PDA

View Full Version : Fullscreen or Widescreen...


dave1234
Jan 20, 2004, 11:01 PM
Which do you prefer Fullscreen or Widescreen (im not sure if they are different words, or one)

I myself am a widescreen man, I dont know of any fullscreen people.

jelloshotsrule
Jan 20, 2004, 11:05 PM
you have to be ignorant to want full screen basically

which is how lots of people are

i've heard people in blockbuster and such asking for the full screen because they want it to fill the screen... they don't realize that they are in fact missing out on part of the picture.... but i guess can't really blame them, no one makes that clear

themadchemist
Jan 20, 2004, 11:06 PM
widescreen, but I wish that movies used 16:9 film so that it would fill my entire widescreen TV.

scem0
Jan 20, 2004, 11:16 PM
Which
http://kdfalin.topcities.com/graphics/psws/mummy-ps-reach.jpg http://kdfalin.topcities.com/graphics/psws/mummy-wide-reach.jpg
Would
http://kdfalin.topcities.com/graphics/psws/mummy-ps-trio.jpg http://kdfalin.topcities.com/graphics/psws/mummy-wide-trio.jpg
You
http://kdfalin.topcities.com/graphics/psws/mummy-ps-guns.jpg http://kdfalin.topcities.com/graphics/psws/mummy-wide-guns.jpg
Rather
http://kdfalin.topcities.com/graphics/psws/grail3_p.jpg http://kdfalin.topcities.com/graphics/psws/grail3_l.jpg
Look
http://kdfalin.topcities.com/graphics/psws/grail1_p.jpg http://kdfalin.topcities.com/graphics/psws/grail1_l.jpg
At?

Widescreen....

scem0

ColoJohnBoy
Jan 20, 2004, 11:27 PM
Excellent demo, sir. Widescreen all the way. Fullscreen is foolish. I don't have the motivation to find it now, but a few weeks ago The Onion did a little piece on just this topic...

saabmp3
Jan 20, 2004, 11:28 PM
Wow, that was a really good comparison. Did you just have those pictures or did you find them on a website somewhere?

BEN

scem0
Jan 20, 2004, 11:36 PM
Thank you, thank you. :)

I found them here:
http://kdfalin.topcities.com/fullscreen_vs_widescreen.html

scem0

ExoticFish
Jan 20, 2004, 11:57 PM
thanks, i've been looking for something like this to show my dad just how crappy full screen is!

jelloshotsrule
Jan 21, 2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by scem0
Which
Would
You
Rather
Look
At?


ideally nothing with brendan fraser. ;)

eyelikeart
Jan 21, 2004, 12:13 AM
give me the works... ;)

Kwyjibo
Jan 21, 2004, 12:34 AM
For me it depends on the situaiton / tv

if i'm on my laptop i enjoy the widescreen view but if i'm on the family 37" TV thats 4:3 i'd rather watch i nful lscreen because it works better on that screene

G5orbust
Jan 21, 2004, 12:37 AM
Widescreen all the way. Now if I could only get rid of those annoying black bars that go across the top of the screen on my widescreen TV while watching a DVD...

Nermal
Jan 21, 2004, 01:03 AM
Definitely widescreen.

One of the local TV stations has a terrible habit. They take 2.35:1 movies, then crop them down to 16:9. But they always show you the centre of the frame, so you end up with the wrong part of the picture a lot. I don't see how anyone can put up with that.

MacNut
Jan 21, 2004, 01:20 AM
I only watch my DVDs in widescreen, but i hate how the networks "edit to fit my screen" why cant they show it in its natural form, I hate that.

jrv3034
Jan 21, 2004, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by MacNut
I only watch my DVDs in widescreen, but i hate how the networks "edit to fit my screen" why cant they show it in its natural form, I hate that.

Absolutely. They should show widescreen movies always. I personally don't mind the black bars on top & bottom; it makes it feel like a real movie. I remember specifically the movie that made me want to see everything in widescreen... it was Apollo 13. I got the widescreen VHS for Xmas one year, and then they played it on TV in full screen mode, and I couldn't believe the difference! Almost half the movie wasn't there!!!!:eek:

Anyways, since then I've gotten every movie I own (DVD or VHS) in widescreen format. I find it baffling when I hear people at the store desperately searching for the full screen version of anything. If only they would see the light!

Scem0- Great demo! Can't wait to show that to my friends!

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 21, 2004, 09:41 AM
That was pretty good scem0, a picture is worth a thousand words. widescreen all the way.

LethalWolfe
Jan 21, 2004, 12:46 PM
I'm an OAR man myself. Original Aspect Ratio. Not all films were shot widescreen. ;)


Lethal

tpjunkie
Jan 21, 2004, 02:20 PM
Good point, it was some point in the early 50s that movies began to be filmed in the widescreen format, i believe.

Mr. Anderson
Jan 21, 2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by tpjunkie
Good point, it was some point in the early 50s that movies began to be filmed in the widescreen format, i believe.

Ha, believe it or not, Panavision (panoramic size film) was an answer to television. They made it bigger specifically so that TV couldn't compete and it would keep people from watching movies at home and have a reason to go to the theaters.

D

rueyeet
Jan 21, 2004, 02:32 PM
Fullscreen....but only on a widescreen TV or display. :p

My sister once had a friend so gullible, she convinced her that when the movie says it's been formatted to fit your TV, it actually meant HER specific TV.

2jaded2care
Jan 21, 2004, 02:36 PM
I think the reason the big 4 networks don't broadcast in widescreen is because they don't want someone's switchboard jammed because some oldster thinks his or her tv is now broken, there's these ugly black bands on the screen, and will someone please just fix it?

Of course I prefer to see movies in their original aspect ratio. (16x9 I don't believe is exactly a legitimate filmed motion picture aspect ratio, btw -- close to 1.85:1, but actually 1.78:1...)

I do have a related question, though, maybe some of you real videophiles can help. Would it be better to get a "widescreen" tv, or the "same" size 4:3 (regular screen) tv? I mean, the screens are measured diagonally, right? So, isn't, say, a 34" widescreen actually slightly wider but lots shorter than a 34" regular screen? I mean, arguably, the widescreen might give you slightly more real estate on a widescreen movie than the regular screen, and do away with the black cropping; but if you can live with the bars on a 4:3 screen, wouldn't that be almost as large as the widescreen, while giving you a much bigger standard 4:3 image?

Is this just a question of which do you watch more, tv or DVDs? Is the solution to have a "regular" tv and a "media room" tv?

Or am I just not making any sense here (always a possibility)?

krimson
Jan 21, 2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I'm an OAR man myself. Original Aspect Ratio. Not all films were shot widescreen. ;)


Lethal

Agreed!

ExoticFish
Jan 21, 2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I'm an OAR man myself. Original Aspect Ratio. Not all films were shot widescreen. ;)


Lethal

that's a great way of thinking about it. i don't want to watch something fullscreen that was cute from a widescreen original, but at the same time i'd hate to watch ST:TNG in some funky widescreen.

virividox
Jan 21, 2004, 03:15 PM
widescreen!!! actually i want a movie theatre hehe

isus
Jan 21, 2004, 03:24 PM
i like widescreen, i mean what the hell is the point of buying a widescreen pbook if i don't have widescreen dvd's?

however, family members get me fullscreen sometimes. oh well... it doesn't bother me to the point where i will waste the time to go return it and deal with that shiat.

Awimoway
Jan 21, 2004, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I'm an OAR man myself. Original Aspect Ratio. Not all films were shot widescreen. ;)

No but all films ought to be filmed in widescreen. From a film theory standpoint, fullscreen is egotistical. It makes conversation shots with more than one person on-screen crowded. Therefore, they are usually avoided and conversations tend to be composed of back-and-forth cuts between single individuals. Widescreen gives you a comfortable view of both speakers in a convo.

revenuee
Jan 21, 2004, 08:34 PM
Definitely widescreen

For the exact reason Scem0 showed :D

mind you ... i have a few DVD's that have both fullscreen and widescreen on different sides ...

sometimes it's just easier to put on the fullscreen version then argue about why the widescreen is better.

Personally i like the black bands across the screen. But i know people that hate it

"duh, i payed for the fullscreen, i wanna use it" :rolleyes:

ExoticFish
Jan 21, 2004, 08:37 PM
Awimoway, i LOVE that video up on your .mac site... absolutely hilarious! i'm assuming you did that?

Awimoway
Jan 21, 2004, 08:42 PM
No, no. Not me. I love it too, though. There's a little info about it here: link (http://www.haebc.com/mt/archives/000180.html)

2jaded2care
Jan 21, 2004, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Awimoway
No but all films ought to be filmed in widescreen. From a film theory standpoint, fullscreen is egotistical. It makes conversation shots with more than one person on-screen crowded. Therefore, they are usually avoided and conversations tend to be composed of back-and-forth cuts between single individuals. Widescreen gives you a comfortable view of both speakers in a convo.

I agree with you mostly, but what do you mean by "widescreen"? The ultra-wide screens of the epics (2.35:1), or the more standard, not-quite-so-wide 1.85:1? I'd argue both of those have a place, depending on the subject matter.

Personally, I have a preference for 1:85, as I think it more closely mimics the "angle" of human eyesight including peripheral vision (and it's closer to the Golden Rectangle!). Really wide screens irritate me after a while, I feel like I'm watching a tennis match.

4:3 aspect ratio is only good for closeups, which was all you could see clearly on early tvs anyway.

MarkCollette
Jan 21, 2004, 09:34 PM
I have no idea why people complain about the "ugly black bands". Do those same people complain about seeing the walls, roof and floor, around the screen, in a movie theatre?

- Mark Collette

Nermal
Jan 21, 2004, 10:19 PM
Before we got a DVD player, I used to rent DVDs and play them using the TV out on my PC. Of course, the movies were in widescreen.

We recently got a DVD player. While we were waiting for it to arrive, she asked me a question.

Mum: Will the new DVD player fix the movies?
Me: What you do mean by "fix" them?
Mum: Will it stop them from being skinny?

:rolleyes:

Thanatoast
Jan 21, 2004, 10:56 PM
I have a friend who specifically looked for and purchased the fullscreen version of Lord of the Rings, to play on his brand new fullscreen w(v?)ega tv/. Of course I called him a heathen barbarian blasphemist, but he insisted that fullscreen was better. Beating people isn't allowed (unless you're a cop) so how am I supposed to convince him he's an idiot? I mean, Lord of the Rings, people! With all those swooping landscape shots! In fullscreen! It's criminal.

Really, I can't see how this is even a debate. Perhaps if you had a thirteen inch television, but otherwise, there's no excuse.

shadowfax
Jan 21, 2004, 11:39 PM
well, it's like PC vs. Mac, isn't it?

Widescreen IS better in my opinion, as a format for filming and viewing, just like Macs are better.

but most people don't care, even if you don't tell them. and ohhh well. i would never buy anything but widescreen myself, but it's not the end of the world to watch a fullscreen, just like it's not the end of the world to use somebody's PC.

i'm a fan of OAR as well, i suppose. there's no reason to crop anything, ever. damn your modern "translations" of shakespeare, too! read it like it is, bastards!

mmm, i feel a wave of stuffiness coming on.

Nermal
Jan 22, 2004, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
I have a friend who specifically looked for and purchased the fullscreen version of Lord of the Rings, to play on his brand new fullscreen w(v?)ega tv/. Of course I called him a heathen barbarian blasphemist, but he insisted that fullscreen was better. Beating people isn't allowed (unless you're a cop) so how am I supposed to convince him he's an idiot? I mean, Lord of the Rings, people! With all those swooping landscape shots! In fullscreen! It's criminal.

Really, I can't see how this is even a debate. Perhaps if you had a thirteen inch television, but otherwise, there's no excuse.

I didn't know you could even get fullscreen versions of LOTR! Or most other movies for that matter.

LethalWolfe
Jan 22, 2004, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Awimoway
No but all films ought to be filmed in widescreen. From a film theory standpoint, fullscreen is egotistical. It makes conversation shots with more than one person on-screen crowded. Therefore, they are usually avoided and conversations tend to be composed of back-and-forth cuts between single individuals. Widescreen gives you a comfortable view of both speakers in a convo.


How do equate fullscreen to egotistical? And you can easily have a convo between two people and not make it feel crowded you just have to widen the shot. Now, you can't really have a tight shot of two people having a conversation w/out them getting nose to nose. But sometimes you don't want both people in the shot. You might want the audience to focus more on character Y than character X.


A film should be shot in the aspect ratio that the director thinks will best tells the story. Many of Kubricks movies had, by comparison, "narrow" aspect ratios.

It's interesting how we've grown to associate widescreen and 24fps as cinema, or right, or art when, in fact, both were created out of mere neccesity<sp?>. As someone else mentioned widescreen became the format of choice for movies in an attempt to get people away from TV. And the 24fps film speed was choosen as a cost saving measure.


Lethal

juaopk
Nov 30, 2004, 05:31 PM
i tried to watch several widescreen movies on my pb 17", but always runs on fullscreen (with those black bars on the right, left side).. anyone knows how do run on widescreen?

jimsowden
Nov 30, 2004, 05:52 PM
Give me 2.35:1 or give me death. I even hate it when movies are in 1.33:1(like 16x9) because of the lack of widescreeness.

Mr_Ed
Nov 30, 2004, 06:08 PM
...
I do have a related question, though, maybe some of you real videophiles can help. Would it be better to get a "widescreen" tv, or the "same" size 4:3 (regular screen) tv? I mean, the screens are measured diagonally, right? So, isn't, say, a 34" widescreen actually slightly wider but lots shorter than a 34" regular screen? I mean, arguably, the widescreen might give you slightly more real estate on a widescreen movie than the regular screen, and do away with the black cropping; but if you can live with the bars on a 4:3 screen, wouldn't that be almost as large as the widescreen, while giving you a much bigger standard 4:3 image?

Is this just a question of which do you watch more, tv or DVDs? Is the solution to have a "regular" tv and a "media room" tv?
...
I guess I see it as a question of what you want to give priority to. I personally LOVE movies, and the wide screen formatted ones will look larger on my 42" wide screen monitor than they did on my old 35" 4:3 TV, even though there isn't much difference in size for standard TV broadcasts. The room in question is relatively small, so a significantly larger TV (4:3 or otherwise) was out of the question for me. I suppose if you want to give priority to standard TV broadcasts, you could choose a 4:3 screen and get the largest possible 4:3 image given any size constraints in your room.

Thanatoast
Nov 30, 2004, 06:55 PM
i tried to watch several widescreen movies on my pb 17", but always runs on fullscreen (with those black bars on the right, left side).. anyone knows how do run on widescreen?To possibilities I can think of. I apologize in advance for putting forward these *very* basic suggestions. First, are you playing the correct side of the disk? The one marked "widescreen" should be facing up when you put it in the drive. And two, You might have had a fullscreen DVD.

Sorry, all my movies play properly on my mac, so...

OnceUGoMac
Nov 30, 2004, 07:00 PM
I'm an OAR man myself. Original Aspect Ratio. Not all films were shot widescreen. ;)


Lethal


It reminds me of this kid in one of my film classes (the know-it-all type) that complained that Casablanca wasn't shown in widescreen by the professor. :D

MacNut
Nov 30, 2004, 07:11 PM
It reminds me of this kid in one of my film classes (the know-it-all type) that complained that Casablanca wasn't shown in widescreen by the professor. :D

I always have that complaint. :p

Capt Underpants
Nov 30, 2004, 08:47 PM
I had no idea that a full screen movie cropped off so much! Gosh darnit, and I just bought the Star Wars triolgy in full screen! Crap!

Jovian9
Nov 30, 2004, 09:19 PM
Is this just a question of which do you watch more, tv or DVDs? Is the solution to have a "regular" tv and a "media room" tv?

Or am I just not making any sense here (always a possibility)?


I have a 53" HDTV Widescreen by Panasonic that stretches the corners of the picture......so that when you are watching TV or 4:3 movies it will make them fill the whole tv.....and it looks great. You can't even tell their is stretching being done. And it has settings for widescreen movies where it does not do that.

Mr_Ed
Nov 30, 2004, 09:23 PM
I have a 53" HDTV Widescreen by Panasonic that stretches the corners of the picture......so that when you are watching TV or 4:3 movies it will make them fill the whole tv.....and it looks great. You can't even tell their is stretching being done. And it has settings for widescreen movies where it does not do that.
Yeah, if it's anything like my Sony, it's not obvious the image is stretched. I guess they do no stretching in the middle of the screen and then do progressively more as you move out toward the sides. The easy way to tell is when there is a diagonal structure or line across the screen. Instead of looking straight, it will have a bit of an "S" shape to it :)

LethalWolfe
Nov 30, 2004, 09:34 PM
I have a 53" HDTV Widescreen by Panasonic that stretches the corners of the picture......so that when you are watching TV or 4:3 movies it will make them fill the whole tv.....and it looks great. You can't even tell their is stretching being done. And it has settings for widescreen movies where it does not do that.


Especially on a screen that big I don't see how you can't notice how distorted the 4:3 image becomes.


Lethal

Mr_Ed
Nov 30, 2004, 09:53 PM
Especially on a screen that big I don't see how you can't notice how distorted the 4:3 image becomes.

Well, the thing is, unless you have another screen nearby, you have no point of reference. In many "scenes" it really is difficult to tell if you are immersed into whatever you are watching. If you look for the distortion, you'll have no problem seeing it though.

cornfedgrowth
Nov 30, 2004, 11:06 PM
For all my serious movie watching, i prefer widescreen, or whatever the orginal was shot in. However, on my 20" 4:3 TV, a wide screen movie becomes very small. So small, that you lose a lot of detail. As much as i wish i could get nice Widescreen, i dont NEED it. So i guess what i'm saying is, on a large TV i'd go Widescreen all the way, but fullscreen is better for smaller TVs.

MrMacMan
Nov 30, 2004, 11:09 PM
Wide screen.

w00t w00t.

Come ON:

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord_rings_rotk/rotk_12l.jpg vs. http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord_rings_rotk/rotk_12p.jpg
http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord_rings_rotk/rotk_01l.jpg vs. http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord_rings_rotk/rotk_01p.jpg
http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord_rings_towers/towers_03l.jpg vs. http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord_rings_towers/towers_03p.jpg

I think the choice is clear.


FULLSCREEN R0X0RZ

jimsowden
Nov 30, 2004, 11:15 PM
For a cinematic masterpiece like LOTR you need to get the widescreen. Its like taking a picasso and cutting off the edges because it won't fit in the frame you have. Anyway, since widescreen dvds are higher res than 4:3ers, you can use the zoom function if you need to see it fullscreen, and then you're ready for when you get a WS TV. (Untill HD-DVD, next year!)

saabmp3
Dec 1, 2004, 12:18 AM
For a cinematic masterpiece like LOTR you need to get the widescreen. Its like taking a picasso and cutting off the edges because it won't fit in the frame you have. Anyway, since widescreen dvds are higher res than 4:3ers, you can use the zoom function if you need to see it fullscreen, and then you're ready for when you get a WS TV. (Untill HD-DVD, next year!)

Where did you hear this? I'd like some proof before I believe it.

BEN

Spymit007
Dec 1, 2004, 12:43 AM
As I've worked at a Blockbuster, I consider myself an expert on this. Of course the true moviephile will only go widescreen. Conversely, if you're watching some hokey children's movie or the like, watching it in fullscreen isn't that bad (it might have been in fullscreen originally anyway). It's been my experience that people who "prefer" fullscreen don't even know the difference between widescreen and fullscreen. When I would explain to them what the difference was, they would ALWAYS go widescreen. Even those who didn't like seeing the black bars on the top and bottom wouldn't find them so bad after I told them that they'd be losing more in fullscreen.

Some people just need to be told what they don't know.

Wouldn't it have been easier if back when TV was invented, they produced widescreen television sets to begin with and made the widescreen aspect ratio a universal format?

JFreak
Dec 1, 2004, 12:51 AM
i have a HDTV (720p) widescreen projector and a 100" screen. i just HATE it with a passion when some stupid tv channel crops movies to square ratio. that's just unacceptable :mad: :mad: :mad:

LethalWolfe
Dec 1, 2004, 12:57 AM
Well, the thing is, unless you have another screen nearby, you have no point of reference. In many "scenes" it really is difficult to tell if you are immersed into whatever you are watching. If you look for the distortion, you'll have no problem seeing it though.

Do you really need a point of reference to notice that everything is too wide? Obviously a side-by-side comparison will make the distortion more apparent, and some images will "stick out" more than others, but stretching a 4:3 image to cover a 16:9 screen is no less subtle than squeezing a 16:9 image into a 4:3 screen, IMO.


Lethal

LethalWolfe
Dec 1, 2004, 01:10 AM
Wouldn't it have been easier if back when TV was invented, they produced widescreen television sets to begin with and made the widescreen aspect ratio a universal format?

As mentioned earlier in this thread there was no widescreen back then. Movies were shot 1.33:1 (4:3) because that is the aspect ratio of 35mm film. When TV came out the movie studios felt threated and thought they needed gimmicks to keep people coming to the theaters. Widescreen, like 3D and electrodes in theater seats, was a ploy to pull people away from their TVs.

Of course widescreen itself is a vague term as there is more than one aspect ratio used in filmmaking.


Lethal

Spymit007
Dec 1, 2004, 09:44 PM
As mentioned earlier in this thread there was no widescreen back then. Movies were shot 1.33:1 (4:3) because that is the aspect ratio of 35mm film. When TV came out the movie studios felt threated and thought they needed gimmicks to keep people coming to the theaters. Widescreen, like 3D and electrodes in theater seats, was a ploy to pull people away from their TVs.

Of course widescreen itself is a vague term as there is more than one aspect ratio used in filmmaking.


Lethal

Very interesting to know. I guess I missed that section of the thread. I was told (incorrectly it seems) that Hollywood films were always produced using a widescreen format. I'm thinking about the golden age classics like Casablanca, Citizen Kane, anything from that era. I guess I'm wrong though but I swore that all those classics and many others were filmed in widescreen format.

Mr_Ed
Dec 1, 2004, 10:27 PM
Do you really need a point of reference to notice that everything is too wide? Obviously a side-by-side comparison will make the distortion more apparent, and some images will "stick out" more than others, but stretching a 4:3 image to cover a 16:9 screen is no less subtle than squeezing a 16:9 image into a 4:3 screen, IMO.

That's just it. Not everything is too wide. I don't know, maybe my TV does it differently. I'll agree if you take a 4:3 image and just stretch it linearly to fit a 16:9 space, it will indeed be obvious. The way my TV does it, the center of the image is not really stretched much at all. It then stretches gradually more as you move towards the outer edges. The net effect is that you cover a 16:9 space but only the outer (left, right) most parts of the image are distorted the most. Since much of the "action" in what we watch on TV is typically at or near the center of the image, the "stretch" is not as noticeable when you watch, unless you are actually making a point to see what the distortion is like. If you are watching something with a lot of straight lines, you'll notice. If you happen to be watching an "outdoors" scene with foliage, for example, it's hardly noticeable.

I would find it hard to believe only Sony does this "logarithmic" (for lack of a better term) stretch on "wide screen" displays. Can anyone else chime in on how their wide screen display stretches 4:3 to fit 16:9?

Mechcozmo
Dec 1, 2004, 10:55 PM
That was pretty good scem0, a picture is worth a thousand words. widescreen all the way.

A word is worth 1/1000th of a picture.

:D

LethalWolfe
Dec 1, 2004, 11:43 PM
That's just it. Not everything is too wide. I don't know, maybe my TV does it differently. I'll agree if you take a 4:3 image and just stretch it linearly to fit a 16:9 space, it will indeed be obvious. The way my TV does it, the center of the image is not really stretched much at all. It then stretches gradually more as you move towards the outer edges. The net effect is that you cover a 16:9 space but only the outer (left, right) most parts of the image are distorted the most. Since much of the "action" in what we watch on TV is typically at or near the center of the image, the "stretch" is not as noticeable when you watch, unless you are actually making a point to see what the distortion is like. If you are watching something with a lot of straight lines, you'll notice. If you happen to be watching an "outdoors" scene with foliage, for example, it's hardly noticeable.

I would find it hard to believe only Sony does this "logarithmic" (for lack of a better term) stretch on "wide screen" displays. Can anyone else chime in on how their wide screen display stretches 4:3 to fit 16:9?

Granted I haven't seen the model of TV you own, but I think we just have a difference of perception. I work w/audio and video so I tend to be more "sensative" towards it. Something doesn't need to look obviously distorted very much for it t be distracting to me. Maybe if I watched more 4:3 on a 16:9 screen I would get used to it and stop noticeing as much.


Lethal

Mike Teezie
Dec 2, 2004, 01:12 AM
Widescreen only for me, please.

Getting a cinema Display ruined me for life. I'm don't watch any TV, all I watch is DVDs - and I find myself looking at a lot of WS TVs online these days.

JeDiBoYTJ
Dec 2, 2004, 09:25 AM
Widescreen all the way!

I love my 65in Widescreen HDTV, and with the DirecTV HD Package, the movies that are shown on HBO-HD and such, are all widescreen :D

kylos
Dec 2, 2004, 09:32 AM
I always forget to make sure I get widescreen, and then just about puke when I get home and discover my mistake.

Mike Teezie
Dec 2, 2004, 09:50 AM
I always forget to make sure I get widescreen, and then just about puke when I get home and discover my mistake.

I know the feeling, i accidentally bought the FullScreen edition of Matrix Revoultions.

I promptly got back into my car, drove back out to the mall (cursing my own ignorance the enitre way), and exchanged that piece of crap for the WS version.

Muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccchhhhhhh better.

sushi
Dec 2, 2004, 09:59 AM
I'm an OAR man myself. Original Aspect Ratio. Not all films were shot widescreen. ;)
Totally agree.

Not all films are shot in widescreen, nor is all widescreen the same.

Sushi

zelmo
Dec 2, 2004, 10:22 AM
OAR all the way, and I'll always buy the widescreen DVD if it is available.

My wife used to hate the widescreen presentations because she lost so much of the available height of the TV screen to the black bars top/bottom, especially on 2.35:1 aspect movies. You crop out a lot of the original image with a 4:3 aspect, but the picture you get in widescreen is tougher to see across the room on a small screen because of the reduced viewing height. This is a much bigger problem on a 13" or 19" bedroom TV than it is on a big screen, especially when the TV is on the other side of the room (and as you get older, too!).

We used to argue about whether to rent/buy FS or WS versions once in a while, but I solved it by getting a 16:9 HDTV a few years back. Now she loves WS.

Thomas Veil
Dec 2, 2004, 11:43 AM
My wife is one of those misguided people who just hates the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen; so whenever she rents a movie, it's in fullscreen. Yecch.


Do you really need a point of reference to notice that everything is too wide? Obviously a side-by-side comparison will make the distortion more apparent, and some images will "stick out" more than others, but stretching a 4:3 image to cover a 16:9 screen is no less subtle than squeezing a 16:9 image into a 4:3 screen, IMO.l
Yeah, my sister-in-law does this to all TV programming, all the time...and it's very annoying. Even allowing for the logarithmic trickery, it's not going to look right. Standard "stretching" just makes everybody look like a bunch of short, fat people, and the logarithmic TVs sound like they have a kind of reverse-fisheye look.

I work in the video field, and I recognize a distorted image immediately, no matter how tricked-up. My sister-in-law has football parties, and watching a game on her TV is just odd. Players look different when they're standing than when they're bending over at the line of scrimmage. Even more bizarrely, in long shots the stupid football field looks 150 yards long. http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/yeahright.gif

aloofman
Dec 2, 2004, 12:11 PM
Of course I prefer to see movies in their original aspect ratio. (16x9 I don't believe is exactly a legitimate filmed motion picture aspect ratio, btw -- close to 1.85:1, but actually 1.78:1...)

I do have a related question, though, maybe some of you real videophiles can help. Would it be better to get a "widescreen" tv, or the "same" size 4:3 (regular screen) tv? I mean, the screens are measured diagonally, right? So, isn't, say, a 34" widescreen actually slightly wider but lots shorter than a 34" regular screen? I mean, arguably, the widescreen might give you slightly more real estate on a widescreen movie than the regular screen, and do away with the black cropping; but if you can live with the bars on a 4:3 screen, wouldn't that be almost as large as the widescreen, while giving you a much bigger standard 4:3 image?

Is this just a question of which do you watch more, tv or DVDs? Is the solution to have a "regular" tv and a "media room" tv?

Or am I just not making any sense here (always a possibility)?

Lots of questions here. Even today, movies vary in their aspect ratios. So you can't get a widescreen set that will fit all movies, even recent ones. I'm a widescreen person myself, although before DVDs I could understand the argument. I once taped a widescreen version of "The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly" off cable and it looked pretty crappy. That movie had a very big aspect ratio and a VHS recording of a cable show with a picture that small just didn't yield very good visuals. Of course, it doesn't help that Sergio Leone liked half of his shots to be wide shots!

Anyway, you shouldn't buy a widescreen TV with the idea of it's equivalent size to a 4:3 TV set. It should be about how the picture size and resolution matches the room you're watching it in. Some very big screen sets only look great if you sit a good distance away. If you have a small living room, it can sometimes make sense to get a smaller set.

Then there is the fact that only some widescreen sets are HDTV. Some are "enhanced" TV sets that aren't true HD and can't show high-def or standard-def to full effect. Some of these sets may be "digital" but can't make a lot of compromises to justify their high prices.

Here's a good primer on the current state of HDTV:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2110469/

joepunk
Dec 2, 2004, 02:52 PM
I always forget to make sure I get widescreen, and then just about puke when I get home and discover my mistake.

I to know that feeling (I do not mean the puking part) as when I went to purchase Master and Commander DVD and forgot to check for widescreen. I don't know if M&C was meant to be widescreen or not. So, it really did not make that much of a difference to me after I pondered my mistake (tossed the receipt, no chance of exchanging it) for that one DVD.

Also, I will at some point do a side by side comparison of my parents widescreen M&C to my fullscreen.

jayscheuerle
Dec 2, 2004, 02:53 PM
I would find it hard to believe only Sony does this "logarithmic" (for lack of a better term) stretch on "wide screen" displays. Can anyone else chime in on how their wide screen display stretches 4:3 to fit 16:9?

I find it distracting, as anything that goes to the outer edges of the picture stretches and looks like it's snapping in or out of the picture like a rubber band. For example, if someone's hand was in the center of the screen and they reached offscreen, their fingers would quickly stretch as they approached the side. It can be nauseating at times...

I've found that a 27" lcd shows widescreen movies at about the same size as a 32" 3:4 tube.

Widescreen DVDs do NOT have additional resolution, and even if they did, it wouldn't matter because your TV couldn't display it. HD DVDs are just around the corner... (Let me clarify this)- In spite of widescreen movies being letterboxed on 4:3 screens, Anamorphic recordings have the full vertical resolution of a 4:3 movie, but as presented on a 4:3 screen, every 4th pixel or so is tossed out. If you zoom in on these movies on a 4:3 set, you will access the tossed aside pixels and the image will retain additional vertical resolution, though the horizontal resolution will be as distorted as zooming in on a regular 4:3 movie. Is this clear?

I was surprised when I saw Gone with the Wind at the theater and it was 3:4!

sushi
Dec 2, 2004, 06:50 PM
In spite of widescreen movies being letterboxed
I hate that term, "Letterboxed." :mad:

When Hollywood first came out with offerings in LaserDisc that were Letterboxed, they were just that, cut versions. They did not represent what you saw in the theater. It really sucked.

In those days, Fullscreen version were much better because you could actually see from top to bottom of the original film in a pan and scan format. However, with some of the Letterboxed movies, they were really Letterboxed and the tops of heads would be chopped off at times. And I mean seriously chopped off down to the eyes. It looked horrible.

Then they saw the light...well sort of. They started with the Widescreen versions. But in the early days, many of these were modified as well. So they sucked too.

Finally, they provided Widescreen movies where they preserve the Original Aspect Ratio which is really nice.

I still cringe when I think about the Letterboxing they did in the early days. Luckily, I only purchased a few Letterboxed LDs due to limited funds. However, I had many friends who didn't realize the difference who purchased many of them at the time and later regretted it after seeing the difference.

We've come a long ways for sure since those days.

Sushi