:3 image in the center of the film frame, with the sides supposedly "protected" for an open-matte WS presentation that the studio demanded. The SFX were even rendered in 16:9.

However, Joss Whedon has stated that the preferred aspect ratio for BTVS is 4:3, and 4:3 is certainly the OAR, as it's the aspect ratio it was originally shown in. Also the open-matte 16:9 version, much like some open-matte 4:3 versions of films, reveals errors obviously not intended to be seen, such as film equipment and sometimes even crew members.

I would expect it from Walmart or Target, but DVDTALK?!

The iNetVideo.com Mega Contest

"This week we have a DVDTalk's biggest giveaway ever, sponsored by iNetVideo.com! Enter below for your chance to win one of a hundred (!) copies of The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King (Full Screen Edition) on DVD!"

I'm sure they are just dumping inventory and giving them away for free is a nice way to do it, but I thought it was kinda funny to see a Fullscreen DVD promotion on a forum who has widely rejected fullscreen (non OAR) for the last 10 years.

Now you know why I didn't enter this contest.

^ i cant imagine 100 people entering

After close to 2 years from when this thread was started and Target & Wal-Mart are still carrying the foolscreen versions of movies, sometimes ONLY the foolscreen..

It always bugged my wife (widescreen dvds), and then I showed her this
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GMJhM3So4y8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GMJhM3So4y8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Needless to say she on the boat now.

I just wish I could find a good high quality download of this clip

Me too!

Thanks for posting, great clip.

Whew! We don't need to see that picture again , do we?

I had a friend that didn't like widescreen until I showed them the widescreen vs. full screen of a film like Pulp Fiction and they were on the boat as well. There are so many new cuts within the widescreen framing that weren't supposed to be there.

I don't agree open matte is acceptable even though that was how a film was shot. I saw Adventureland in the theater last spring and noticed the projectionist mis-framed the picture showing too much at the top and cutting off the bottom. In about 25 separate shots the boom mike protruded from the top of the screen.

In the Kubrick films I always felt there was too much unnecessary space above the actor's heads indicating they were probably framed for 1.85:1.

We certainly dont need to see that pic again, but it is definitely a good video. When I was working retail at the onset of dvd, I had countless discussions with uninformed customers about the "dreaded black bars". It really aggravated me the amount of just plain wrong information that was out there. I ended up making up sheets with a comaprison screenshot in 4:3 and in the OAR, and overlayed them. The shots from films liek Ben hur were what won them over. Where about half of the picture was cut off.

I didn't enter because I didn't want to subscribe to another newsletter.