Widescreen vs. Pan & Scan

[kblixt]

 A lot of people still have 4:3 TVs.

[xboxgamer120120]

How about fuck off and just film it in 16:9... that's what the fucking tvs are

[Balikon]

@xboxgamer120120

Because 16:9 is NOT what a theatre-screen is.

[TheRomeerome]

Mr. Pollack was a master director, writer and actor!

[GavSalkeld]

Great video! Wheres it from?

[psxdriverplayer]

In Finland where I live there's a channel that shows us some movies with the original aspect ratio, but all others usually 4:3 Letterbox or 16.9 Full

[outlawstarr417]

BOY, do i remember the days when we weren't used to widescreen, and we used the Zoom feature alot. "why is this screen so wide? Zoom in! Zoom in!"

ahh, the caveman days.

[soaresdanniel]

With DVDs and blu rays and whatnot perhaps they could have these days some sort of alternate information track that does a "mapping" for the pan-scan, and, of course, the original director then does the "mapping" of the area to be zoomed in, and panning as he'd find better, perhaps even with some eventual non-full screen scenes if he thinks that a given scene can't afford to miss the whole area.

[soaresdanniel]

@soaresdanniel perhaps one could even take in consideration all that during the filming itself, and for those scenes that would be unacceptable as 4:3, they could make a 4:3 version or have more image up and down, so it would be the widescreen format that would have some image cut out. It wouldn't be the perfect framing perhaps, but at least wouldn't have the weirdness of a widescreen scene and the black borders amidst 4:3 full screen scenes.

[RMProdux2008]

i hate converted widescreen movies in 4:3 format!!! it cuts out all the action. the thing that sucks about it too is that this is the way its been for home video for decades!! when u use to buy vhs tape versions of movies yeah it fills your screen but cuts out important action. but i also hate letterbox movies on a 4:3 tv! the letterboxes are so annoying yet i know this is the only way to truly get the full original picture. the problem is TV standard format. they should just stick to one. 16:9

[MrJohnny333]

R.I.P

[Ryogu]

How did we live with fullscreen VHS tapes?!

[143rdqueenz]

Good video. Pan and scan sucks

[slop101]

I LOVE Sydney Pollack and I HATE cancer!

[JohnFortman]

Don't know 'bout you guys, but I still prefer fullscreen, one character is missing, not a critical loss, you know. It's how you got used to.

[IrisMG]

Dear Electronics Industry: Make properly proportioned TVs that will fit movies please! I want to see this at the next convention.

[justinhhhfan]

After watching this video, I understand why a new bluray disc is 2.35:1 instead of 16:9. Would someone please tell me why they sell HDTVs with a 16:9 ratio when most movies are shot in 2.35:1? If they sold the TVs in 2.35:1 then there would be no black bars and we would be getting they "whole picture". Or was the market just flooded with 16:9 TVs so everyone would buy these then have to go buy another one in 2.35:1 when they come out? that's corporate America for you. thanks.

[IrisMG]

@justinhhhfan I think that's the question I have, too. Wasn't the point of changing from the picture tube to what we have now with the HDTV so that we could watch movies and have them be more like theater experience? With either Tube TVs or HDTV, the movie still doesn't fit. I don't understand it. Maybe a different kind of TV is on the way, or maybe we should skip TV & go straight to the projection screen! LOL

[SpaceButler01]

@justinhhhfan Then 16:9 and 4:3 movies/shows would have large black bars on the sides. You'd still have black bars on most things you watch, just in different areas of the screen On top of that, you'd need to buy a tv a few sizes up from what you currently have in order to get the same dimensions on a 16:9 image. There's a lot of geometric issues people don't take into account, they just don't want to see black bars. If you have enough room for a 2:35 HDTV, you have enough to buy a projector.

[justinhhhfan]

@SpaceButler01

I agree, I guess 16:9 is a good "middle" between 4:3 and 2.35:1 so that the news has only small black bars on the sides and movies have only small black bars on the top. After thinking about it more I realize that our current 16:9 TVs are just like they should be. Good point.

[GIMPtricks]

The most annoying thing is that movies shot in the 80s in full screen are now being panned to wide screen. AGAIN information is being taken away just to make it fit on your new wide screen TV.

[seanwu1204]

feel better Mr. Pollack.

[TheEgg185]

im satisfied with fullscreen. i just dont NEED all that extra information to understand the story. widescreen on a square tv means ill be squinting to look at shit i dont need to see. ive never been a big movie / home theater / surround sound fan. i am satisfied with the sound that comes out of my square tv's speakers.

[EmpireLS56KW]

I agree I prefer Panavision scope 2.35:1

4:3 sucks

SCOPE 2.35:1 RULES

[RAIDERS7009]

..widescreen = best way to watch any movie

[Dark3x]

This is why I don't watch movies on tv.

[geekboyII]

It's not about widescreen, or pan & scan. It's about original aspect ratio. Movies should be seen the way the filmmakers intended it to be seen.

[Agroulinggrwaler1999]

Pretty much every movie before Cinemascope was invented in 1953 was made in Academy Ratio (1.37:1 / 1.33:1). However, I love Cinemascope. If every movie was made in that ratio, we would have lived in a better world. I remember when I watched Grease on Vhs as a kid and a week later I watched a bit of it on Dvd. I thought the Vhs-version was better because it was fullscren. I don't like 1.85:1 though, it looks so big and not the same flexible as Cinemascope.

[AOCRkid]

basic composition lol

[monkeyboy85]

I own some newer films which are widescreen AND fill my screen with no black bars, they are labeled as 1:1.85 anamorphic widescreen. Is this a new process?

[happyplaneta]

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. I've seen several films and videos in widescreen and I have always found with many faces and objects cut from above and below.

Search by google: The Widescreen Scam



[4headreviews]

@happyplaneta watch a side by side of Ben Hurr (Wide screen and full), or Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (wide and fullscreen) and tell me what gets cut off, and what makes you sick

[foxsux6000]

i never got why only america sold 4:3 dvd's, there are a few European ones but you don't have the dual-dvd option i saw with allot of movies in the US.

one is full-screen and one is wide-screen, even wide-screen on a regular tv looks better than pan-scan crap.

[Troyman021]

Films in 1:85:1 don't lose as much picture as those in 2:35:1. So I'll only watch pan and scan films (which you can't always avoid these days) if they're original ratio was 1:85:1 (lose only 25-30% picture) because they aren't too bad. As for any pan and scan films originally filmed in 2:35:1, I'd avoid at all costs.

[Akerfeldtfan]

Ok, I get what they are saying, but here's the issue for me. Black bars on my plasma TV lead to plasma burn. This is obviously a big issue, and I don't want my TV screen getting fucked up because of the bars...

[4headreviews]

@Akerfeldtfan easy fix: it's a plasma so change your black settings to the deepest black the letterbox will go, and it won't burn in. and, unless you watch movies for more than 5 hours at a time, your tv is fine

[4headreviews]

@Akerfeldtfan Wait. You want full frame (1.33:1) movies on your wide screen (1.66:1) plasma television, wouldn't the vertical black bars on the sides of the image burn in too?

[Akerfeldtfan]

@4headreviews In my instance I actually don't have vertical bars, only horizontal.

[willsingsful]

@Akerfeldtfan I can see why he didn't reply back. Why did you buy an HDTV for lots-o-cash and not connect your DVD player properly?

[TapionXG3]

He makes a point. I just wish a windscreen standard would be accepted. i hated the black bars so i decided to get a windscreen 16:9 screen. And now i just get smaller black bars. i wish movie makers would go either 2.35:1 or 16:9 because getting a blue ray and seeing 1920 x 817 is annoying. and i know film makers didn't want people to see stretched scenes. Why don't manufactures make tv's with the same aspect as movie theater screens? i haven't sen many 2.35:1 tv out there,

[SinglCuteGuy]

@TapionXG3: It really isn't that simple. Films throughout time have used the following aspect ratios: 1.33:1 @ 1.37:1 @ 1.85:1 @ 2.35:1 ... 16x9 tvs use an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 ... As you can see, there is a discrepancy between film and tv. Now, Anamorphic telecine transfers *could* be used, but the purists would complain since visual information will be either lost or "squished". Not all people can be satisfied, so the current tvs are a good, but not perfect compromise.

[MrBrian987987]

i wish i had a widescreen tv :(

[Beale64]

I have a great deal of respect for Sydney Pollack, but it bothers me that he changed his widescreen format to better suit the television screen. Come on, Sydney, you make movies for the big screen, not the small screen!

[VideoPussy]

great video. anyone who prefers full screen is uneducated on the matter and could use a widescreen tv.

[MaskedMirage]

weren't you listening? there is no such thing as "black bars".

there is nothing there because it was not filmed to fit your tv or monitor

[starwarsrebel2006]

I always watch widescreen because when you see a movie in a theatre, the movie screen is not square shaped like your old TV. It's rectangular, just like a widescreen TV. What I don't understand is, why do I still get black bars on my widescreen monitor? I watch a DVD that is not pan and scan but widescreen, and it still shows up the black bars on my widescreen monitor. Shouldn't it fill the whole screen just as it would a movie theatre screen?

[simulacrity]

Wide screen TV aspect ratio of 16:9 (or 1.78:1) is different from film's normal aspect ratio of 1.85-2.44:1, so to fit the whole image in you get the black bars top and bottom. Not ideal, but better than on 4:3 screens. You can usually also set up your TV to use Zoom display, where it fills the height of the screen, but that obviously lops off some of the image at either side. Personally, I prefer to see the whole thing, just a little smaller.

[jcbstn77]

@starwarsrebel2006 The reason you still see the black bars on a widescreen DVD is because the DVD itself is formatted for a square TV. If it were a Blu-Ray, or an actual HD formatted disc, then you would not see the black bars.

[MrJsmit]

Pan & scan sucks, but some just want to watch movie. I myself love 2.40:1 out of all the ratios because its has more space and room for stories and I love the way they look on 4:3 tvs, but some films don't need the ratio and waste it. The reason 2.40.1 is the main is pan&scan techs can take 50% & re-film it for tv and some do remarkable jobs. I like this movie and have the OAR version, but full or wide, just enjoy. (I agree on this cause the screen is the story.)

[Incrediboy2000]

Fullscreen and Pan and Scan piss me off. Unless you're paying attention, you might accidently buy the Full-Screen version.

Fullscreen shouldn't even exist, if it will, make it the other side, not it's own DVD. It's bullshit.

People who love Fullscreen and Pan & Scan deserve to lie at a rotten poison apple.

Widescreen is better! Widescreen wins the war!

[kIpPeIn0oB]

i always buy the widescreen....but its hard to convince my parents....they get mad at the black bars. especially some movies (cant think of anything atm...300 possibly) that was shot with a super widescreen ratio.

[bubbaali021]

the only mistake i did is buying the full screen version of final desanation 3

[TruthTube88]

OAR is correct. Other manipulations away from OAR are WRONG.

[zorkie]

People who like pan and scan don't like movies. They simply want to be entertained for 90 minutes. If they liked movies they wouldn't want to see a half-movie. (they'd also invest in a bigger tv)

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

I made a picture explaining this whole thing to a friend of mine using a still from Carlito's Way (shot in Panavision 2.40:1). In the courtroom scene at the beginning, in the full screen, you only see Pacino, but in the widescreen, you also see the prosecutions side of the court room which is what De Palma intended.

He totally got it

[DamageIncM]

Aw man, it's sad that he went to the stupid square format.

He could have continued using widescreen and always still have it even though TV-station or whatever would cut them up.

The original would still have looked the way he wanted.

[dralezero]

There are actually scene(s) in LoTR that, while using Pan Scan main characters standing in groups, etc... some characters are actually CUT OFF the screen or you just see their arm.

[Gunde]

pastorjdh, get a tv with a zoom function and fill the screen yourself. The rest of us want OAR

[Gunde]

Un-fucking-believable that this is still debated in 2009!!

[donbello65]

You're an idiot. It's not what YOU want, it's what the director intended. Ugh.

[pastorjdh]

The Dictionary defines entertained as: Pleasantly occupied. If someone is pleasantly occupied with 1/8 of the picture and it blown up 12 times then they are being entertained. If they have to squint to see the small picture between two huge black bars and irritated about it the whole time they are watching they are not being entertained. Half of the morons on here think they are missing out on life because they can only see the road and not everything around them while they drive. Use some sense

[johniethescotie]

1/8 you are on drugs man, go enjoy your "entertainment" Movies are filmed and they are released the way the film was intended to be viewed, zoomin in on the film does not in anyway make it more entertaining. End of story.

[pastorjdh]

Ok johnie, I will accept that zooming in does not make the film more entertaining to you. What guys like you who cannot seem to accept is that it may make it more entertaining to others. Entertainment is in the eyes of the one being entertained. You will never find a definition of entertainment that has anything to do with making sure you are seeing everything someone else wants you to see. That is truly the end of the story.

[TheNOHH]

So let me get this straight you're saying that

1. The director is wrong, it's not about what he wants.

2. People who accept the directors vision are wrong, because it's not what you want.

3. People who think zooming in is great are right because it's entertainment thus it's somehow correct?

Idiot much?

[freeshynetherappa]

wow pastorjdh didnt even listen to him. You MISS OUT ON INFO! then your not even being entertained...

[pastorjdh]

I LISTENED very intently and I could care less if I miss the outskirts of what the director wants me to see in his artistic expression. TO ME it is foolishness. My focus is on the center of the screen and the action taking place and I would much rather have my 58" Plasma full of picture than huge black bars making the picture smaller. For you to say I am not being entertained because I can't see all the info originally filmed is retarded to say the least. Use your brains.

[pastorjdh]

I don't care what you want me to see. I care what I want to see and that is my tv full of picture. I am not looking at art I am watching and entertaining movie.

[johniethescotie]

you are a muppet enjoy missing half the picture, fool!

[pastorjdh]

Are you on drugs or just naturally ignorant? What are you talking about? A muppet? Enjoy half the picture? Are you deranged?

[andrew5060]

you must watch bad movies and want to miss half of the picture, other then that there is no reason to zoom in unless you are watching a 15" screen 10ft away.

[doa766]

I suppose that 2:35, 1:85 and 1:33 and 4:3 and 16:9 are concepts to difficult to understand for most people

just remember this: movies are shot to be shown on theaters not on your HDTV or monitors, the bigger the black bars on your TV the bigger the screen on the theater

[Adv2k169]

The problem is I bought a WIDESCREEN Monitor, and I assume that Wiidescreen DVD"s would fit and not have black bars.

That still happens. It's frustrating when 50% of the screen is black bars because they shoot the damn movie in such a widescreen.

Why can't they shoot movies in 16 x 9 ? That's plenty wide.

[baemsn]

OMG! That's terrible, you should return the TV immediately..... Your comment is so retarded it would serve no purpose explaining why this is!

[azckk]

You'd be amazed at how great some 2.32:1 films can look. Problem is a TV that wide will leave you with pillar boxes as big as someone's head xD

[AGrandt]

Because the cinema screens are 1:2.35 and not 1:1.85 (16:9)

Besides, Philips just made a 1:2.35 TV screen.

[AGrandt]

Ok, the correct way to write aspects are actually 2.35:1 and not 1:2.35, sorry about the mistake.

Btw, the Philips screen is also called 21x9, which gives you an idea of how wide it is compared to 16x9 and 4:3 (12x9)

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Because 2.40:1 aspect ratio is preferred by many cinematographers and directors, and I think it looks better than 1.85 myself

[JoeNostalgiaReturns]

fullscreen sucks.

The only time it really works is when it's IMAX, cause the screen in so big that you really are put into the world. You get widescreen, but also extra space to help immerse you.

But fullscreen and pan/scan 99% of the time is like wearing an eyepatch.

Widescreen really helps put you into the action and makes the experience much more cinematic.

People think you lose half the picture, but you're actually getting twice as much.

[azckk]

I used to think fullscreen was better when I was a kid, I regret that

[cjwillwin]

lol same. I'm not super elitest in the sense that I don't get rid of my full screen dvds, but I do prefer wide screen now and sometimes cringe at the full screen movies in my collection, although that might just be OCD not angry at full screen.

[xLonelyAspiex]

@azckk Me too, now I refuse to watch pan and scan movies. It's an insult t the director.

[MonkeyNews]

The inventor of pan and scan needs to be forced to watch this video, over and over and over again!

[AndreY2J]

FullScreen Sucks

[Nolifereviews]

I CANNOT watch a movie in Full-Screen!

I tried it with the movie The Lord of the Rings, and could SO not take it. WHy would anyone want to go and watch an action movie such as Lord of the Rings in Full-Screen!?

Every single action and battle sequence will be ruined!

[dogwood1995]

OMG Lord of the Rings (fullscreen). WHAT KIND OF A MOVIE IS THAT??? It gives years of Peter Jackson's great directing and ruins it.

[CptSpauIding]

@Nolifereviews careful to not mix up Full-Screen and Pan & Scan

In a movie like the shining or evil dead, the "full screen" version contains actually more information than the widescreen one. And so here it's more complicated to say what version is best.

a "pan & scan" version, on the other hand, is always shitty.

[kermifairy]

Thanks for this video, I seriously never new the difference but man what a difference!!!

[juanerotube13]

I love widescreen now.

[ProduccionesJAPS]

he almost cries.... lol

[WhoahDudeProductions]

when?

[glenwoodfin]

I'm thinking that the new upload settings for YouTube widescreen in HQ is best at 1280 x 720 pixels resolution at 30 fps.

If you find out anything different, let me know. This works for Vimeo and the new Flip Mino HD.

[widerangledotcom]

actually, that would be youtube's widescreen in 'HD'. not that it is actually 720p, still, it's a lot nicer than HQ or standard!

and you can upload it at any fps now apparently, 23.927 (is that right? the film one anyway) works even apparently.

[widerangledotcom]

so ironic, with the new youtube player - and this video being uploaded in letterboxed 16:9... so it now also has pillarboxes.

[WhoahDudeProductions]

or, windowboxed

[widerangledotcom]

well, yes.

...thanks.

[amazingdany]

Pretty cool Moviemaking 101 by the late SP..

[TVperson1]

Why not just film on 1.78:1(16:9), then mask off the top and bottom for the cinema version and release the 16:9 version for DVD? A good director can work around two different ratios, like on TV ads.

[godzilla19892012]

because thats FUCKING stupid

[MuzikJunkyAES]

The auteur has a vision that the television screen does not dictate. The aspect ratio is an essential part of that vision. The auteur must never be at the mercy of technology--it must be the other way around. Peace.

[TVperson1]

The aspect is really just to make it look better in cinemas. If DVD is the primary market, shoot 16:9. Scope really gives you less vision because a square fits into cirular lens area better than a rectangle does, so you end up with a the top and bottom cut off anyway.

[MuzikJunkyAES]

That only depends on which process and lenses the DP uses. For spherical, I understand your argument, but using anamorphic lenses gives you higher resolution. Peace.

[Orangeflava]

he's using an avid?

[TVperson1]

Probably because it costs more than Final Cut Pro.

[IntermittentSprocket]

Have this film on region 2 DVD.

Bravo Sidney widescreen rules.

R.I.P.

[infinitybutterfly4]

I totally agree with this guy I hate watching movies that were originaly in widescreen and "they" put it in fullscreen. I like widescreen the black bars don't interfere with the movie as some people think.

[tyronnarito]

Woah that totally cleared all cloudy things in my head. really. i was thinking about how they deal with that widescreen thing..

thanks for uploading!

[Zickcermacity]

Trying to dispel the general public's interest is something I think even Pollack - RIP - would have a hard time doing.

Ditto proper calibration of the user menu picture controls and background settings(grayscale & geometry). Most people won't have it. "It's a brand new TV, leave it alone!" "Don't touch the menus - you'll mess it up!"

Yups - I've heard all the objections to creating an accurate TV image - and trying to surmount them should be a study in itself.

[johnlocke555]

Yup he is right.

[ryanaircaughtnapping]

What ie lov about Sydney's opinion is that, he's not discrediting the standard 4:3 ratio, moreover saying it is a "beautiful ratio". He is simply discrediting people trying to reproduce a 2.35:1 aspct ratio movie into an 4:3 ratio which it is not meant to be!

[Danila1]

The future is context-aware real-time video-resampling. You can actually resize widescreen into TV without losing information (and vise versa).

[jenzi666]

He's exactly right. I think the problem will swap in future, because HDTVs are always 16:9 (1.77:1) they will crop e. g. TV-Series which were originally shot 4:3 (1.33:1) on the Top/Bottom that they fill the 16:9 HDTV, because people will complain that they have black bars at the sides. I think that these "side-bars" will also be more annonying b. they make you see that 4:3 isn't that great for our field of vision. 4:3 is right if youre a cyclops :)

[jenzi666]

Another Danger ist that they crop or open up 1.85:1 films to fill out the full HDTV, but these films originally would have small bars at top and bottom. Maybe every1 should be informed about such things in school. ^^

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

HBO HD is already cropping 2.40:1 movies for HD as well as SD. A couple years ago, I watched Blood Diamond on HBO HD and they showed it in 1.78:1 when the movie was 2.40:1. What is wrong with HBO.

These days, even though I have HBO & Cinemax, I barely watch them because they chop all there movies to Full Screen. IFC (which shows there movies in Original Aspect Ratio) is pretty much the only movie channel I watch anymore.

[carmanfr]

Exactly what I think about the subject, Mr Pollack (where ever you are now)!

Great Vid

[dsneybuf]

Whoever invented pan and scan in the first place should be considered the Satan of filmmaking.

[dsneybuf]

I would like to give Pollack credit for saying that 1940s movies were made in 4:3 because I know some IMDB people who asked why It's A Wonderful Life never had a widescreen DVD.

[carmanfr]

It's A Wonderful Life was release on all DVDs in 1:1.33, not widescreen.

[Shortstacklover]

My thoughts exactly

[Flammiedrum]

You need to differentiate the size of lenses to the size of the film, or aspect ratio, that a filmmaker is working with. Lenses affect a paticular shots visual look, while the aspect ratio is the foundation. Think of it like this: lenses are like the paints an artist uses to create something, aspect ratio is the canvas they are working with.

[rajanlaad]

the film fraternity has lost one of its greatest pillars

[mint1mint2]

sydney just passed away. Very sad. R.I.P mate.

[malpasz]

A very sad day for the movies!

[almo8989]

The fact that ppl still complain about black bars and watch their movies in full screen amazes me.

[n40798]

If a director wants to show a wide angle, why don't they just use wider angle lenses? If directors would just stick to working with different lens angles, then all movies could be filmed in the same aspect ratio. Right? Or is there something i'm missing?

[darockk]

what he doesnt mention is that the picture is smaller on the screen in orignal format. I wouldnt want to watch in widescreen on a small tv! Also the resolution is not as good as a fullscreen resolution becasue you are not using the whole screen. i can see what he is saying though.

[dsneybuf]

I've heard arguments that Fullscreen has a lower resolution because blowing up the picture to fill the screen messes up the quality.

[times9]

okay,wot about letterbox lol

[runavaha]

My personal favorite format to watch is 2.35:1, it makes for the most startlin compositons if done right.

[furiousgeorge00]

With LCD and Plasma TVs all coming out at 16:9 ratio why is it that Directors aren't filming at 16:9?? A lot of TV stations are switching to 16:9 but film makers are still going skinnier, like 3:1. WHY? I've never been in a theatre with a 3:1 sreen.

[lovelohan]

because directors are continually trying to distinguish their movies from what's available in home entertainment. why would you pay money to go see their movie if you could fully replocate a home theatre like experience in your living room? when we finally get 3:1 tv's, the directors will then start shooting in some other ratio just to be different to what we get at home, and the cycle continues

[Experimentalfilms123]

The best movies are usually in widescreen, and to see them in fullscreen (Pan & Scan) is such a shame.

[tubeematic]

I aggree,

Pan and scan is dealwithible for less intense scenes but for more intense scenes it ruins the F---ing Movie :(

[tubeamatic]

I cant deal with pan and scan,

Like he said its not what the direcor wanted the movie to be.

[jkvanlith]

He may be 73 years old, but he's so handsome I just want to make hot, monkey love to him and have a couple of little Jewish babies with him.

[aaallleeexxx62]

100% Agreed

[sillybilly452]

so is that the same reason speilberg quit doing widescreen?

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Speilberg did Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull in Panavision again for the first time in 20 years; even Minority Report and Munich were in Super 35 2.40:1

[timboy219]

lol i know people who think widescreen cuts off the picture but obviously it adds

[tubeamatic]

ANd I know people who think croping 4:3 to 16:9 gives you more picture :D

[Watcher3223]

It's both, depending on how the film was done.

If it's anamorphic widescreen, such as CinemaScope, you WILL lose about half the frame when fitting it to 4:3.

If it's matted widescreen, such as Super35, you'll gain more picture in the 4:3 version, but this unbalances the composition and also may add info you DON'T want to see, such as light riggings, cables on the floor, or other junk. Plus, lots of FX shots are done with the intended format, so those shots will be cut up to fit the screen.

[crunchyword27]

pan and scan is evil! burn your home videos.

[eatsleep69]

So what your saying is you like to watch your movies written in a widescreen presentation, viewed at a 4:3 format. GOT IT!

[KentuckyBootleg]

Does anyone know what the background music is when Sydney is talking in the studio with the toothpaste comment?

[teletub]

The only reason people prefer non-widescreen over widescreen is, because they have small TVs.

[clrb15]

lol...go sydney...i love the passion that he has for choosing to view films in it's widescreen format...it's a lil bit funny...but in all honesty, widescreen is and should be the only way movies should be seen :)

[AuronTsubaki85]

You have a point. films that were filmed in Widescreen Format should stay the way they were filmed in & not Pan & Scanned. all films & tv shows should always stay in their original aspect ratios & not be tortured in any other way.

[dogwood1995]

TV shows should be filmed for the kind of TV they were meant to be shown on. Movies are meant for theaters and that is different, but TV shows are for TVs!

[rafibz]

thanks you.