DVD sales figures: WIDE SCREEN vs FULL

[Ranger REG]

Well, let's all agree that Fullscreen are useful for small TVs (screens less than 20 inches) such as a dorm room standard 13-inch, unless your floor is blessed with a common room-slash-den with a 27-inch TV.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

It isn't half. It isn't even a quarter.

Depends on the movie. With many films, it is indeed a fraction under 50% of the image.

Now, if you're watching, say, Terms of Endearment... well, you're crazy, first off, but it won't much matter which format it's in.

The most famous illustration of this is Blade Runner. Watch it in Pan-n-Scan, then watch it in widescreen. It's like a completely different movie. Did you miss the bit in the bacground where a motorcyclist was jucking into his bike? If you saw the movie in Pan-n-Scan, you did.

To take a more recent example, FotR. During the fight at Amon Hen there's all kinds of stuff going on in the background, including Aragorn grappling with an Orc while Legolas picks several more off.

I'm not the only person I know with this opinion.

No, you're not. Most people who have this opinion, however do so because they don't realize that they're missing about 48% of the movie, just like you didn't.

As for not missing the part of the film cut off by Pan-n-Scan... well, how would you know?

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Did you miss the bit in the bacground where a motorcyclist was jucking into his bike?

Oh my go..why that makes the movie so much...err.. wait.. no.. that does not change the movie one bit. It is still boring.

No, you're not. Most people who have this opinion, however do so because they don't realize that they're missing about 48% of the movie, just like you didn't.

"Missing" unimportant background is not missing the movie.

SD

 

[jasper]

watch the old black and white Bringing up baby in pan and scan.
Or ben hur widescreen.
pan and scan is okay but think of this way. Two lovers sitting in two chairs talking and slowly leading over to kiss. To widescreen two lovers sitting on opposide of couch then slowly leaning and kiss and you still see both ends of the couch.
yeah in wide screen you do loss detail for more detail.

 

[John Crichton]

A good example is the original Star Wars Trilogy. There is so much going on in the stuff that is cut that it really does feel like a different movie. It's not for everyone and many movies (most comedies, for example) don't need the widescreen treatment but I do think it makes movies that were made to be seen that way all the better.

Right now, I am saving up for a 16x9 widescreen capacity TV (not a big screen). They are not cheap but I want to watch movies and play games on it, so it's worth the wait.

 

[Mallus]

Are you serious?

"Missing" unimportant background is not missing the movie.
SD

Are you really saying that cinematography amounts to nothing more than "unimportant background". That the way a scene is framed, composed and shot has no impact on the drama, on what is being conveyed by the scene?

To me that's the equivalent of saying that acting isn't important. Have the actors deliver every line completely flat. You'd still get the gist of the story. Or to switch media, its like saying the colors an artist chooses for a painting are unimportant beacuse either way you'd still see the basic shape...

Sure, to what degree pan-and-scan affects a film varies greatly. I don't really need to see the widescreen version of "My Dinner with Andre". But for the works of directors from Kurasawa to Lucas you're missing something vital if you don't see the flim as shot.

I'm all for consumers having choices, but to relegate the visual component of film to background seems way off base...

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Re: Are you serious?

Are you really saying that cinematography amounts to nothing more than "unimportant background".

I am saying that people have enjoyed these movies long before wide screen was an option- and are perfectly capable of enjoying them now without it.

Regardless of what these apparently wide screen snobs think.

Sheeshus, what a stupid thing to be an arrogant jerk about. (Not you in particular- just about this thread in general.)

SD

 

[Mallus]

Re: Re: Are you serious?

I am saying that people have enjoyed these movies long before wide screen was an option- and are perfectly capable of enjoying them now without it.

Regardless of what these apparently wide screen snobs think.

Sheeshus, what a stupid thing to be an arrogant jerk about. (Not you in particular- just about this thread in general.)

SD

No offense taken.

Really my only point was that the way a scene looks on the screen carries dramatic weight. Its not --or at least it shouldn't-- merely be decoration.

And not to try to speak for anyone else, but the arrogant jerkiness isn't over the quality of ones AV gear, it has to do with film as an artistic medium. I watched plenty of great old films on a 20' black and white set as kid growing up and loved them. But that's not the same thing as saying that the cinematograhic artistry employed demonstrated in them was unimportant...

 

[Ristamar]

I am saying that people have enjoyed these movies long before wide screen was an option- and are perfectly capable of enjoying them now without it.

Regardless of what these apparently wide screen snobs think.

Sheeshus, what a stupid thing to be an arrogant jerk about. (Not you in particular- just about this thread in general.)

SD

Well, of course you can enjoy Fullscreen movies. I don't think anyone argued that you couldn't (at least I hope not). I still enjoy them, too, but I prefer Widescreen by far.

To tell you the truth, before I started watching a lot of DVD's, I didn't care about it all that much because there wasn't much of a choice. Most movies released on VHS didn't offer widescreen versions.

Now that DVD is the medium of the moment, I've realized how much I've been missing all these years (though, as others have already said, the actual screen percentage and the importance of the 'chopped' content varies depending on the movie and somewhat on the viewer).

I'll never buy another Fullscreen movie again if there's a Widescreen version available because I believe Fullscreen is an inferior product, technically and aesthetically, and I know many others that have adopted a similar mindset... unfortunately, sometimes people become a little too passionate about their beliefs, myself included.

Anyway, getting to the point... I believe one reason you'll find some Widescreen folk are touchy is due to certain stupid movie rental chains *cough*Blockbuster*cough* that won't always stock Widescreen editions. And then there's also the misnomer that is 'Fullscreen', causing many people to avoid Widescreen because of misinformation, which then cause the afomentioned movie rental chains stores to continue neglecting Widescreen editions in favor Fullscreen, when applicable. Hence, the Widescreen lovers feel cheated by this viscious circle.

 

[Mistwell]

I really think the widescreen folks are missing the point. And since I was repeatedly quoted out of context, I suspect at least a little intent behind it.

Look, the position for fullscreen is pretty clear I think for those who like it, but I will repeat it once again in an exagerated form so nobody misses the point.

Which would be better: 1) To look on a small painting from 100 feet away, or 2) to look on half of that painting from 1 foot away.

The answer is obvious to me: you cannot see any details of the painting from 100 feet away, and it would be better to see details from one foot away, even if you only see half the painting.

It is the same for us fullscreen folks, though less exagerated. We feel the loss of details inherant in widescreen, because everything on the screen gets smaller, is not worth it. At some point smaller details become unclear details, and eventually unseeable details for everyone. We have drawn that point with all movies (or at least most) because of the size of our TV, the distance we have to sit from the TV, our vision, or just the asthetics of a full screen.

And yes, I have compared the two systems, using the same movie, a few times. You really do lose less than 50% - far less - for every movie I tried. Perhaps there is some kind of compresion going on with fullscreen editions (like movie theatres use), and perhaps I just got a bad random sample (all I had was widescreen editions from friends to compare to the same fullscreen ones I had).

However, I took the case of star wars in particular - and y'all are not correct. I have an old VHS copy of A New Hope, and a DVD widescreen version - and it is NOT a 50% loss. FAR FAR from that. I don't know what you guys are talking about with that example.

In conclusion, we can both agree to disagree on this one - but please stop saying fullscreen people are all ignorant about what they are getting. It is a perfectly reasonable choice to use fullscreen versions rather than widescreen. It's just a matter of preference.