Why is Letterbox preferred over Fullscreen?

[favouriteshirts]

Back in the late 80's I worked in a video store. I had all these (usually) senior citizens griping that there were black bars blocking out part of the picture! :p I just about gave up trying to explain letterbox.

Nowadays I have a 37" 1080p HD screen, don't know the exact science like some people, but it looks better than anything I had in the 70's-90's! Now I'm still not crazy about 2.35:1 WS like my "Planet of the Apes" box. I like 1.85, but never 1.33 unless it was filmed that way.

[encycl07pedia]

Letterbox vs. Widescreen on a wide screen:

Letterbox has black bars all around (4:3 canvas) if unstretched

Widescreen has little to no blackspace around it.

I wish Spaceballs' DVD makers had done true widescreen instead of crap letterbox. It looks bad on my WS computer.

[RMProdux2008]

You know what i find hilarious?? When people have 16:9 tvs and stretch shows that are 4:3 format to fit their screen and keep the stretch even with shows that are in 16:9!!! Theyre stretching shows and movies that are in 16:9 on their 16:9 tvs!! Instead of zooming in and not distorting the image, they stretch a 16:9 show as if was 4:3!

[apache566]

4:3 is ok for standard tv shows and stuff, but for movies, it's better to be letterboxed.

Movies are directed to make use of wide aspect ratios, it's an important part of the storytelling.

[alaindiazaran]

but there are movies that are not fullscreen but neither widescreen it's like widescreen but in a larger size i don't know

[ratkins0687]

@alaindiazaran Well, unless it's in a 16:9 format, it is not widescreen. It may of had smaller black bars on the left and right. Some movies were not exactly 4:3, but were not distributed in a widescreen format.

[PREZILLA2009]

Full screeen is unnecessary get rid of it!!!!!

Some movies in amazon that says widescreen in its format R NOT widescreen at all!!!!

There still Fullscreen stupid sellers!

[kurtywurty85]

I recently ordered a DVD box set and I accidentally selected widescreen. The only reason I'm so use to picking full screen movies is because my parents go nuts when movies are widescreen...but I don't get why?? Aren't most hd tvs widescreen anyway? When I'm watching a widescreen movie I never really notice the bars, which I assume is what my parents have a problem with it. I'm just surprised to see all of these comments praising widescreen because I always assumed everyone preferred full.

[ratkins0687]

@kurtywurty85 Well, remember that DVD's replaced VHS tapes, and most all of those were sold in Full screen, minus those "really old" moves. I watched JAWS in letterbox on VHS actually. Broadcast was in 4:3 up until about 2005 when HD started. They just accepted it and have become accustomed to it. I'll always remember that any movie today is being cut off by 2/3rds when ever it's full frame. My mother is the same way...though she's learning ;)

[HorrorSharkJAWS]

@ratkins0687 I think people prefer widescreen because of the TV's they got. Like if people have a widescreen type TV it would look a bit silly with fullscreen on a widscreen tv.

[ratkins0687]

@HorrorSharkJAWS I agree. I was watching a PBS program on my parents TV which is 4:3 and I could tell it was actually shot in 16:9 HD. Some things were cut off. However, watching the originally Broadcasted Seinfeld on a 4:3 TV is just fine.

[ratkins0687]

@kurtywurty85 Also, you are correct. All HDTV's are 16:9.  You might see bars on the top and bottom because of the film stock that was used and/or the aspect ratio that the film was exported in. If it's not 16:9, then it's not a true HDTV.

[kurtywurty85]

@ratkins0687 Haha I thought so. That makes it even more strange that my parents prefer full screen, seeing as every tv in our house in 16:9, I guess it's just what they're use to.

[mthemaniac]

@kurtywurty85 No, "full screen" inappropriately named, (should be called "half picture") sucks! Wouldn't you rather not use all the screen but have all the picture as opposed to using all the screen but losing part of the picture??? Btw, your new 16:9 TV is not really wide screen, it's wider than 4:3 but not as wide as the typical movie, many of which is 2.4:1.

[kayewer]

Some folks, like a friend of mine, think they're being cheated out of a complete picture when they see the little black bars on the top and bottom. It's hard to explain the better perspective of letterbox without the visual proof. You have to see the proof to know that pan and scan cheats you out of a lot of visual experience. I like these video treatises, as well as TCM's excellent short film on the subject. I'm letterbox all the way.

[Takeshi357]

@kurtywurty85 Sounds like Everyone's Parents Ever.

Your job is to educate them! :)

[entertainmentguy1984]

@kurtywurty85 to me there is no better way to watch a movie then in wide screen when it comes to your TV it's almost like your at the movies based on what your looking at I have a 24 inch wide screen tube and i love it i would like to get a 32 sometime in the coming years

[JudgeMagisterDelita]

This argument annoys me to no end. I like Fullscreen when I have a fullscreen TV and I like Widescreen when I have a widescreen TV. Shut up about this dumb argument, it doesn't even matter really.

[ratkins0687]

@JudgeMagisterDelita Oh it matters 101% actually. Most networks use HDV now and those are shot widescreen. Full screen movies may look just fine on your 4:3 TV, but know that it was shot widescreen and you are loosing 2/3rds of the picture that was originally shot. There might be elements that the director wanted you to see that is now chopped off. So, you are actually not getting your monies worth if you rent a movie in Full Screen/Full Frame/4:3 because it's not showing you 2/3rds of the pic

[NewYorkFlavour]

Letterbox wins!!!

[neomp5]

seems like a simple issue to me. let a filmmaker make his movie however he wants, and then let the viewer watch it by putting the entire image on the screen without changing it in any way.

[amdnovello]

i love 16:9 movies and i hate 21:9 ones

they're too much squished and i don't like them

every tv set is widescreen and i don't know why they don't shoot every movie in 16:9 format. it would show correctly in theaters too

[RdCrestdBreegull]

@amdnovello You mean 2.39:1, and movies in that aspect ratio aren't "squished"--they just show more on the sides of the frame. Maybe the reason the black bars you're seeing are so big is because you're either watching your movies on a 4:3 TV or your DVD/Blu-ray player is not set to the correct aspect ratio to match your TV. They don't shoot every movie in 16:9 because that would not be artistic. The ratio filmmakers choose (1.85:1 or 2.39:1) depends on how they want to present their film.

[whiterottenrabbit]

In recent times, there is another problem with preserving the original aspect ratio: when the picture gets stretched or squished to fill the screen. One major reason for this is, that many people don't even notice that the picture gets distorted. Anyone who wants to discuss this topic in more detail, please feel free to let me know!

[neomp5]

@whiterottenrabbit

i hate it when they do that. tvs should take the picture they're given and display it using as much screen as possible, but never losing any picture or changing it's height-width ratio. i was watching family guy, which is still made in full screen, on a widescreen tv, and it stretched the sides out. i could not figure out how to get it back to normal

[whiterottenrabbit]

@neomp5

I hate distorted pictures too, and others do as well. Howecver, the majority of people seems either not to care or even don't notice the obviously wrong picture. If you are interested in discussions about this topic please let me know. Alternatively, you can just google for "Aspect Ratio Fail Am I the Only Person Who Cares?" and "Are Some People Just Visually Dull?"

[neomp5]

interesting suggestion in the second one, that some people may not have the ability to comprehend visual details, but i think it's more like a sort of mental laziness, the same kind that most people have in every aspect of their life. i work night shift at a grocery store, and iu get to observe poeople. i saw a customer grab a bag of pretzels, then decide she diddn't want them, and litterally throw them onto the top of a freezer aisles away from where they go. she did this right in front of me.

[neomp5]

when i asked her to put them away, she had this lok on her face like the thought that there was anything wrong with doing that had not even crossed her mind, and she was suddenly embarrassed.

most people just don't think about what's going on around them, and eventually they lose the capacity altogether, to the point that they're baffled by the shape of a tv and the image on it, thinking they're losing picture where there is none, and "fixing" it by mangling the picture.

[whiterottenrabbit]

I really don't want to spam you, but do you want to participate in the discussions in these blogs? IMHO, too few people are aware oft his problem.

There are people, who intentionally mess up the aspect ratio: watch?v=ztb0MgGAi04. Also, there are people, who don't notice the wrong aspect ratio. I swear! I was talking once to a dude, and pointed out, that a particular video showing the Moon as a goddamn ellipse had wrong AR. He looked at the picture and said, that he sees nothing wrong! WTF?

[neomp5]

i've always been interested in finding out the reasons for the oblivious behavior of human beings, this is an interesting example.

that video is unbelievable.

how do they not notice? especially with round objects, or diagonal shots? their brains seem to be compensating somehow.

[neomp5]

as i throw out this dvd, i want to mention another similar bit of stupidity, the aversion to subtitles. "i don't want to read a movie" they say. do they expect every country to make movies in their language? or do they not enjoy movies enough to seek out the best from wherever they may come from? i keep buying cheap dvds of chinese movies from ebay, and when i get them, i find they're english dubbed.

[neomp5]

why can't people just leave movies alone, and stop replacing the audio and cutting off or warping the image.

i think they just don't experience art completely. they see music as background noise, liking anything that's "catchy", and like movies that have lots of bright colours anbd movement, but never going deeper than that. i know people who watch dvds on their tv's speakers. mono. i ask them why they bother watching anything at all.

[whiterottenrabbit]

@neomp5

"How do they not notice?" That is exactly what I am thinking, when I see a wrong aspect ratio! Unfortunately, only few people care about correct AR. Feel free to take a look at some of videos I favourited - there are people who try to fight against visually dull people. That is why I take every chance to make people aware of aspect ratio and distorted pictures, even if they often get pissed immidiately.

[bubbaali021]

widescreen is soo better than the the full screen that's why i buy movies in wide screen.

[2010mustang1]

@ bubbaalio21 well if you have a small TV it sucks.

[bubbaali021]

@2010mustang1 doesn't matter if my tv is small or not, widescreen is way better.

[bigboi97]

Me too, I think pan and scanning is silly. Films should just be watched the way the director intended for it to be watched.

[RdCrestdBreegull]

Yeah, sorry. I meant The Day The Earth Stood Still.

And yes, 480p is called enhanced definition.

It might not make any sense, but the creators of South Park DID choose to create some recent seasons (not the current ones, which are in true 16:9) in 4:3 with the intention of them being cropped to 16:9 for later hi-def viewing. It's just like Back to the Future. In BttF they shot it in 4:3, and then matted it for 16:9 (1.85) viewing in theaters.

[RdCrestdBreegull]

This also makes it easier for "fullscreen" transfers to SD cable and fullscreen DVDs. (By the way, I'm not supporting "fullscreen" (cropped) at all, because it is really ridiculous.)

[mattd28]

when are 2.35:1 tv's going to be released?

[ratkins0687]

I dont know as if they will be. I think generally most widescreen TV's are something like 1.85:1 or 1.78:1. I think many filmmakers just like to see the "extreme" widescreen.

Who knows

[nightshot103]

I prefer the black bars if it keeps the integrity of the video.

[ratkins0687]

it will, and does keep integrity.

[EvolutionStratus]

And that is why people sau 4:3 is nicknamed by a lot of people foolscreen because it doesn't show the full picture the way it was originally filmed.

[metalgearhead99]

Not only is widescreen better, it is the same picture shown in movie theaters. I don't really mind full screen but since I got to understand widescreen, I know I'm not watching the original picture when shown in full screen. Don't you kind of hate when one person is talking to another in full screen, and the picture has to be panned (moved) from one person to another.

[ratkins0687]

Right, movie theaters actually get film, or most do anyway.

[tamura808]

widescreen basicly get's everything in the picture, and it's really effective for intenisifying certain moments of a film. Like how you see all those wide shots in action/ adventure films, it gives audiences a sense of how big these scenes are. It's used differently depending on which genre the movie is, and what the director feels is the best way to go about a movie.

[RoyKidman3]

What is the fucking point of Full Frame...its just annoying

[ratkins0687]

some people who own a 4:3 TV don't like the black bars, and so they want the picture to fill the screen, instead of letterbox it

[RoyKidman3]

lol sorry about my language before but there missing out on the movie it changes the effect of the film and once they get a widescreen tv they'll complain of the bars on the side due to full screen. again no point.

[shadowclaw46]

@RoyKidman3 What's annoying is when yu only get a third of the screen to watch the movie on. That's the problem with widescreen today. A few years ago wide screen was just two black bars that only took up about 1/6 of the screen, so you still get that cinematic effect, but you still get most of your screen.

[aronaraya23]

if you got a widescreen tv is get anoyyin with the letterbox

[RdCrestdBreegull]

You probably don't have your DVD or BD player set to widescreen mode. If you're watching a movie on a widescreen TV, but you don't have your player set to widescreen mode, it'll just put unnecessary letterboxing on the movie, AND stretch it out.

[TVperson1]

CinemaScope bars can a bit annoying on a 4x3 TV, though. CinemaScope on a 16x9 TV is fine.

[kadvid]

No, not really. I watched Ben Hur (even wider than CinemaScope, I think 2.7:1 or so) on a 4:3 screen and still it was gorgeous.

[TVperson1]

Wait, how big has the screen? I tried watching a Cinerama film(2.7:1) on a small 4x3, but it was hard to see things in the small frame, I had to zoom it to 1.85:1 in order see properly.

[kadvid]

It was a 17" screen, but you can easily watch 720p content on it, so it's pretty sharp. Just sit a bit closer to the screen. :p

[RdCrestdBreegull]

1) Cinerama is 2.59:1.

2) You can't watch 720p content on a 4:3 TV, because 4:3 TVs (not 100% sure if it's all of them) can only handle up to 480i. And even if you are running a 720p signal, it'll just be downscaled to 480i.

[CpuGUY18]

there are some 720p 4;3 tvs

[ratkins0687]

Correct. I believe all 4:3 TV's are 480i. It is the nature of High Definition to be in widescreen. If you do watch an HD broadcast in 4:3 then its being pan and scanned, or cropped off. I'll never understand why thats done.

[RdCrestdBreegull]

Actually a program does not have to be in widescreen to be HD. There are some 4:3 HD programs/movies.

[ratkins0687]

Those are pan and scanned. HD is filmed in 1.78:1 aspect ratio, 4:3 filmed in 1.33:1. I can make a 4:3 HD movie with Final Cut, but it's original format can only be in 16:9.

Some ESPN sports are in 4:3, yes, but thats done in post production or tricaster, or whatever video equipment they may be using. Thats not original aspect ratio.

[RdCrestdBreegull]

You're a little off on your information. Maybe Final Cut or whatever you're using doesn't let you create 1.33 projects in HD, but that has nothing to do with TV. The only way to watch a program in HD on your TV is if your TV has at least 720p lines of res. Meaning: If you're watching a 1.33 program in HD on your widescreen HDTV, then it IS in the OAR. For example, they're working on upping older episodes of South Park with HD, which WERE 1.33. This would NOT be P&Sing.

[ratkins0687]

Well, you might be referring to letter boxing, which is still technically 4:3, but keeping the entire image inside. A program like South Park is an animation, in which, your video frame can be as big as you want it to be and does not follow camera frame rules. This is done digitally.

[wallabyj]

Then they'd have to be upping it to 480p, because in order to be 720p or higher, it would have to be in 16:9, or cropped because it has to have a 720X1280 pixel resolution to be considered a true HD image. I'd be willing to bet however that they originally filmed the show (except maybe the really early episodes) in a 16:9 or 1.66:1 aspect ratio because I'm sure they had professional equipment to do so, but did compose their shots to be cropped. Much the same way you shoot Super35.

[wallabyj]

Actually, there is a 4:3 HD it's 480p. It is only slightly better than 480i, but the progressive scan is much better than the interlaced scan.

However, you are correct in that there is no HD 720 or above that isn't in a 16:9 that hasn't been cropped at the sides due to the PIxel ratio.

[RdCrestdBreegull]

Urghh... I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about. No offense. First of all, 480p isn't HD. Only 720p, 1080i, and 1080p are.

example of 4:3 in 1080p: War of the Worlds on Blu-ray (1.33 IS the OAR.).

They did NOT originally create South Park in anything other than 1.33. Newer episodes, however, like the last couple seasons WERE created in either 1.33 which was intended to later be cropped to 1.77 or TRUE 1.77 (which was cropped to 1.33 for non-HD broadcasting).

[wallabyj]

That doesn't make any sense. War of the Worlds was shot on FILM and not in Super35 because I'm sure Spielberg doesn't need to save money. If you check its IMDB, it's Aspect Ratio is 1.85:1 originally. which is about 11 pixels from being 16:9. Unless you're talking about the original, which yes it is in 1.33, but it's been put under a different compression to do a film to digital transfer, which is completely different. Odds are they manually put black bars on the right and left sides.

[wallabyj]

Also, it makes no sense to shoot an animated show in 1.33 and then crop it to 1.77, that's far more work than needed. All you'd have to do is animate it in 1.77 with an action safe on for standard televisions, that's how that works.

And I do know what I'm talking about, I've got a Bachelors of Science in Film, what have you got?

And yes 480p is not TRUE HD, however since it's a progressive scan it's considered technically high definition because of it's quality.

[ratkins0687]

@wallabyj Seeing as though my reply is now 2 years later, I'm sure information has been relayed over. 480p is not High Definition. in 480p you still have 720x480 lines of resolution, but by having the P, means every single line is scanned, as opposed to "i" where every other line is scanned. 480p and 480i are both standard definition, but 480p will give a slightly better picture. The size of the image is the same, which is why it is Standard Definition.

[wallabyj]

I believe it's called Enhanced Definition.

[ap2386]

there is no 4:3 HD that pan and scannedas soon as you change it from 16:9 into 4:3, that is automatically Standard Definition. HD can only be shot in 1280x720, 1440x1080, or 1920x1080. Anything different from these resolutions are no longer in HD.

[ratkins0687]

@RdCrestdBreegull Actually no, when an HD program is broadcasted in 4:3 it is cropped. Soap Operas are notorious for this. You might notice the little ABC or CBS bug at the bottom right hand corner that is cut in half. If not, HD aspect ratio is 1.78:1 - whether 720p, 1080p, or higher (2K, 4K, etc). Networks will crop their broadcast to 4:3 to save money, but also, if you receive an SD signal for your cable service, you probably won't be seeing it in HD. It's cropped to fit NTSC standards

[RdCrestdBreegull]

@ratkins0687 You're talking about when 1.78:1 HD programs are broadcasted on an SD channel. Then, yes, they are cropped to 4:3. They are still broadcasted in 1.78:1 on their respective HD channel though. What I was referring to was that you can technically record video in HD resolution in a 4:3 aspect ratio. You can also take old 4:3 film footage (like some old movie from the '50s) and rescan that to be presented in true HD (still with the 4:3 ratio obviously).

[ratkins0687]

@RdCrestdBreegull Would you consider The Wizard of Oz Blu-Ray to be considered HD, given the HD standards? Do you know what resolutions are technically HD? HD is only widescreen - that's the aspect ratio of 1920x1080 and 1280x720. 1441x1080 is even HD because it's anamorphic. The older movies are scanned at a higher resolution, but they really don't hold the HD standards because they were not shot in an HD aspect ratio. Do you follow?

[RdCrestdBreegull]

@ratkins0687 Sorry about the late reply. YES, the Wizard of Oz Blu-ray is definitely HD. HD simply means that the digital video source is at least 720 lines in vertical resolution (Wizard of Oz is 1080). The original source will either be film or video. If it's film, it just needs to be physically scanned at at least 720 horizontal lines. If it's video, it needs to be upscaled, which will usually not look all that great. The actual ratio of the source doesn't matter as far as HD goes.