When did home video in widescreen become the norm instead of the exception? I used to hate widescreen, but now I often won't watch a movie on TV or on my computer if it is in pan and scan because it is really disorienting and looks terrible.
things should always be in the ratio they were intended. the problem is film, TV and cinema ratios are all different which means they can't all fit perfectly on the one TV.
An anamorphic widescreen TV means widescreen (2.35:1) will fill the entire screen, but fullscreen television shows will have massive black bars on the sides.
Whereas if you have a fullscreen TV, then widescreen movies will have black bars on the top and bottom.
According to the comments here, most people don't actually prefer the widescreen aspect ratio for their own reasons, or at least it's not clear that they do. They just adopt the preferences of directors. That is, if directors filmed in 4:3 then these sheep would prefer 4:3 TVs.
@j00ztube That's not entirely true. Truly good filmmakers have a vision of how the film should look and they shoot the scenes to fulfill that vision. Some movies are wider than others because that's what the director intended. When you start taking a fully realized vision and cutting it down just to fit into a box you lose the art behind the film. There is no "perfect" aspect ratio. What you should look for though is the Original Aspect Ratio instead of something that has been modified.
I bought a full screen copy of that movie five years ago, when I was about to start my first year of college. Back then, full screen didn't really bother me much because my family didn't have any widescreen tvs until the digital switchover. Today, I regret that purchase.
I'd you still like Pan & Scan after this, then, you have no imagination or artistic vision at all. I would suggest you sell your tv, books, wall art, DVD's, cancel cable or satellite and live in a colorless box with no artistic stimulation at all. Too harsh? When you prefer the art altered from the artists original intent you have distorted his/her vision. Would you like to see paintings in museum's altered to fit the available wall space better?
I'm sure there's a damn conspiracy going on! lol.I recorded a film on VHS twenty years ago which was broadcast in 4:3 and no black bars.I still have the tape! I thought i'd compare it to a modern widescreen DVD version the other day and what do you know,The twenty year old 4:3 had the full picture exactly like the modern widescreen DVD version but get this,There was no loss of picture on the 4:3 recording and looked completly normal. No ''fat people'' effect in 4:3 and no ''stretch'' in the 16:9
almost everything is filmed in widescreen. when you see a film in a theater, its in widescreen. on tv, however, most films are cropped and then some pan and scan added here and there. the point is not actually about whether it is better in widescreen or full screen, but more about showing the film as it was intended by the director. it is actually better to show video in widescreen for a biological reason: our eyes are positioned horizontally on our face.
So is widescreen better to buy in DVD when you have a flatscreen TV. I always wondered if they chopped off the bottom and top to give us more on the sides. is this true?
@kdawq Typically speaking Widescreen is the better option for most DVDs since it shows you the whole image that the director intended when he shot the film. There are some DVDs when DVDs first came out (IIRC they were MGM movies) that took the Fullscreen version of the film (which was already Pan & Scanned) and then cropped it to fit in the Widescreen aspect ratio, so they were getting rid of a ton of the picture. Newly made DVDs typically won't do this though.
@KarnRulez yes it does. i hate having to see the entire picture. i would rather have most of it and pan and scan. i really want to use all of my 1976 4:3 television set. thats not incredibly stupid at all. i wish the movie theaters would provide films in 4:3 instead of in one of the widescreen formats. would be so much better.
@sugartuff ... Actually more videos were filmed in 16:9 than you think... Alot of them were cropped to fit 4:3 tv screens. For example F.R.I.E.N.D.S. tv show was all originally filmed at 16:9 but was cropped to DVD which at the time most tv's were 4:3....
Some older DVD movies were cropped to 4:3 only again to suit TV.s using Pan & Scan etc. But later you had a choice of 2 DVD's 1 at widesreen or 1 at full frame or both on the one disc if you flip it over....
Wow, Pan and Scan is just pure BULLLSHITTT!!!! I watch movies on TV ALL THE TIME and I never heard about this Pan and Scan bullshit before...my friends would talk to me about great scenes from this movie we've all watched and I'd be so lost..
Fullscreen is basically just cutting off the left and right sides of the images and showing you what's in the middle or what's the most important part of the full picture that they can fit on the screen and is zoomed in so what you do see is bigger but your not seeing everything, Widescreen shows you everything.
@sugartuff This video is more about preserving the original aspect ratio that was intended by the creator. They talk about how when you change a movie's aspect ratio by cropping, you are moving the "camera" defensively instead of artistically. Also virtually all movies are created in a widescreen format.
One's you get settled with the movie or you already been absorbed on it., Fullscreen is just okay. Actually when I started watching some of my DVD in fullscreen...it doesn't matter anymore. But if you really A/V spectator or just a collector, Widescreen is the way to go.
The moral lesson here: watch the movie on its original aspect ratio. If your only after the movie...choose either Fullscreen or Widescreen.
A doubt here... this video is about old movies but 90's or actual movies were filmed in widescreen too? Every movie in the market is better if it has a widescreen version?
@bawalker022 well be carful if ur buying a movie of amazon cause some of the discription says widsreen on it and when u buy then OH MY GOSH ITS FRIGGIN Fullscreen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i have noticed that widescreen is made by a crop on the top and bottom of the movie camera, and of course fullscreen is the cropping of the sides of this image. in some movies they need to zoom out a little more so we can see everything better.
i get so mad when TNT shows the lord of the rings in fullscreen. they used to show them in widescreen but i guess too many retards call in bitchin about the bars
What most people seem to forget is that movies are made for the big screen, the theater. It is only in the last 30 years that we've been watching them at home. In my opinion, the best way to watch a movie is in it's original format.
TV's were made for broadcast television, and thus the 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio. If you want to watch a movie without the black bars, make yourself a nice projector setup. That's how movies are ment to be watched.
@sakosky1 or you can buy one of those ridiculous 2.39:1 tv's that are coming out. lol I don't mind black bars, people just need to appreciate the film and the way it was shot instead of complaining about those "horrid" black bars.
ok you stupid idiot that pay for a big hd size tv and dont care about losing a part of your screen with those fucking bars so here some words for you why the fuck they can t film to match the tv size because those fucking black bars is a stupid thing. they should fill the screen tv witout losing a part of the movies on the sides just fill the fucking screen bitches!!!!!
What is stopping TV/monitor manufactures from making 4:3 screens as wide as the widest of widescreens? If there were such screens, then you would have more resolution if the original celluloid film is 4:3.
The new trend in computer gaming is having a game spread across multiple montors. Now, with huge 4:3 monitors the bezels would be less noticeable.
It blows my mind that there are people here defending Full Screen. How can you watch a film and not care if you're missing half the image? It's like listening to a song and missing the first and last minute of it. What's the point?
I always prefer the original ratio. I don't even mind watching non-widescreen features on a widescreen TV, because you're still getting the full image even though the frame of the image doesn't touch the edges of the plastic arbitrarily set by the manufacturer.
This also goes the other way around. I have some dvd's of movies that were shot in a 4:3 ratio, but were now cropped for display in widescreen TVs. And let me tell you, it's as frustrating as mutilated widescreen movies :U
I study things like this a lot, and it was informative, but if you have 4:3 television, it doesn't matter if you lose some of the resolution because in essence, making the picture fit the frame is what matters more to most viewers.
@PepulzGuys Not only that, but in the scene where Luke is looking through his binoculars at the banthas to see if there are any sand people around, when he spots one and says, "wait a second, there's sand people alright, I can see one of them now", you can't see the sand person in the pan and scan version. I remember when I was younger and saw that scene it always confused me, I always used to think, "what's he talking about, I don't see a sand person?"
this is just stupid. I have a widescreen tv with 16x9 ratio yet ever widescreen movie i watch above 1.85 still has black bars on top and bottom. Widescreen movies look even more stretched on my widescreen tv than my fullscreen tv. Almost every blu ray movie i have is setup that way. Just stupid
@PeePulz If the picture looks stretched, that's a setting on your TV. There should be a button on your remote that changes the way the picture's displayed and can make it look normal.
And yes, anything above 1.85 will have black bars, because higher ratios are still wider than your TV and thus have to have the picture shrunk down, resulting in the black bars. There are many different aspect ratios with films, so no matter what your TV is like there will always be movies that show black bars.
Does anyone see the irony in this video? Ha! Well I would have to say widescreen all the way. I usually shoot 16x9 with 2.35 in mind because in post i usually crop it to cinemascope. And if anyone still believes in fullscreen after 4:55 then you truly are a moron.
The widescreen format is all a fraud, it is only sales strategy ...
This format appeared in films by the need for film producers to compete with television, it really such a long recording there, it really does is crop the image up and down or using a rectangular template on the lens camera to record the movie.
@happyplaneta Haha! That's like arguing that any artist using a bigger canvas to make a bigger impression is a fraud! Wrong! The point is that the director uses that to compose his shot within the rectangular frame. It doesn't matter what the format is, the point is to see the film as he intends within the proper aspect ratio he intended it to be. Watch films in their original format as the director intended! And why shouldn't theatres offer a different experience than TV? That's the point!
The widescreen format is all a fraud, it is only sales strategy ...
This format appeared in movies by the producers need to compete with television, it really such a long recording does not exist, and the arrangement of multiple cameras in parallel not practiced in reality in the film, it really does is cut image up and down or using a rectangular template over the lens of the camera to record the movie.
Widescreen blows goats. The wider horizontal viewing angle comes at the expense of the vertical viewing angle, and so the resulting picture has the top and bottom chopped off.
Even worse, there is no standard ratio for widescreen movies. Some are 1.85, some are 2.35, and some are 2.39 -- and they all need to be letterboxed even on widescreen TVs because widescreen TVs are only 1.78.
All movies should be made to match TVs because the largest segment of the audience is watching it at home.
You obviously didn't watch the video. Widescreen doesn't chop anything off - it preserves the entire film. Fullscreen is where the chop chop chop begins of the sides. And of course the technician comes in to then move the camera left and right instead of the director.
the artists "vision" doesn't matter compared to the enjoyment of the viewers and if for some that means lopping off a bit of the picture to get a fuller screen (perhaps poor eyesight may lead to a desire for a larger picture) so be it
its not a choice I share but the people running around saying it should be banned should really calm down and take their meds
that said tvs are moving towards mostly widescreen which will sort this out
i dont care if i miss part of the picture as long as the tv picture is filled up. those black bars are so distracting to me. they should have an option between wide or fullscreen on the dvd. that would satisfy everyone. thats ok though, movies suck nowadays anyway so I'll just stop watching them altogether.
@leevois many blu-ray players remove the black bars while still allowing it to be widescreen, while fullscreen has even more distracting bars on the side.
2.35.1 projection screen+ panasonic pt-ae 3000 or 40000 ( zoom function emulate the anamorphic lens but you loose slightly some resolution but much less expensive than buying an anamorphic lens
this way you wil see the glorious widescreen movies without loosig any frame
Pan and scan is a bad of course, but cause its still around on movies on TV or with VHS's, I've found a theory. Movies filmed with a 1:85:1 don't lose too much picture in the pan and scan process, so they're not too bad to watch in full screen (1/4 of the picture is cropped). As for any movies with 2:35:1 or 2:20:1, these movies make a horrible transition to pan and scan as they crop a whole 1/2 of the picture! Stick with widescreen of course, but if u every watch P&S, only trust 1:85:1 films.
There is television era in cinema industry. In 80s-90s-00s, The producers become to prefer full-screen formats to make their movies can be performed in TV's too. That movies was shown in cinemas with cropping to 1.85:1.
So many people have this impression that you are getting a fuller picture just because of the name "Fullscreen". The ignorance of some people drives me nuts.
@zackjdl You said it, "ignorance." They just don't know, therefore, its up to people who are knowledgeable to spread the word and eventually they will catch on. Just be glad you know what is going on :)
I used to work at Blockbuster and it killed me everytime someone pre-ordered a big action movie in Full Screen. "No...no you don't want Lord of the Rings in Fullscreen...no...seriously...you'll be losing half the movie. I don't care about the black bars...well if you're watching it on a 27" TV you're not going to get a good experience with it anyways...go for it."
I finally got some converts with Fast and the Furious...go figure :)
@emrepltq TLOTR was shot in 2.35:1 not 1.85:1 so if this version exists you need to talk to new line on that and yeah TLOTR looks horrible panned and scanned.
@MrJsmit I have full-screen, widescreen formats and TV-records (that's mean it's for broadcasting) of them. When I compare, I can easily see that the first film is panscanned directly on 1.85,1 format. But the second and the third films are a bit different. They're generally panscanned on 2.35,1 but in the some scenes like two-characters, conversations, lot's of faces, important details...I can see It's like panscanned on 1.85,1. I think that two versions was shot in 1.85:1 too.
Can I ask a really dumb question. Why do film channels like Encore still use Full Frame? It bothers me. I will go on my Comcast On Demand and have to go through the films. I turn one on and it will be full frame. I have to turn it off. So frustrating.
Wow.. Never thought of it that way.. I mostly just focus on the main character and such, but damn can't believe all these years, I'm missing like 46% of the movie..
I'm sorry; no you do not! What you "lose" is screen real estate. The *picture* of a movie is everything *except* the black bars.
While you use more of the *space* on your screen with pan and scan, you *lose* almost 50% of the *picture* by doing so. This is why widescreen televisions were invented; so you could use all the *real estate* on your screen without losing any of the picture. Since many movies are in an even wider format than 16:9, there now exists some 21:9 TVs for the same reason..
@piofinn You know the "black bars" are the limitations of a square television screen in projecting a rectangular image, right? You're not actually losing any of the picture in wide screen.
I like 1:1:85 versus the 1:1:33. The 1:85 even though it is technically called widescreen fully fits and is adapted to a widescreen HDTV.
I don't like the widescreen with the black letterbox stripes and I always zoom my widescreen DVDs to get the full screen effect. Unfortunately my particular model of DVD player has a 2X icon whenever I zoom. I must get a DVD player w/out the icon!
depends on the film used in the movie, i think that the movies shot in 35 mm cover the hole screen meanwhile the 70mm movies needs black bars since is more wide but thicker.
I was linked to this video completely at random, and now I'm glad that I was. I suppose I didn't know enough about the cropping process to understand what sort of things you miss out on in a full-screen movie. Great video, thanks.
I hate pan-and-scan, and I hope the spread of widescreen TV and computer monitors makes it obsolete. But I also don't think films originally done in 4:3 should be cropped to fit a 16:9 TV.
The title is misleading. The title should be Widescreen vs Pan-and-Scan since an actual fullscreen image is never shown, only the widescreen and its Pan-and-Scan are shown.
Full screen means: full, complete, 100%, and no missing parts. Pan-and-Scan does have missing parts, it is not full screen.
Try applying what you just said to buying a movie on DVD. If someone buys the fullscreen version of a movie and think it's 100% then they would be wrong.
The movie industry is misleading people to believe that Pan-and-scan is the full screen. It is NOT. It only has the same height to width ratio of a true full screen movie. Widescreen shows only 75% of full screen and Pan-and-Scan shows only 56.25% of a full screen.
Google: "The Widescreen Scam". Widescreen is a misnomer, it is actually short screen. It is full screen cut short in height then cut again to create Pan-and-Scan.
The cropped chopped Pan-and-Scan is ENLARGED to fit the full screen!
@HunterXray By all means always watch a movie in its original format whether its a full screen or a widescreen (short screen) movie. Pan-and-Scan can only be applied to widescreen movies. Pan-and-Scan is NOT a full screen movie!
The title of this clip should be "Widescreen vs Pan-and-Scan".
How would full screen movies such as Wizard of Oz appear on widescreen (short screen) TV/monitors?
Buy a full screen that is just as wide as the widescreen TV/monitor and you will see the big picture.
I have bought a handful of Full Screen DVDs by accident and have been royally pissed to find out I got the wrong version. My parents on the other hand used to zoom in on movies to fill the whole screen if they had one that was wide screen...so many gifts were formatted wrong. Maybe if I had them take a look at this they would realize I was right all along about their zooming habits lol
I love widescreen with a passion, but those f$#king black bars piss me off.....It turns my 50 in. into a 40 in. There's gotta be a better way to show the greatness of widescreen and lose those annoying bars.
A wide screen TV has an aspect ratio of 1.77:1. Most movies are made in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. What that means is the picture is 2.35 units wide for every unit tall. If you try to fill the screen with the picture, you'll run out of height before you have the full width.
The only thing that can be done with the 1.85:1 is to capture a slightly taller frame so the DVD image can have more height. But that means more on screen than the director intended.
You can buy the Philips 1:2.33-format flatscreen :) (or 21:9 as they say). It really is brilliant if you primarily watch movies... Then you get all 52 inches filled from corner to corner with goodness!
I was watching widescreen movies on my 27 inch tv before I got an LCD and I didn't care about black bars because I knew I was seeing the whole movie as it was intended to be seen. If you wanted to see movies with no black bars anywhere, you'd have to have a TV for every aspect.
Widescreen is better in every way. it is the way that the director wants us to see it. fullscreen is when EVERYTHING fits in the screen you are watching it in, which is just stupid. it should be what you are paying for, and when you're paying for the same price for the regular widescreen, but you get 50% of the picture cut off, why would you want to watch THAT?
did you even watch the video? and why do you want fullscreen to come back? don't you even know that when you watch a movie in fullscreen you lose half the image?
If fullscreen came back then they would be making movies in 1.33:1 I prefer to have the whole movie be thin enough to see with my foveal vision rather than having to use my peripheral vision or scan back and forth
Not to nitpick too much, but 16x9 is actually 1.78:1, which is closer to standard Flat format, or 1.85:1, not to scope, or 2.35:1.
In any case, movie theaters around the country only present films in 1.85 or 2.35. That's the way the projectors and curtains are built. It would be too expensive to change thousands of auditoriums for such a minor reason.
I am way too sensitive about shapes to do that. Even a little distortion puts me off completely.. Besides, I think distorting an image defiles it just as much as cutting away pieces of it. What shape objects have is just as important as if they're there or not!
The editing of any part of the composition of the original framing is not a good idea, unless by some miracle you happened to be better than the director/camera man at it :P.
generally its an artistic process that has had an idea and a vision behind it, tempering with it just slightly alters the emotional impact it has on the views.
as an animator/film maker/photographer i know how suptle a changing in crop can effect things.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In my modest experience the top and bottom are occluded because they are not generally part of the framed shot when it is conceived. Action happening outside of the frame is generally considered to be irrelevant...
Most 1.85 (and the various "super 35" format) films are in fact shot open matte. But having screened film dailies on over 60 features I cannot once remember anyone wanting to see what's outside the 1.85 (or 2.39) projected area to check how that composition will look like.
That's not to say that later on when the video transfer is done they might not zoom back out a bit and show more headroom and footroom in order to avoid having to lose so much via P&S. And that can vary shot to shot.
it's a shame they did not talk about the other side of the coin, 'open matte', in which the movie is shot at 'full screen' but the top and bottom are occluded in order to present a 'letterboxed' version for theatrical release.
films filmed in fullscreen get all the action too,filming in widescreen and editing it to fullscreen was seen as cheaper plus having more choice in the editing the more the camera was slit the more choice there was in the same shot which are now used to give widescreen a purpose but now we want to see those in full but are incompatable with 16:9 and get those black bars again soon a 50inch widescreen will only be the equivalent of a 10inch fullscreen heh madness
People who prefer fullscreen are retarded. I refuse to watch a movie for the first time in 4:3. Seriously, why does NO ONE understand that HALF OF THE FUCKING PICTURE IS MISSING?! I'm always arguing about this with my dumbshit brother who insists I'm just being picky.
Just got a PS3 and I'm SO glad I no longer have to deal with this fullscreen bullshit with blu-rays. Now I never have to worry about accidentally grabbing a fullscreen DVD or someone giving me a fullscreen movie as a gift.
People make the common mistake of thinking that there are only two aspect ratios...4:3 (square) and 16:9 (widescreen), but depending on the camera used, there are SEVERAL widescreen formats. A lot of those happen to be 16:9 so there won't be any black bars when watching on an HDTV, but the other widescreen formats will still have some black lines when watching on a HDTV. (but not as big as they would be if watching on a standard 4:3 TV screen)
You're right about multiple aspect ratios, but any movie theatre you go to today has only 2 options: 1.85:1, or 2.35:1.
1.85:1 (or "flat" as it's known in projection booths) is closest to 16:9, it's actually 16.65:9. 2.35:1 ("scope") require black bars on the top bottom when viewing on an hdtv.
If something was filmed in any other aspect ratio, it will still only be projected in one of those 2 ratios at a theatre, as the curtains and projectors only have 2 settings.
Movies made prior to the 1950's were shot at a 1.37:1 ratio, close to standard TV, and probably why TVs were originally created in a 1.33 ratio.
When they re-released wizard of oz in the 90's, they created black bars on the sides of the screen on the actual film print, formatting the frame to run through a 1.85 projector lens, while maintaining the 1.37 original ratio. I worked in a theatre at the time, we got a lot of complaints about the bars, people thinking the sides were missing.
umm.. I believe it actually is 21:9 you're thinking of, which is 2.33:1. All new "cinemascope" movies I've seen fit into either that or 2.35:1... The rest are usually 16:9 or sometimes (rarely) 1:85.1
I love widescreen you see so much more!!
202saphira 3 weeks ago
Fulscreen should be getting rid of.
and just like james rolfe said they should not exist.
PREZILLA2009 4 weeks ago
When did home video in widescreen become the norm instead of the exception? I used to hate widescreen, but now I often won't watch a movie on TV or on my computer if it is in pan and scan because it is really disorienting and looks terrible.
collegeman1988 4 weeks ago
Widescreen TV rocks. Including 16:9
ChiuahuaTubeALT 1 month ago
things should always be in the ratio they were intended. the problem is film, TV and cinema ratios are all different which means they can't all fit perfectly on the one TV.
An anamorphic widescreen TV means widescreen (2.35:1) will fill the entire screen, but fullscreen television shows will have massive black bars on the sides.
Whereas if you have a fullscreen TV, then widescreen movies will have black bars on the top and bottom.
Todays widescreen TVs are the perfect compromise.
Kevtb87 1 month ago
What documentary is this clip from???
fffranccc 1 month ago
Have tcm made any other docs about movies? This is really well made!
Who else makes good docs like this about filmmaking?
taxman3 2 months ago
Fuckin Letterbox
Loumens 3 months ago
According to the comments here, most people don't actually prefer the widescreen aspect ratio for their own reasons, or at least it's not clear that they do. They just adopt the preferences of directors. That is, if directors filmed in 4:3 then these sheep would prefer 4:3 TVs.
j00ztube 4 months ago 2
@j00ztube That's not entirely true. Truly good filmmakers have a vision of how the film should look and they shoot the scenes to fulfill that vision. Some movies are wider than others because that's what the director intended. When you start taking a fully realized vision and cutting it down just to fit into a box you lose the art behind the film. There is no "perfect" aspect ratio. What you should look for though is the Original Aspect Ratio instead of something that has been modified.
eshiki 4 months ago
@j00ztube I agree! Woody Allen's Annie Hall was filmed on (4:3) Academy Ratio.
Vole2000Partnership 1 week ago
today i brought a full screen copy of animal house by mistake
bawalker022 4 months ago
@bawalker022
I bought a full screen copy of that movie five years ago, when I was about to start my first year of college. Back then, full screen didn't really bother me much because my family didn't have any widescreen tvs until the digital switchover. Today, I regret that purchase.
LuigiGodzillaGirl 1 month ago
@sugartuff
When they are shot in 4:3, they should be left alone.
Like Citizen Kane.
Since the 50s widescreen is the standard for films.
Newer TV shows are widescreen also.
Also, youtube didn't switch to widescreen until November 2008.
Usul573 4 months ago
I'd you still like Pan & Scan after this, then, you have no imagination or artistic vision at all. I would suggest you sell your tv, books, wall art, DVD's, cancel cable or satellite and live in a colorless box with no artistic stimulation at all. Too harsh? When you prefer the art altered from the artists original intent you have distorted his/her vision. Would you like to see paintings in museum's altered to fit the available wall space better?
chimptor50 5 months ago
Solution : there are 21:9 TVs!!for your dvds in 2.35:1.
RMProdux2008 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
is every movie ever made filmed in widescreen, or are some movies naturally fullscreen?
CHAOSin8bits 6 months ago
if i wanted fullscreen, i'd press zoom in.
CHAOSin8bits 6 months ago
I'm sure there's a damn conspiracy going on! lol.I recorded a film on VHS twenty years ago which was broadcast in 4:3 and no black bars.I still have the tape! I thought i'd compare it to a modern widescreen DVD version the other day and what do you know,The twenty year old 4:3 had the full picture exactly like the modern widescreen DVD version but get this,There was no loss of picture on the 4:3 recording and looked completly normal. No ''fat people'' effect in 4:3 and no ''stretch'' in the 16:9
morrismagic08 6 months ago
almost everything is filmed in widescreen. when you see a film in a theater, its in widescreen. on tv, however, most films are cropped and then some pan and scan added here and there. the point is not actually about whether it is better in widescreen or full screen, but more about showing the film as it was intended by the director. it is actually better to show video in widescreen for a biological reason: our eyes are positioned horizontally on our face.
Grothmanus 6 months ago
So is widescreen better to buy in DVD when you have a flatscreen TV. I always wondered if they chopped off the bottom and top to give us more on the sides. is this true?
kdawq 6 months ago
@kdawq Typically speaking Widescreen is the better option for most DVDs since it shows you the whole image that the director intended when he shot the film. There are some DVDs when DVDs first came out (IIRC they were MGM movies) that took the Fullscreen version of the film (which was already Pan & Scanned) and then cropped it to fit in the Widescreen aspect ratio, so they were getting rid of a ton of the picture. Newly made DVDs typically won't do this though.
eshiki 6 months ago
widscreen sucks.
KarnRulez 6 months ago
@KarnRulez yes it does. i hate having to see the entire picture. i would rather have most of it and pan and scan. i really want to use all of my 1976 4:3 television set. thats not incredibly stupid at all. i wish the movie theaters would provide films in 4:3 instead of in one of the widescreen formats. would be so much better.
Grothmanus 6 months ago
Pan & Scan MUST DIE!!! Original format it is as it should be.
psxdriverplayer 7 months ago
Thx
FearTec 7 months ago
@sugartuff ... Actually more videos were filmed in 16:9 than you think... Alot of them were cropped to fit 4:3 tv screens. For example F.R.I.E.N.D.S. tv show was all originally filmed at 16:9 but was cropped to DVD which at the time most tv's were 4:3....
Some older DVD movies were cropped to 4:3 only again to suit TV.s using Pan & Scan etc. But later you had a choice of 2 DVD's 1 at widesreen or 1 at full frame or both on the one disc if you flip it over....
ZroDfects 8 months ago
Wow, Pan and Scan is just pure BULLLSHITTT!!!! I watch movies on TV ALL THE TIME and I never heard about this Pan and Scan bullshit before...my friends would talk to me about great scenes from this movie we've all watched and I'd be so lost..
RichardTran4Life 8 months ago
Fullscreen is basically just cutting off the left and right sides of the images and showing you what's in the middle or what's the most important part of the full picture that they can fit on the screen and is zoomed in so what you do see is bigger but your not seeing everything, Widescreen shows you everything.
xfilesmanson 9 months ago
@sugartuff This video is more about preserving the original aspect ratio that was intended by the creator. They talk about how when you change a movie's aspect ratio by cropping, you are moving the "camera" defensively instead of artistically. Also virtually all movies are created in a widescreen format.
eshiki 9 months ago
I think widescreen is cool. :D
blueboy4rock 9 months ago
One's you get settled with the movie or you already been absorbed on it., Fullscreen is just okay. Actually when I started watching some of my DVD in fullscreen...it doesn't matter anymore. But if you really A/V spectator or just a collector, Widescreen is the way to go.
The moral lesson here: watch the movie on its original aspect ratio. If your only after the movie...choose either Fullscreen or Widescreen.
Jerricson098 9 months ago
God fullscreen blows. My best friend prefers it and I can't fucking fathom it.
Geassguy360 9 months ago
A doubt here... this video is about old movies but 90's or actual movies were filmed in widescreen too? Every movie in the market is better if it has a widescreen version?
kaikanphase 10 months ago
i buy all my movies in widescreen.
bawalker022 10 months ago
@bawalker022 well be carful if ur buying a movie of amazon cause some of the discription says widsreen on it and when u buy then OH MY GOSH ITS FRIGGIN Fullscreen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PREZILLA2009 7 months ago
@PREZILLA2009 the only mistake i made was buying the full screen copy of final destination 3,
and i refuse to buy last action hero on dvd cause it's only on full screen.
bawalker022 7 months ago
I hate fullscreen...
PREZILLA2009 10 months ago
Comment removed
antonio36123 11 months ago
I like how this video isn't in widescreen.
MrFugums 11 months ago 18
@MrFugums
It's too old, before they switched over.
Usul573 4 months ago
what movie was the last clip from?
srstarshine 1 year ago
@srstarshine It's from Gigi (1958).
eshiki 1 year ago
What the hell is Ledderbacks as Michael Mann kept saying.
flares 1 year ago
@flares Search Wikipedia for Letterbox.
eshiki 1 year ago
@eshiki Yeah I know what letterrbox is. I was just laughing at his accent.
flares 1 year ago
@flares That's what I figured, but you never can tell on YouTube... For example: "how is called this document ??? NAME!" - chullit55
eshiki 1 year ago
i have noticed that widescreen is made by a crop on the top and bottom of the movie camera, and of course fullscreen is the cropping of the sides of this image. in some movies they need to zoom out a little more so we can see everything better.
ZOSOrulz1 1 year ago
i get so mad when TNT shows the lord of the rings in fullscreen. they used to show them in widescreen but i guess too many retards call in bitchin about the bars
ZOSOrulz1 1 year ago
@ZOSOrulz1
So true. People are idiots.
BootsyJ 11 months ago
What most people seem to forget is that movies are made for the big screen, the theater. It is only in the last 30 years that we've been watching them at home. In my opinion, the best way to watch a movie is in it's original format.
TV's were made for broadcast television, and thus the 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio. If you want to watch a movie without the black bars, make yourself a nice projector setup. That's how movies are ment to be watched.
sakosky1 1 year ago
@sakosky1 or you can buy one of those ridiculous 2.39:1 tv's that are coming out. lol I don't mind black bars, people just need to appreciate the film and the way it was shot instead of complaining about those "horrid" black bars.
IesuKeriso 1 year ago
ok you stupid idiot that pay for a big hd size tv and dont care about losing a part of your screen with those fucking bars so here some words for you why the fuck they can t film to match the tv size because those fucking black bars is a stupid thing. they should fill the screen tv witout losing a part of the movies on the sides just fill the fucking screen bitches!!!!!
514thebigboss 1 year ago
@514thebigboss oh ignorance...
CarlosJulio20 1 year ago
Comment removed
514thebigboss 1 year ago
If a film is in widescreen, you should watch it in widescreen. does anyone else find it a bit ironic that these interviews were filmed in 4:3 ??? xD
XxSTAR1977WARSxX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People that hate widescreen are worse than Hitler.
Leatherbubba 1 year ago
What is stopping TV/monitor manufactures from making 4:3 screens as wide as the widest of widescreens? If there were such screens, then you would have more resolution if the original celluloid film is 4:3.
The new trend in computer gaming is having a game spread across multiple montors. Now, with huge 4:3 monitors the bezels would be less noticeable.
ssssroryssss2 1 year ago
Wow amazing!
I got my first widescreen TV this year, i just love it.
It just annoys me when people say "ugh what are those black bars" when watching something at a 4:3.
TheR9RO 1 year ago
It blows my mind that there are people here defending Full Screen. How can you watch a film and not care if you're missing half the image? It's like listening to a song and missing the first and last minute of it. What's the point?
lharrod 1 year ago
Comment removed
514thebigboss 1 year ago
I always prefer the original ratio. I don't even mind watching non-widescreen features on a widescreen TV, because you're still getting the full image even though the frame of the image doesn't touch the edges of the plastic arbitrarily set by the manufacturer.
TheMarcRS 1 year ago
This also goes the other way around. I have some dvd's of movies that were shot in a 4:3 ratio, but were now cropped for display in widescreen TVs. And let me tell you, it's as frustrating as mutilated widescreen movies :U
ramonoski 1 year ago
It sucks that
1. "The Adventures of The American Rabbit" will likely never be seen nor released in it's original widescreen ratio
2. Companies are releasing films on DVD in Widescreen and "Fullscreen" versions
Kitsuneranger 1 year ago
Where was this clip taken from originally?
JayArgonaut 1 year ago
@JayArgonaut it's a short that airs occasionally on turner classic movies.
griffin324 1 year ago
I study things like this a lot, and it was informative, but if you have 4:3 television, it doesn't matter if you lose some of the resolution because in essence, making the picture fit the frame is what matters more to most viewers.
AnimeNYC 1 year ago
full screen sucks. in the last scene of Star Wars you can't even see Chewbacca.
PepulzGuys 1 year ago
@PepulzGuys Not only that, but in the scene where Luke is looking through his binoculars at the banthas to see if there are any sand people around, when he spots one and says, "wait a second, there's sand people alright, I can see one of them now", you can't see the sand person in the pan and scan version. I remember when I was younger and saw that scene it always confused me, I always used to think, "what's he talking about, I don't see a sand person?"
keysersoze5 10 months ago 4
@keysersoze5
Sweet jesus.
I need to see that again, never noticed that, I never remember seeing a sand person.
Usul573 4 months ago
this is just stupid. I have a widescreen tv with 16x9 ratio yet ever widescreen movie i watch above 1.85 still has black bars on top and bottom. Widescreen movies look even more stretched on my widescreen tv than my fullscreen tv. Almost every blu ray movie i have is setup that way. Just stupid
PeePulz 1 year ago
@PeePulz If the picture looks stretched, that's a setting on your TV. There should be a button on your remote that changes the way the picture's displayed and can make it look normal.
And yes, anything above 1.85 will have black bars, because higher ratios are still wider than your TV and thus have to have the picture shrunk down, resulting in the black bars. There are many different aspect ratios with films, so no matter what your TV is like there will always be movies that show black bars.
nitemare2501 1 year ago
the black bars are fucking annoying.. -_-
thats the only problem i have with widescreen
but the fullscreen does crop some of the image which it bullshit.
oh well,
i am getting use to widescreen since now i have an HDTV & PS3.
chicoboi500 1 year ago
Does anyone see the irony in this video? Ha! Well I would have to say widescreen all the way. I usually shoot 16x9 with 2.35 in mind because in post i usually crop it to cinemascope. And if anyone still believes in fullscreen after 4:55 then you truly are a moron.
free2swim 1 year ago
ate pan and scan. It is v
ortant to be able to see t
es of any kind of visual informati
lyris1 1 year ago 2
The widescreen format is all a fraud, it is only sales strategy ...
This format appeared in films by the need for film producers to compete with television, it really such a long recording there, it really does is crop the image up and down or using a rectangular template on the lens camera to record the movie.
Search by google: The Widescreen Scam
happyplaneta 1 year ago
@happyplaneta Haha! That's like arguing that any artist using a bigger canvas to make a bigger impression is a fraud! Wrong! The point is that the director uses that to compose his shot within the rectangular frame. It doesn't matter what the format is, the point is to see the film as he intends within the proper aspect ratio he intended it to be. Watch films in their original format as the director intended! And why shouldn't theatres offer a different experience than TV? That's the point!
jdnation 1 year ago
The widescreen format is all a fraud, it is only sales strategy ...
This format appeared in movies by the producers need to compete with television, it really such a long recording does not exist, and the arrangement of multiple cameras in parallel not practiced in reality in the film, it really does is cut image up and down or using a rectangular template over the lens of the camera to record the movie.
happyplaneta 1 year ago
Widescreen blows goats. The wider horizontal viewing angle comes at the expense of the vertical viewing angle, and so the resulting picture has the top and bottom chopped off.
Even worse, there is no standard ratio for widescreen movies. Some are 1.85, some are 2.35, and some are 2.39 -- and they all need to be letterboxed even on widescreen TVs because widescreen TVs are only 1.78.
All movies should be made to match TVs because the largest segment of the audience is watching it at home.
myteewhytee 1 year ago 2
@myteewhytee
You obviously didn't watch the video. Widescreen doesn't chop anything off - it preserves the entire film. Fullscreen is where the chop chop chop begins of the sides. And of course the technician comes in to then move the camera left and right instead of the director.
bcutler13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
haha, the snobbery in these comments is brilliant
the artists "vision" doesn't matter compared to the enjoyment of the viewers and if for some that means lopping off a bit of the picture to get a fuller screen (perhaps poor eyesight may lead to a desire for a larger picture) so be it
its not a choice I share but the people running around saying it should be banned should really calm down and take their meds
that said tvs are moving towards mostly widescreen which will sort this out
sanctuaryn 1 year ago
Comment removed
sanctuaryn 1 year ago
i dont care if i miss part of the picture as long as the tv picture is filled up. those black bars are so distracting to me. they should have an option between wide or fullscreen on the dvd. that would satisfy everyone. thats ok though, movies suck nowadays anyway so I'll just stop watching them altogether.
leevois 1 year ago
@leevois many blu-ray players remove the black bars while still allowing it to be widescreen, while fullscreen has even more distracting bars on the side.
cinemastupid 1 year ago
oOo, so how would one know how it was originally shot?
katherine415 1 year ago
wide screen is better then full screen get ride of full screen.
PREZILLA2009 1 year ago
They make it windscreen because in a theather you can fit more people in it. Also there are more reasons.
omgersIrock 1 year ago
2 solutions:
2.35.1 projection screen +anamorphic lens( veryyyy expensive)+a projector
2.35.1 projection screen+ panasonic pt-ae 3000 or 40000 ( zoom function emulate the anamorphic lens but you loose slightly some resolution but much less expensive than buying an anamorphic lens
this way you wil see the glorious widescreen movies without loosig any frame
najibovich 1 year ago
Pan and scan is a bad of course, but cause its still around on movies on TV or with VHS's, I've found a theory. Movies filmed with a 1:85:1 don't lose too much picture in the pan and scan process, so they're not too bad to watch in full screen (1/4 of the picture is cropped). As for any movies with 2:35:1 or 2:20:1, these movies make a horrible transition to pan and scan as they crop a whole 1/2 of the picture! Stick with widescreen of course, but if u every watch P&S, only trust 1:85:1 films.
Troyman021 1 year ago
anybody know what show or movie this comes from
biggybigster6 1 year ago
There is television era in cinema industry. In 80s-90s-00s, The producers become to prefer full-screen formats to make their movies can be performed in TV's too. That movies was shown in cinemas with cropping to 1.85:1.
emrepltq 1 year ago
So many people have this impression that you are getting a fuller picture just because of the name "Fullscreen". The ignorance of some people drives me nuts.
zackjdl 1 year ago
@zackjdl You said it, "ignorance." They just don't know, therefore, its up to people who are knowledgeable to spread the word and eventually they will catch on. Just be glad you know what is going on :)
katherine415 1 year ago
now that almost every TV sold is widescreen, this video is almost irrelevant.
gunpei 1 year ago
i like full screen because you see the FULL screen!!!
griffin324 1 year ago
Wide screen is alot better, full screen you lose alot of image which makes the movie look bad
Codarik 1 year ago
Widescreen > Fullscreen
ilovemyfamilyg83 1 year ago
Widescreen FOREVER! Fullscreen should be banned!
signals3 1 year ago 5
Scorsese hit's the nail on the head when he says it's redirecting the movie. Pan and scan is absolutely horrendous.
Chris25698 1 year ago
you should always watch a movie in its original aspect ratio...
jj5206v4 1 year ago 45
it looks like a letterbax
neomp5 1 year ago
I used to work at Blockbuster and it killed me everytime someone pre-ordered a big action movie in Full Screen. "No...no you don't want Lord of the Rings in Fullscreen...no...seriously...you'll be losing half the movie. I don't care about the black bars...well if you're watching it on a 27" TV you're not going to get a good experience with it anyways...go for it."
I finally got some converts with Fast and the Furious...go figure :)
JesterTDA 2 years ago 3
Wasn't Lord Of The Rings designed for full screen?
DanielBMS 1 year ago
@DanielBMS 2.35:1 ratio.
JesterTDA 1 year ago
@DanielBMS: Nope :P
FORD5000solo2001 1 year ago
@DanielBMS TLOTR was shot in 1,85:1 anamorphic widescreen.
- It was released in widesreen and full screen picture formats, each formats has been cut a bit.
emrepltq 1 year ago
@emrepltq TLOTR was shot in 2.35:1 not 1.85:1 so if this version exists you need to talk to new line on that and yeah TLOTR looks horrible panned and scanned.
MrJsmit 1 year ago
@MrJsmit I have full-screen, widescreen formats and TV-records (that's mean it's for broadcasting) of them. When I compare, I can easily see that the first film is panscanned directly on 1.85,1 format. But the second and the third films are a bit different. They're generally panscanned on 2.35,1 but in the some scenes like two-characters, conversations, lot's of faces, important details...I can see It's like panscanned on 1.85,1. I think that two versions was shot in 1.85:1 too.
Sincerely
emre
emrepltq 1 year ago
Can I ask a really dumb question. Why do film channels like Encore still use Full Frame? It bothers me. I will go on my Comcast On Demand and have to go through the films. I turn one on and it will be full frame. I have to turn it off. So frustrating.
Bobbygory 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wide screen sucks when theres no action!
2010mustang1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the new star trek movie was filmed in a bad angle, you cant get the black bars away
grendel576 2 years ago
Wow.. Never thought of it that way.. I mostly just focus on the main character and such, but damn can't believe all these years, I'm missing like 46% of the movie..
lilcrazyaznboy 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's odd, because I lose more picture on 16:9 than on full screen
?????
rafikz77 2 years ago
I'm sorry; no you do not! What you "lose" is screen real estate. The *picture* of a movie is everything *except* the black bars.
While you use more of the *space* on your screen with pan and scan, you *lose* almost 50% of the *picture* by doing so. This is why widescreen televisions were invented; so you could use all the *real estate* on your screen without losing any of the picture. Since many movies are in an even wider format than 16:9, there now exists some 21:9 TVs for the same reason..
piofinn 2 years ago 11
By "losing 50% of the picture" when I go full screen, do you mean I lose picture quality?
rafikz77 2 years ago
Yes, you lose both picture quality, since the image is magnified, and worse; you lose parts of the image that the director intended for you to see.
So even if the picture on your screen appears bigger, you actually see less!
piofinn 2 years ago 3
@piofinn You know the "black bars" are the limitations of a square television screen in projecting a rectangular image, right? You're not actually losing any of the picture in wide screen.
Steelerspatula 10 months ago
full screen is terrible
dakingofdano 2 years ago
yeah, now I now that there can be problems with widescreen and fullscreen or i guess it just depends on what kind of film
Prodigy502 2 years ago
i have to thank tcm for that pan and scan video they did, because before it, i despised widescreen and only liked full screen.
but when i learned about pan and scan, i found myself having more respect for widescreen cause i finally had an understanding of it.
now im not so crazy for full screen anymore.
julieluvpink 2 years ago 4
I've seen this documentary before.
I like 1:1:85 versus the 1:1:33. The 1:85 even though it is technically called widescreen fully fits and is adapted to a widescreen HDTV.
I don't like the widescreen with the black letterbox stripes and I always zoom my widescreen DVDs to get the full screen effect. Unfortunately my particular model of DVD player has a 2X icon whenever I zoom. I must get a DVD player w/out the icon!
drdrtfehytf 2 years ago
what's best for watching widescreen movies on a 16:9 tv: wide zoom or full?
griffin324 2 years ago
depends on the film used in the movie, i think that the movies shot in 35 mm cover the hole screen meanwhile the 70mm movies needs black bars since is more wide but thicker.
fjdxguitar 2 years ago
great video....sums up nicely what takes a while to google.
kIpPeIn0oB 2 years ago
I was linked to this video completely at random, and now I'm glad that I was. I suppose I didn't know enough about the cropping process to understand what sort of things you miss out on in a full-screen movie. Great video, thanks.
TheAcriNom 2 years ago 2
I hate pan-and-scan, and I hope the spread of widescreen TV and computer monitors makes it obsolete. But I also don't think films originally done in 4:3 should be cropped to fit a 16:9 TV.
OAR forever.
tonydmyers 2 years ago 3
nice video:)
Sa6ee 2 years ago
The title is misleading. The title should be Widescreen vs Pan-and-Scan since an actual fullscreen image is never shown, only the widescreen and its Pan-and-Scan are shown.
Full screen means: full, complete, 100%, and no missing parts. Pan-and-Scan does have missing parts, it is not full screen.
TheObfuscatedOne 2 years ago
@TheObfuscatedOne
Try applying what you just said to buying a movie on DVD. If someone buys the fullscreen version of a movie and think it's 100% then they would be wrong.
HunterXray 2 years ago 2
The movie industry is misleading people to believe that Pan-and-scan is the full screen. It is NOT. It only has the same height to width ratio of a true full screen movie. Widescreen shows only 75% of full screen and Pan-and-Scan shows only 56.25% of a full screen.
Google: "The Widescreen Scam". Widescreen is a misnomer, it is actually short screen. It is full screen cut short in height then cut again to create Pan-and-Scan.
The cropped chopped Pan-and-Scan is ENLARGED to fit the full screen!
TheObfuscatedOne 2 years ago
@HunterXray By all means always watch a movie in its original format whether its a full screen or a widescreen (short screen) movie. Pan-and-Scan can only be applied to widescreen movies. Pan-and-Scan is NOT a full screen movie!
The title of this clip should be "Widescreen vs Pan-and-Scan".
How would full screen movies such as Wizard of Oz appear on widescreen (short screen) TV/monitors?
Buy a full screen that is just as wide as the widescreen TV/monitor and you will see the big picture.
TheObfuscatedOne 2 years ago
I have bought a handful of Full Screen DVDs by accident and have been royally pissed to find out I got the wrong version. My parents on the other hand used to zoom in on movies to fill the whole screen if they had one that was wide screen...so many gifts were formatted wrong. Maybe if I had them take a look at this they would realize I was right all along about their zooming habits lol
Chazzi27 2 years ago 2
@TheObfuscatedOne fullscreen is still modified from it's original version, it's still missing picture.
xfilesmanson 8 months ago
I love widescreen with a passion, but those f$#king black bars piss me off.....It turns my 50 in. into a 40 in. There's gotta be a better way to show the greatness of widescreen and lose those annoying bars.
juincey74 2 years ago
Actually, there is not.
A wide screen TV has an aspect ratio of 1.77:1. Most movies are made in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. What that means is the picture is 2.35 units wide for every unit tall. If you try to fill the screen with the picture, you'll run out of height before you have the full width.
The only thing that can be done with the 1.85:1 is to capture a slightly taller frame so the DVD image can have more height. But that means more on screen than the director intended.
jhamaker 2 years ago
You can buy the Philips 1:2.33-format flatscreen :) (or 21:9 as they say). It really is brilliant if you primarily watch movies... Then you get all 52 inches filled from corner to corner with goodness!
piofinn 2 years ago
@juincey74
I was watching widescreen movies on my 27 inch tv before I got an LCD and I didn't care about black bars because I knew I was seeing the whole movie as it was intended to be seen. If you wanted to see movies with no black bars anywhere, you'd have to have a TV for every aspect.
HunterXray 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
widescreen needs to die it's destroying full screen's habatat fullscreen is becoming an endangered species I mean WTF @ wide screen computer monitors
from now on all theaters should be in the 4:3 IMAX format and the golden age of fullscreen will begin
THENINTENDOLUMINARY 2 years ago
Widescreen is better in every way. it is the way that the director wants us to see it. fullscreen is when EVERYTHING fits in the screen you are watching it in, which is just stupid. it should be what you are paying for, and when you're paying for the same price for the regular widescreen, but you get 50% of the picture cut off, why would you want to watch THAT?
hayama317 2 years ago 4
Correct. Widescreen is better. I remember that Spielburg refused to release Raider Of The Lost Ark in Pan and Scan for VHS, but was forced to anyway.
Incrediboy2000 2 years ago 2
You best be trollin' nigga.
xellios 2 years ago
did you even watch the video? and why do you want fullscreen to come back? don't you even know that when you watch a movie in fullscreen you lose half the image?
vinemachine 2 years ago
If fullscreen came back then they would be making movies in 1.33:1 I prefer to have the whole movie be thin enough to see with my foveal vision rather than having to use my peripheral vision or scan back and forth
THENINTENDOLUMINARY 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Full Screen forever!
DanielBMS 2 years ago
FUCK U!!!! WIDESCREEN 4 EVER!!!
RandyortonRKOfan 1 year ago
AAAAMMMMMEEEENNNNN!!!!!
DarkspiderDavid 2 years ago
Bideo o miru noni daigamen no terebi ga hoshii na.
kiamarukeemos 2 years ago
widescreen show's you all the action even the hidden ones while the full screen covers almost everything only to show two people
gameex1 2 years ago
Not to nitpick too much, but 16x9 is actually 1.78:1, which is closer to standard Flat format, or 1.85:1, not to scope, or 2.35:1.
In any case, movie theaters around the country only present films in 1.85 or 2.35. That's the way the projectors and curtains are built. It would be too expensive to change thousands of auditoriums for such a minor reason.
baryonyx 2 years ago 5
Ah, my favourite argument to have...
DeadApe133 2 years ago
The solution to this problem of filling the TV screen while seeing entire picture is simple.
cut off the extreme edges and do an anamorphic squeeze...the picture is a little distorted but at least it fills the frame.
I do that on my ipod to fit the apple trailers on the screen.
xpez 2 years ago 3
I am way too sensitive about shapes to do that. Even a little distortion puts me off completely.. Besides, I think distorting an image defiles it just as much as cutting away pieces of it. What shape objects have is just as important as if they're there or not!
piofinn 2 years ago
What they arent telling you is this:ALL films are cropped in the film frame. The actual picture on the original negative is almost a square.
THe letter box/pan scan are different aspect ratios for PROJECTION of the picture.
Furthermore, a film frame is a crop of the image coming through a circular lens.
IF they really wanted to show you the most image they would make circular movie screens...
HAHAHA that is actually the most image you can possible get out of a camera!!
circular cinema!!!
xpez 2 years ago 7
16:9 for life!
DecimalBrothers 2 years ago
Man, I don't wanna record movies in full screen or watch movies in full screen anymore because of this!
GameGuyTroy 2 years ago 3
i have widescreen movies on dvd but there are no bars when i watch them. does this mean it's full screen?
griffin324 2 years ago
I don't mind black bars as long as I can see the whole picture.
antdude 2 years ago 15
i will never watch a formatted for tv movie again lol
meismariah 2 years ago 4
The editing of any part of the composition of the original framing is not a good idea, unless by some miracle you happened to be better than the director/camera man at it :P.
generally its an artistic process that has had an idea and a vision behind it, tempering with it just slightly alters the emotional impact it has on the views.
as an animator/film maker/photographer i know how suptle a changing in crop can effect things.
and pand and scan is far from subtle
peace
brian
sacredgeometry 2 years ago 4
tampering* urgh mens brains dont like to do three things at once, damn my genetics
sacredgeometry 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In my modest experience the top and bottom are occluded because they are not generally part of the framed shot when it is conceived. Action happening outside of the frame is generally considered to be irrelevant...
vantagestudios 2 years ago
not big on cinematography are you? btw i neutralised your thumbs down.
sacredgeometry 2 years ago
Most 1.85 (and the various "super 35" format) films are in fact shot open matte. But having screened film dailies on over 60 features I cannot once remember anyone wanting to see what's outside the 1.85 (or 2.39) projected area to check how that composition will look like.
That's not to say that later on when the video transfer is done they might not zoom back out a bit and show more headroom and footroom in order to avoid having to lose so much via P&S. And that can vary shot to shot.
filmteknik 2 years ago
it's a shame they did not talk about the other side of the coin, 'open matte', in which the movie is shot at 'full screen' but the top and bottom are occluded in order to present a 'letterboxed' version for theatrical release.
SolarCel 2 years ago 4
films filmed in fullscreen get all the action too,filming in widescreen and editing it to fullscreen was seen as cheaper plus having more choice in the editing the more the camera was slit the more choice there was in the same shot which are now used to give widescreen a purpose but now we want to see those in full but are incompatable with 16:9 and get those black bars again soon a 50inch widescreen will only be the equivalent of a 10inch fullscreen heh madness
oxboobooxo 2 years ago
People who prefer fullscreen are retarded. I refuse to watch a movie for the first time in 4:3. Seriously, why does NO ONE understand that HALF OF THE FUCKING PICTURE IS MISSING?! I'm always arguing about this with my dumbshit brother who insists I'm just being picky.
Just got a PS3 and I'm SO glad I no longer have to deal with this fullscreen bullshit with blu-rays. Now I never have to worry about accidentally grabbing a fullscreen DVD or someone giving me a fullscreen movie as a gift.
SofaKingKoo1 2 years ago 16
And hope that it isn't a widescreen movie letterboxed to fit a 4:3 television.
Tekkenfreek234 1 year ago
i hate that they still make full screen dvds of recently released movies... you just have to wonder why...
griffin324 2 years ago 7
'cause some movies are shot at 'full screen', to be able to see them with no black bars in a cinema screen.
estamostodosquesos 2 years ago
People make the common mistake of thinking that there are only two aspect ratios...4:3 (square) and 16:9 (widescreen), but depending on the camera used, there are SEVERAL widescreen formats. A lot of those happen to be 16:9 so there won't be any black bars when watching on an HDTV, but the other widescreen formats will still have some black lines when watching on a HDTV. (but not as big as they would be if watching on a standard 4:3 TV screen)
jakemathew 2 years ago 4
You're right about multiple aspect ratios, but any movie theatre you go to today has only 2 options: 1.85:1, or 2.35:1.
1.85:1 (or "flat" as it's known in projection booths) is closest to 16:9, it's actually 16.65:9. 2.35:1 ("scope") require black bars on the top bottom when viewing on an hdtv.
If something was filmed in any other aspect ratio, it will still only be projected in one of those 2 ratios at a theatre, as the curtains and projectors only have 2 settings.
baryonyx 2 years ago
Movies made prior to the 1950's were shot at a 1.37:1 ratio, close to standard TV, and probably why TVs were originally created in a 1.33 ratio.
When they re-released wizard of oz in the 90's, they created black bars on the sides of the screen on the actual film print, formatting the frame to run through a 1.85 projector lens, while maintaining the 1.37 original ratio. I worked in a theatre at the time, we got a lot of complaints about the bars, people thinking the sides were missing.
baryonyx 2 years ago
2.35 is obsolete they no longer crop films in that aspect ratio ...it has been moved to 2.40:1 since that is much closer to 16x9 DVD format...
xpez 2 years ago
umm.. I believe it actually is 21:9 you're thinking of, which is 2.33:1. All new "cinemascope" movies I've seen fit into either that or 2.35:1... The rest are usually 16:9 or sometimes (rarely) 1:85.1
piofinn 2 years ago