You can't just "broadcast in 16:9 only", there will always be legancy video in the archives. Pan Scan was or is mostly used in the USA, in Europe Letterboxing was used much more and was more accepted.
Pan Scan CAN be a good thing for DVD menus for example or if something was shot with Pan Scan in mind and was transferred to DVD in it's original form (16:9) with the possiblity to watch it either in Letterbox or Pan Scan on 4:3 TVs. That's the only way everyone is happy.
@Usul573 I'm not confusing them, my first sentence is referring to one of the "top comments" saying broadcasting should be 16:9 only.
Naturally Pan Scan and aspect ratio are somewhat related to each other since PS is a way to convert video to a frame ratio different from the original one. I'm just saying that Pan Scan has it's uses, the problem is just that, as it seems, it is often stubbornly preferred over letterboxing where not appropriate, as shown in this video.
What exactly are the uses? It seems to be just taking one aspect ratio and making it into an incorrect one, and something isn't shot with pan and scan in mind, it's just shot at whatever type of aspect ratio it was made for.
TV broadcasts are obviously a little complex, HDTV broadcasts are all 16:9 I think, and from there you can pillbox or letterbox more into the proper aspect ratio. Seems like they are catching on more these days depending on the channel.
@Usul573 Well, like I've said in my first comment, Pan Scan *can* be a nice way to present video shot in 16:9 on a 4:3 screen IF the video was shot and produced with that in mind which pretty much implies that this never applies to cinematic stuff, rather only for TV. It works this way: the important stuff is always in the center area, never in the extreme sides. So it's not the classic "Pan" and Scan, but rather just a static zoom which is generated by the receiver of DVD-Player.
The big benefit is if you have a 16:9 TV the static Pan Scan zoom is omited and you have a full screen picture as well - with the same broadcast or DVD. That's why I said it's the only way everyone's happy. It can be used for DVD-Menus as well for example.
HDTV broadcast is 16:9 only yeah, but SD broadcast can and should switch between 4:3 and 16:9, forcing to either one is always a bad idea.
Still, you're not getting the entire image and them having the vitals in the middle sounds like it limits how they shoot it a little. Babylon 5 is an example of early widescreen that had problems.
DVD menus I don't really freak out over I guess. If anything I want a simple menu that just pops up without preview clips of the movie you're about to watch that give away stuff.
I do feel that whether it's SDTV, HDTV, a DVD, a blu-ray, streaming, youtube, whatever, it should always contain the entire image that it was intended to have.
From there you can mess around with it, zoom it, or whatever if you want to, but I would leave it alone. They make virtually all TV with 16:9 or 1:78 in mind now.
@smith507 yeah i thought there might be a method to it. What i also noticed is 2.35:1 all really is is two 4:3 displays side by side. Imagine losing 4:3 bits of information for 20 years watching movies on vhs home tape! I dont mind the black bars either.
Yep, widescreen dvd/blu-ray should be the standard for more or less everything coming down the pipe now though.
DVDs certainly will hang on for a long long time for all sorts of reasons, partly since I think you really need like a 32 inch TV or better to REALLY tell the difference.
you miss so much action. yet i think directors were aware that their movies were eventually going to end up on home video chopped up pan scan so i think they purposefully left a lot of dead space on side to side on a lot of these shots. yet there is a lot of important information missed on pan scan. manufacturers should have released TVs on 16:9 from the beginning. at least its a middle ground.
@RMProdux2008 Directors may have taken in mind the Pan & Scan issue, but that dead space you see is mostly because of a photography composing technique called "the rule of thirds" in which you take an imaginary grid dividing the frame in thirds and the subject is placed in one of their intersections or... (bla bla bla), it a complex topic, better take a look at google.
IMO, pan/scan is awful, I really love the unaltered/intended way of a movie. i don't mind black bars.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I just can't stand bars on the top and bottom of the screen. I cant concentrate on the actual movie when theres all that emptiness on the screen, i don't see how anyone can. Even if you're losing part of the picture, you're gaining a full screen. Which is more important, not 25% of the screen in bars.
This is like what happened to DBZ when FUNimation put it in wide-screen you lost 20% on the horizontal frame and only gained 5% on the vertical frame other than the movies as those were meant for wide screen. This movie should be in 16:9 and DBZ should be 4:3. What I'm getting at is that things should be seen how they were meant not changing that and ruining it. I think if any company releases something it should be released how it was made.
When Blu-ray becomes the standard, fullscreen DVDs and 4-perf Super 35 will go the way of the dodo. Anamorphic lenses are making a comeback, since Blu-ray format is on its way to becoming the standard video format.
You should scale that red box to encompass the widescreen version so the ignorant people on here can understand why there are two black lines top/bottom when they watch widescreen on a non-widescreen tv.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i perfer pan scan as your looking at what they want you to look at with widescreen can easly loose track and focus of the story if they wanted you to see it all then they would remove those dum eye lids off the lens and filmed the whole thing in fullscreen
when bladerunner came out i didnt dont know anyone who had a widescreen tv or cinema and doubt there was any intention of releasing it, was filmed in widescreen due to the ease of editing it
when i watched short circuit in the cinema on a 4:3 i didnt think it was a bad tv version and terminator ,robocop i perfered the in your face look it grabbed my attention and is easy to share ,with widescreen its hard positioning it in the home its crap to watch from a angle and isnt in your face have to move your eyes to look at trashcans and garbage cant be in a zone and just take it in , isnt crap just perfer my 4:3 experience same with music ,vinyl all the way
as for the director WANTS you to look at his vision..he obviosly has more then 1 cos the brain cant take in 16:3 so we will never know cos we dont know what to look at first only the characters who talk the more they focus in on that the better i think even with photographers they perfer to shoot in 4:3 cos what you see is what they saw , in 16:3 its too wide and have to move your eyes so you dont really see it
so on this video when the red box jumps left and right you dont need to move your eyes even when its not there? i had a large widescreen on my wall and found it to be very uncomfortable i perfered watchin full screen in the kitchen and bedroom and evently replaced the widescreen with a fullscreen off ebay as they dont sell them anymore ,same with games and computers perfer the 4:3 ,16:9 gives me headaches and strains my eyes from constant movement
Actually 16:9 is not the proportions of this film. BR is in CinemaScope 2.35:1 which is not the same as widescreen 16:9, which is 1.85:1. Meaning BR and all other CinemaScope titles are broader and would give black lines top/bottom properly showned at even a widescreen tv.
Sounds somewhat that you would be best off by watching still pictures and not moving ones at all.
Poor Jordan Cronenweth's work to no avail when some don't appreciate the craftmanship.
AS unorthodox as your opinion is about the wide screen (in this day and age) there is a sliver of truth in your argument that I will elucidate for you.
First, the letter box aspect ratio, when compared to the original film frame negative is actually a lot less picture.
Pan-scan is even less BUT..the TV aspect ratio 4:3 is actually closer to the aspect ratio of the original negative so TECHNICALLY speaking the TV aspect ratio if used that way, would yield visually more film frame real estate.
widescreen is the original format of viewing a film , the reason the bars appwars is because uptil now tv's werent made for that frame, until now of course. i hate p&s, ruins the picutes, cuts out detail and i dont know why videos did it, bloody stupid
To cater for 99% of the VHS watching population that didn't understand why a widescreen film would have black bars at the top and bottom of the picture and would complain that they were being "cheated" out of a filled screen...
Laserdisc owners were considered smarter and nearly always had a widescreen version available.
yes however that would be bad because then there are those who cannot afford 16:9 Tv sets unless they were to make a cheap 16:9 TV in CRT or something.
i have to say the excuse that it's too expensive is tired. hell, we're (Americans are, that is,) switching to digital broadcast in the middle of a recession. the real truth of the matter is that it's not a priority-- if it were, like with digital, we'dve had it 20 years ago like, as FM4ever says they have in Holland.
What about VHS vs DVD? All DVDs I've seen crop in on both widescreen and 4:3. I've been planning to make a few examples of how much the DVDs cropped in versus VHS. My best guess is that they crop in to reduce the amount of details shown so that they can compress it better.
Some good examples I've seen are 'Total Recall','Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me','Kiss The Girls'.
someone needs to teach those ignorant people that black bars are a GOOD thing and they are getting the full picture. I hope they fully eradicate the use of pan and scan since it ruins the directors artistic intent of the movie and also crops a substantial amount of information when the image is really wide.
My man gripe is the "shimmer" effect that happens when the field of view is shifted quickly (within 2-3 seconds), or a faux zoom is used (distorting the depth of field). It's disorienting.
Regular tube TV's are fine. It's not their fault. It's the channels'. Executives or whoever is in charge keep buying pan-and-scanned versions of movies. They keep broadcasting them instead of broadcasting the original versions. Now, that would be great if they did, it wouldn't hurt anyone, but they want to get rid of the black bars. That's why there are DVD's, but some are pan-and-scanned versions, THAT stinks. The point is, a pan-and-scan version is a pan-and-scan version no matter your TV.
Today when Super 35 rules the widescreen scene they make every simple movie in Hollywood in 2.39:1 ratio. Comedies, low-budget dramas, everything because with Super 35 you don't lose 44% of the visuals in pan-and-scanning ("only" about 20%) and get a lot of "extra" image (about 30%) on the top and bottom (which makes the films look out-of-frame and idiotic but that's another thing...). Because of this many films are made in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio whose shouldn't be.
Actually, each shot varies as to how much you loose. Regular shots will loose about 20% on the sides and gain some at the top. In other shots, like ones that have CGI, you loose the same amount you loose in a regular widescreen to fullscreen transfer. The main reason Super35 and other open matte formats are used anymore is not so they can have a better transfer, but so boom mic operators will be able to see where the mic is in the frame. You loose the same amount almost either way.
If you look at Terminator II which was made in 1991 when Super 35 was only rarely used you can see that the CGI shots lose much more on the sides than the other ones.
Actually, the big reason that Super 35 has gained preference over Anamorphic (CinemaScope) for 2.39:1 movies is because the majority of Cinematographers prefer spherical lenses to anamorphic ones, they are cheaper, more plentiful and easier to work with
Widescreen looks great but only if it's used properly and for films that require it. For years it was a good custom to film action-packed and/or exotic, big budget films in anamorphic widescreen (2.39:1) and lower budget films (dramas, comedies) in normal spherical process (matted to 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 aspect ratio).
The reason widescreen is important is because it mimics your actual field of view, making use of peripheral vision. On 4:3 formatted films, or better yet, 4:3 televisions, you have dead space to the sides that remain in your view the entire time, no matter how big the screen or TV is.
(Continued) Both movies have scenes that show a whole picture that ends up moving around or appearing rather choppy because of "cuts" to show each person speaking. Another reason why this ruins the scenes is because you often do not see how the other person is reacting to dialogue when the view shifts to the one who is speaking... save for a really quick reaction shot, which didn't exist in widescreen.
One of the most annoying things about dealing with a pan and scan version of a movie is that often you will have a wide shot with two people talking to each other... and the view will slide back and forth between the two, or worse yet, cut back and forth even though the scene was originally filmed continuous. Mission Impossible and Dances With Wolves are both films that suffer greatly because of this.
Considering that a massive amount of time and money on this film was spent creating atmosphere, I have to disagree. Widescreen enhances the atmosphere and helps control the shots. The pan and scan movements weren't meant to be there. Every camera move has an affect on the viewer's perception of a film.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Like I said 11 months ago, widescreen is important, but at the same time not necessary. I watched the Pan & Scan version when it aired on TV, and I enjoyed it.
Believe me, I get frustrated when someone prefers fullscreen over widescreen.
Old video, now all have 16:9 TV LCD. But if you want watch BR - buy it on Blu-Ray!
2012PIOTREK 1 day ago
Yep, proof that widescreen is better. Especially considering that this was shot anamorphically.
OwensboroMusicMan07 2 weeks ago
You can't just "broadcast in 16:9 only", there will always be legancy video in the archives. Pan Scan was or is mostly used in the USA, in Europe Letterboxing was used much more and was more accepted.
Pan Scan CAN be a good thing for DVD menus for example or if something was shot with Pan Scan in mind and was transferred to DVD in it's original form (16:9) with the possiblity to watch it either in Letterbox or Pan Scan on 4:3 TVs. That's the only way everyone is happy.
Skiller444 3 months ago
@Skiller444
Don't confuse pan and scan and aspect ratio.
Usul573 1 month ago
@Usul573 I'm not confusing them, my first sentence is referring to one of the "top comments" saying broadcasting should be 16:9 only.
Naturally Pan Scan and aspect ratio are somewhat related to each other since PS is a way to convert video to a frame ratio different from the original one. I'm just saying that Pan Scan has it's uses, the problem is just that, as it seems, it is often stubbornly preferred over letterboxing where not appropriate, as shown in this video.
Skiller444 1 month ago
@Skiller444
What exactly are the uses? It seems to be just taking one aspect ratio and making it into an incorrect one, and something isn't shot with pan and scan in mind, it's just shot at whatever type of aspect ratio it was made for.
TV broadcasts are obviously a little complex, HDTV broadcasts are all 16:9 I think, and from there you can pillbox or letterbox more into the proper aspect ratio. Seems like they are catching on more these days depending on the channel.
Usul573 1 month ago
@Usul573 Well, like I've said in my first comment, Pan Scan *can* be a nice way to present video shot in 16:9 on a 4:3 screen IF the video was shot and produced with that in mind which pretty much implies that this never applies to cinematic stuff, rather only for TV. It works this way: the important stuff is always in the center area, never in the extreme sides. So it's not the classic "Pan" and Scan, but rather just a static zoom which is generated by the receiver of DVD-Player.
Skiller444 4 weeks ago
@Skiller444 +Part 2+ (I mean *or* DVD-Player)
The big benefit is if you have a 16:9 TV the static Pan Scan zoom is omited and you have a full screen picture as well - with the same broadcast or DVD. That's why I said it's the only way everyone's happy. It can be used for DVD-Menus as well for example.
HDTV broadcast is 16:9 only yeah, but SD broadcast can and should switch between 4:3 and 16:9, forcing to either one is always a bad idea.
Skiller444 4 weeks ago
@Skiller444
Still, you're not getting the entire image and them having the vitals in the middle sounds like it limits how they shoot it a little. Babylon 5 is an example of early widescreen that had problems.
DVD menus I don't really freak out over I guess. If anything I want a simple menu that just pops up without preview clips of the movie you're about to watch that give away stuff.
Yep HDTV is 16:9/1:78, then can letter/pillbox.
SDTV is 4:3/1:33 and can also letterbox.
Usul573 3 weeks ago
@Usul573
I do feel that whether it's SDTV, HDTV, a DVD, a blu-ray, streaming, youtube, whatever, it should always contain the entire image that it was intended to have.
From there you can mess around with it, zoom it, or whatever if you want to, but I would leave it alone. They make virtually all TV with 16:9 or 1:78 in mind now.
Usul573 3 weeks ago
wow, what a beautiful way to demonstrate to those who dont know the difference, thanks!
valiskeogh1 6 months ago in playlist Dystopic Agenda - M - Blade Runner
@smith507 yeah i thought there might be a method to it. What i also noticed is 2.35:1 all really is is two 4:3 displays side by side. Imagine losing 4:3 bits of information for 20 years watching movies on vhs home tape! I dont mind the black bars either.
RMProdux2008 7 months ago
Thank FUCK we dont have to deal with this anymore with Blu-rays. It took three generations of home video viewing but we got there.
No wonder I hated this movie when I saw it on TV years ago. Its my favorite film of all time now
GavSalkeld 7 months ago
@GavSalkeld
Do they even bother releasing current films on fullscreen DVD/blu-ray?
They did a lot of fullscreen DVDs because a lot of morons didn't want to see black bars on their old fullscreen tvs.
Usul573 5 months ago
@Usul573 DVDs still get some FS releases, but thankfully BD dont. We have finally moved on! :)
GavSalkeld 5 months ago
@GavSalkeld
Unless what is on the DVD/BD was made in FS, then leave it alone in it's original aspect ratio.
You could always scan it or zoom it or whatever if you want to screw with it, but give us the correct image.
Usul573 5 months ago
@Usul573 Well, naturally. 4:3 transfers of 4:3 films is fine!
GavSalkeld 5 months ago
@GavSalkeld
Yep, widescreen dvd/blu-ray should be the standard for more or less everything coming down the pipe now though.
DVDs certainly will hang on for a long long time for all sorts of reasons, partly since I think you really need like a 32 inch TV or better to REALLY tell the difference.
Usul573 5 months ago
Pan & Scan MUST DIE!
psxdriverplayer 8 months ago
I didn't realise the original DVD release was this bad!
2000AFD 9 months ago
you miss so much action. yet i think directors were aware that their movies were eventually going to end up on home video chopped up pan scan so i think they purposefully left a lot of dead space on side to side on a lot of these shots. yet there is a lot of important information missed on pan scan. manufacturers should have released TVs on 16:9 from the beginning. at least its a middle ground.
RMProdux2008 9 months ago
@RMProdux2008 Directors may have taken in mind the Pan & Scan issue, but that dead space you see is mostly because of a photography composing technique called "the rule of thirds" in which you take an imaginary grid dividing the frame in thirds and the subject is placed in one of their intersections or... (bla bla bla), it a complex topic, better take a look at google.
IMO, pan/scan is awful, I really love the unaltered/intended way of a movie. i don't mind black bars.
smith507 7 months ago
really amazing how much you miss from this. thanks for showing.
FreeTruthShow 9 months ago
Pan & scan butches the vision of the filmmaker’s original intent.
Leave the film as it is in spherical W/S or scope 2.35:1
EmpireLS56KW 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I just can't stand bars on the top and bottom of the screen. I cant concentrate on the actual movie when theres all that emptiness on the screen, i don't see how anyone can. Even if you're losing part of the picture, you're gaining a full screen. Which is more important, not 25% of the screen in bars.
ZombieSniper64 1 year ago
Всем похуй, ибо скоро вся стена вашей хрущовки/дома будет "огромным телевизором" и делай ты с ней тогда ШО ХОЧЕШЬ.
dimkavenom 1 year ago
Wow, the Dvd-edition of Director's Cut from 1997 was Anamorphic and not Letterboxed. That's strange for such an old release.
Agroulinggrwaler1999 1 year ago
This is like what happened to DBZ when FUNimation put it in wide-screen you lost 20% on the horizontal frame and only gained 5% on the vertical frame other than the movies as those were meant for wide screen. This movie should be in 16:9 and DBZ should be 4:3. What I'm getting at is that things should be seen how they were meant not changing that and ruining it. I think if any company releases something it should be released how it was made.
BlackKnightKomms 2 years ago 4
When Blu-ray becomes the standard, fullscreen DVDs and 4-perf Super 35 will go the way of the dodo. Anamorphic lenses are making a comeback, since Blu-ray format is on its way to becoming the standard video format.
TediusZanarukando 2 years ago 6
My VHS is like that.
kruum 2 years ago
leave oxboobooxo alone. people these days got ADHD, those black lines are distracting him.
Sundona 2 years ago
ADHD makes someone distracted by the lack of things going on instead of being distracted by what's going on? Interensting.
Kendamu 2 years ago
You should scale that red box to encompass the widescreen version so the ignorant people on here can understand why there are two black lines top/bottom when they watch widescreen on a non-widescreen tv.
MichelleDri 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i perfer pan scan as your looking at what they want you to look at with widescreen can easly loose track and focus of the story if they wanted you to see it all then they would remove those dum eye lids off the lens and filmed the whole thing in fullscreen
oxboobooxo 2 years ago
when bladerunner came out i didnt dont know anyone who had a widescreen tv or cinema and doubt there was any intention of releasing it, was filmed in widescreen due to the ease of editing it
oxboobooxo 2 years ago
Your stupid. Theres is not even a contest. Widescreen IS the complete image, how the director's wants it.
Pan and scan is not even the movie, its not even alternate. its garbage.
The director WANTS you to look at his vision. Not a bad 4:3 tv version.
Roger007Poore 2 years ago 4
when i watched short circuit in the cinema on a 4:3 i didnt think it was a bad tv version and terminator ,robocop i perfered the in your face look it grabbed my attention and is easy to share ,with widescreen its hard positioning it in the home its crap to watch from a angle and isnt in your face have to move your eyes to look at trashcans and garbage cant be in a zone and just take it in , isnt crap just perfer my 4:3 experience same with music ,vinyl all the way
oxboobooxo 2 years ago
as for the director WANTS you to look at his vision..he obviosly has more then 1 cos the brain cant take in 16:3 so we will never know cos we dont know what to look at first only the characters who talk the more they focus in on that the better i think even with photographers they perfer to shoot in 4:3 cos what you see is what they saw , in 16:3 its too wide and have to move your eyes so you dont really see it
oxboobooxo 2 years ago
WTF are you talkin about? Everyone i know can assimilate a 16:9 picture. I myself have a 52 inch Screen and i wouldnt go back to 4:3 Pan and Scan.
There is no question Widescreen is better on a Large TV.
Roger007Poore 2 years ago
so on this video when the red box jumps left and right you dont need to move your eyes even when its not there? i had a large widescreen on my wall and found it to be very uncomfortable i perfered watchin full screen in the kitchen and bedroom and evently replaced the widescreen with a fullscreen off ebay as they dont sell them anymore ,same with games and computers perfer the 4:3 ,16:9 gives me headaches and strains my eyes from constant movement
oxboobooxo 2 years ago
Actually 16:9 is not the proportions of this film. BR is in CinemaScope 2.35:1 which is not the same as widescreen 16:9, which is 1.85:1. Meaning BR and all other CinemaScope titles are broader and would give black lines top/bottom properly showned at even a widescreen tv.
Sounds somewhat that you would be best off by watching still pictures and not moving ones at all.
Poor Jordan Cronenweth's work to no avail when some don't appreciate the craftmanship.
alfsal67 2 years ago
AS unorthodox as your opinion is about the wide screen (in this day and age) there is a sliver of truth in your argument that I will elucidate for you.
First, the letter box aspect ratio, when compared to the original film frame negative is actually a lot less picture.
Pan-scan is even less BUT..the TV aspect ratio 4:3 is actually closer to the aspect ratio of the original negative so TECHNICALLY speaking the TV aspect ratio if used that way, would yield visually more film frame real estate.
xpez 2 years ago
to further my point IMAX, the mother of all formats, is very close to the 4:3 aspect ratio.
xpez 2 years ago
of course its much much bigger but in terms of proportions its close.
xpez 2 years ago
P&S, more like POS.
Those who know, know.
SnapCraft316 2 years ago 3
The '97 dvd edition is garbage picture and sound quality. Glad the final cut exists
FilmCrazy92 2 years ago
wow this movie blows in fullscreen...
Kryp7K33p3r 2 years ago
Blade Runner really has been butchered over the years.
JoeNostalgiaReturns 2 years ago
I guess you haven't seen the Blu-ray version yet? =)
AliG4life 2 years ago
widescreen is the original format of viewing a film , the reason the bars appwars is because uptil now tv's werent made for that frame, until now of course. i hate p&s, ruins the picutes, cuts out detail and i dont know why videos did it, bloody stupid
Pauluk33 2 years ago 6
I totally agree with you, I HATE FullScreen and Pan & Scan.
I was always into WideScreen, I owned a LaserDisc Player as well to get movies in better quality and Widescreen..
Riddler95 2 years ago 4
How come when most films were released on VHS, they were modified full screen versions.
Riddler95 2 years ago
To cater for 99% of the VHS watching population that didn't understand why a widescreen film would have black bars at the top and bottom of the picture and would complain that they were being "cheated" out of a filled screen...
Laserdisc owners were considered smarter and nearly always had a widescreen version available.
JayArgonaut 2 years ago
I was one of those people who owned a LaserDisc player, I was a big supporter of the format.
Riddler95 2 years ago
Why is the frame rate a little out of sync and I notice an echo? I've noticed this on most P&S material.
TVperson1 3 years ago
Manufacturers need to stop making 4:3 TVs, and all television should broadcast in 16:9.
masterstghm 3 years ago 38
Problem is not everyone can afford a 16:9 widescreen display. It will still be a few years before everything becomes broadcasted in 16:9.
Mevlevi1207 3 years ago 6
I know, but it's about time all screens and films were the same dimensions.
masterstghm 3 years ago 2
They do broadcast most stuff in 16:9. Well in Holland at least.
FM4ever 3 years ago 3
yes however that would be bad because then there are those who cannot afford 16:9 Tv sets unless they were to make a cheap 16:9 TV in CRT or something.
kawaiifreak860 2 years ago
i have to say the excuse that it's too expensive is tired. hell, we're (Americans are, that is,) switching to digital broadcast in the middle of a recession. the real truth of the matter is that it's not a priority-- if it were, like with digital, we'dve had it 20 years ago like, as FM4ever says they have in Holland.
milovachan 2 years ago
I agree sorta O:
kawaiifreak860 2 years ago
they do make widescreen CRT's
fullscreen is a ripoff!
raymondleeleggs 2 years ago
I know but not in STORES anymore instead it's just stuff on the internet.
and yes yes it is a rip off.
kawaiifreak860 2 years ago
@masterstghm Just like in sweden!
Evilhamster95 1 year ago
@masterstghm It would cost a lot.
NoFaceChannel 11 months ago
@masterstghm yup i must agree
caulinnelsonangelsea 7 months ago
What about VHS vs DVD? All DVDs I've seen crop in on both widescreen and 4:3. I've been planning to make a few examples of how much the DVDs cropped in versus VHS. My best guess is that they crop in to reduce the amount of details shown so that they can compress it better.
Some good examples I've seen are 'Total Recall','Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me','Kiss The Girls'.
Exitof99 3 years ago
LOL, this video is so fucked up now that youtube has gone widescreen
stupidjunk978 3 years ago 3
But cinemascope on 4x3 set does bug me a bit, I do sometimes zoom to 16:9 bars if I watch scope on an old TV, scope is ok on widescreen sets.
TVperson1 3 years ago
Didn't they just use Pan&Scan because VHS had such a low res? But I have to say, I've never noticed the frame moving across the screen.
TVperson1 3 years ago
Resolution has nothing to do with the aspect ration.
they could have easily used widescreen but were to lazy being all "OMG it has to be FULL SCREEN"
kawaiifreak860 2 years ago 3
Luckily P&S will die with DVD.
AndrewLGP 3 years ago 4
I hate P&S!
Calm and slow images are bad enough, but the panning part usually start and end abruptly.
The worst though, are the panning on already panning footage, resulting in jumpy/jerky images, not unlike a badly deinterlaced 15fps video.
AGrandt 3 years ago 3
someone needs to teach those ignorant people that black bars are a GOOD thing and they are getting the full picture. I hope they fully eradicate the use of pan and scan since it ruins the directors artistic intent of the movie and also crops a substantial amount of information when the image is really wide.
fearlessturk 3 years ago 9
My man gripe is the "shimmer" effect that happens when the field of view is shifted quickly (within 2-3 seconds), or a faux zoom is used (distorting the depth of field). It's disorienting.
BBQGrillmaster 4 years ago 2
i cant believe that companies would allow regular tube tv's to be sold if you really do miss this much of what your watching
accordex93 4 years ago 2
Regular tube TV's are fine. It's not their fault. It's the channels'. Executives or whoever is in charge keep buying pan-and-scanned versions of movies. They keep broadcasting them instead of broadcasting the original versions. Now, that would be great if they did, it wouldn't hurt anyone, but they want to get rid of the black bars. That's why there are DVD's, but some are pan-and-scanned versions, THAT stinks. The point is, a pan-and-scan version is a pan-and-scan version no matter your TV.
666theboogieman666 4 years ago 5
Wow, that was dreadful. Horrible Death to Pan And Scan!!!
666theboogieman666 4 years ago 33
1997 DVD is crappy. Buy the new box set.
Proofpoochie 4 years ago 4
Today when Super 35 rules the widescreen scene they make every simple movie in Hollywood in 2.39:1 ratio. Comedies, low-budget dramas, everything because with Super 35 you don't lose 44% of the visuals in pan-and-scanning ("only" about 20%) and get a lot of "extra" image (about 30%) on the top and bottom (which makes the films look out-of-frame and idiotic but that's another thing...). Because of this many films are made in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio whose shouldn't be.
neonknights 4 years ago
Actually, each shot varies as to how much you loose. Regular shots will loose about 20% on the sides and gain some at the top. In other shots, like ones that have CGI, you loose the same amount you loose in a regular widescreen to fullscreen transfer. The main reason Super35 and other open matte formats are used anymore is not so they can have a better transfer, but so boom mic operators will be able to see where the mic is in the frame. You loose the same amount almost either way.
Crisis892000 4 years ago
You're absolutely right. :-)
If you look at Terminator II which was made in 1991 when Super 35 was only rarely used you can see that the CGI shots lose much more on the sides than the other ones.
neonknights 4 years ago
Actually, the big reason that Super 35 has gained preference over Anamorphic (CinemaScope) for 2.39:1 movies is because the majority of Cinematographers prefer spherical lenses to anamorphic ones, they are cheaper, more plentiful and easier to work with
FirebirdCamaro1220 2 years ago 3
Widescreen looks great but only if it's used properly and for films that require it. For years it was a good custom to film action-packed and/or exotic, big budget films in anamorphic widescreen (2.39:1) and lower budget films (dramas, comedies) in normal spherical process (matted to 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 aspect ratio).
neonknights 4 years ago
Very good comparison!
Experimentalfilms123 4 years ago 4
The reason widescreen is important is because it mimics your actual field of view, making use of peripheral vision. On 4:3 formatted films, or better yet, 4:3 televisions, you have dead space to the sides that remain in your view the entire time, no matter how big the screen or TV is.
inkrat773 4 years ago 5
(Continued) Both movies have scenes that show a whole picture that ends up moving around or appearing rather choppy because of "cuts" to show each person speaking. Another reason why this ruins the scenes is because you often do not see how the other person is reacting to dialogue when the view shifts to the one who is speaking... save for a really quick reaction shot, which didn't exist in widescreen.
inkrat773 4 years ago
One of the most annoying things about dealing with a pan and scan version of a movie is that often you will have a wide shot with two people talking to each other... and the view will slide back and forth between the two, or worse yet, cut back and forth even though the scene was originally filmed continuous. Mission Impossible and Dances With Wolves are both films that suffer greatly because of this.
inkrat773 4 years ago 4
not necessary!!? fuck yea it is
XRontix 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is probably the perfect example why widescreen is important, but at the same time, not necessary.
Delpheno2K7 4 years ago
Considering that a massive amount of time and money on this film was spent creating atmosphere, I have to disagree. Widescreen enhances the atmosphere and helps control the shots. The pan and scan movements weren't meant to be there. Every camera move has an affect on the viewer's perception of a film.
nebby6 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Like I said 11 months ago, widescreen is important, but at the same time not necessary. I watched the Pan & Scan version when it aired on TV, and I enjoyed it.
Believe me, I get frustrated when someone prefers fullscreen over widescreen.
Delpheno2K7 3 years ago