Widescreen of Fullscreen?

Discussion in 'Community' started by vniow, Dec 7, 2002.

  1. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #1
    When you buy DVDs, what format do you prefer, widescreen (16x9) or fullscreen? (4x3)

    Personally, I prefer widescreen. When a movie is formatted to fit a regular TV screen, the sides of the picture are cut off.
    It's not exactly a lot, it's just annoying.
    I'd rather see the whole picture with black bars on top and bottom then have part of the movie cut off.
    Plus when you're watching a widescreen format movie in a dark room, you hardly notice the black bars.
     
  2. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #2
    widescreen. that's how the film maker intended it to be seen.

    it's just funny that people see that the screen is not full and think they're not seeing as good an image or not seeing it as big as they could be.

    if you take a side by side of a film at it's native aspect ratio with it at 4:3 for tv. you will see how much you are missing. and it's increasing with the popularity of shooting quite wide.
     
  3. strider42 macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #3
    Re: Widescreen or Fullscreen?

    On some movies, the full screen version can cut off as much as 40% of the picture. I hate watching full screen movies. it annoys me while I'm watching it because hald of people's faces will be out of the screen, or something on the periphy thats important just isn't there. Its a worthless format in my opinion. If I accidentally got a full screen only version of a movie, I'd take it back to get the widescreen version. The black bars aren't annoying at all, and in fact work very well for subtitled movies, since they can put the sub titles there.
     
  4. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #4
    Widescreen all the way. The first time I saw Star Wars Widescreen I was blown away by how much of the movie I had missed all the years of seeing the fullscreen version....

    If you like Star Wars, and you haven't seen Episode IV widescreen, you will be amazed when you do....

    Oh, yeah, I like my widescreeb TiBook too. :D
     
  5. LimeiBook86 macrumors 604

    LimeiBook86

    Joined:
    May 4, 2002
    Location:
    Go Vegan
    #5
    Why not have widescreen? Fullscreen is like missing out on the movie! These people I saw in WallMart today seemed "happy" to find teh Full Screen version of Spider-man, Wierd huh? I meen watching a widescreen movie in full screen is like cutting off the sides of a Christmas Tree, it wasn't ment to be, hee hee


    500 Posts! YEAH! My avatar should be up soon :D Yes!!!
     
  6. Dignan macrumors 6502a

    Dignan

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    #6
    "I hate widescreen because it cuts off the top and bottom of the picture, thats SO dumb!"

    A kid said that to me once.


    I like wide.
     
  7. BenderBot1138 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    #7
    The Wizard of Oz in Widescreen???

    FullScreen (really called "Standard") is correct for some movies because that's the aspect they were produced in. While there were exceptions, most pre-1955 movies had an aspect ratio of 1.37:1 (4:3). Try Viewing "It's A Wonderful Life" Starring JimJimJimmy Steward in Widescreen and you'll have to squint so your eyelids do some matte work for you.

    WideScreen on the other hand has several aspect ratios. The two that most contemporary (post 1955) filmmakers adhere to, and audiences are used to, are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. There are technical terms that the Academy uses to refer to these formats, but it's not worth mentioning them as most people refer to the numerical ratio, and only film makers bother with those details.

    Essentially, you'll find that the ratios vary as a historical issue more than as a matter of choice of todays film makers. All this is regulated by a very powerful film organization, and believe me, you'll be paying huge fines for doing things that don't comply, like failing to adhere to title formating, or puting a producer's credit at the end of a movie rather than the beginning.

    Aspect ratios can be thought of like everyone speaking a language I'd say; people who speak English understand that their specific language follows certain rules. So too do audiences expect certain things in theaters. Having a picture that is triangular might be interesting to those who follow film as Art, but forget about the audiences finding the same level of interest in such an experiment; most persons who go to films would get a headache if they had to focus so harshly on the format of the film rather than it's entertainment.

    Human horizontal field of vision is about 180 degrees for most persons (not all) and 90 degrees for vertical field of vision. This is odd, considering that the same eyes see sideways as up and down, but alas. This aspect ratio is more 1.85:1 than 4:3, so like me, many people prefer the WideScreen format.

    Today modern High Definition Televisions and Comptuer Displays (like the Powerbook I'm typing this on) have wider aspect ratios. And with aspect ratios that vary from the Standard format of older televisions we might not see so much of the FullScreen/Standard format in video formats - with the obvious exception of pre-1955 movies.

    :cool:
     
  8. vniow thread starter macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #8
    well looks like most people here agree with me, suprise suprise......

    You're definately right about the different formats, there are two that are the most popular though; 1.85:1 (about 16x9) and 2.35:1 (dunno what aspect ratio it's closest to)
    A normal TV screen is about 1.33:1 so if you're watching a movie formatted in 1.85:1, you're losing about 28% of the movie while if you watch a 2.35:1 formatted movie on a regular TV screen, you're losing about 43% of it.

    My mom just went shopping and got 3 DVDs (only one I care about really) , all of them fullscreen. We have a 32" TV, it's not like the movie's going to be small.

    Plus, like jello said, it's how it was meant to be seen, that's also why I keep my equalizer flat.

    Oh and they are the kind of people who would shop at Wam-a-lart though, maybe that explains something.

    PS- could somebody change the 'of' to an 'or' pretty pleaze?
     
  9. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #9
    Wide screen - even though the overall image might be smaller, the amount of information or imagery is larger. Not only that, widescreen is how the film was shot, so its how the director wanted you to see the movie.

    D
     
  10. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #10
    I get pissed when I rent a DVD that only has fullscreen. :mad:

    Widescreen all the way...looks nice on my VEGA TV in 16:9 enhanced mode. :D
     
  11. kiwi_the_iwik macrumors 65816

    kiwi_the_iwik

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #11
    I like to think of Widescreen as an interpretation of how we see things in reality - after all, our vision is not 4:3, is it? Our eyes are set up in such a way that we see things much wider, rather than taller - more closer to 16:9 (actually, probably closer to a 70mm print at the cinema!).

    This is the primary reason why films are set out in widescreen format - it's easier for your mind to become involved in the movie, easier to be absorbed into the storyline. The next time you go to the movies, think about the boundaries of the screen after you've come out of the theatre. I bet you wouldn't have even noticed them - the movie's dimensions drew you in, because your eyes didn't have to make a major adjustment to convince your brain that you were there, with the actors.

    That's why cinema is such a fun experience, and a powerful medium.



    So, in answer to your question, ed -

    Widescreen, definitely...

    ;)
     
  12. losfp macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney
    #12
    we just bought a new widescreen TV a few weeks ago, so guess which format I like? :)

    Obviously I don't mind 4:3 material where that was the original aspect ratio, like TV shows, or whatever. But if the makers of the film wanted it to be shown in 2.35:1, then I would like to see it in 2.35:1!

    Not quite as annoying as having a fullscreen DVD (unfortunately I have a couple of butchered DVDs) but still annoying - DVDs that aren't 16:9 enhanced!


    {/home theatre snob rant}
     
  13. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #13
    16:9 all the way! It still bugs me that fact that more regular TV broadcasts arn't in that format.
     
  14. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #14
    boomtown is! great show...

    i was in blockbuster and a woman had rented or purchased a few dvds and they had black bars... the person was trying to explain to them about widescreen vs full.... and how some dvds have one on one side and one on the other, and some have 2 different versions, or you can choose on the dvd sometimes...

    the woman was convinced that there was a defect... once she agreed it wasn't, she was determined to find only full screen versions.. ha
     
  15. irmongoose macrumors 68030

    irmongoose

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Sometimes Tokyo, sometimes California
    #15
    Definetely widescreen. I literally HATE how fullscreen makes everything look so out of proportion. YUCK.

    So, yeah, widescreen... oh how I wish we had the money to buy a new TV! (And is there any way I can replace my 15" display on my iMac to the 17"?? pretty please? :p )




    irmongoose
     
  16. zarathustra macrumors 6502a

    zarathustra

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #16
    I wish US standard makers had the balls to establish an analog (and later digital HDTV) 16:9 standard.

    In Europe almost all new TVs you buy have a 16:9 ratio, because a while back, 97/98, the new PAL standard (16:9, higher resolution, better TeleText, etc. ) became the defacto standard. Everyone here is concerned about the other folks, who are not ready to buy a new TV.

    Kinda the same reason PCs still have an LPT, serial and PS2 port, when pretty much no new peripherals are produced with those ports.

    Widescreen all the way.
     
  17. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #17
    I think you might be wrong, but I can't find anything right now to back me up on this, I'll try a later and see. Maybe one of the film geeks will know about it.

    The reason films are wider than tv is that when Television threatened the film industry, the film companies retaliated by coming out with panavision and other large, widescreen formats, to give you that bigger experience. I'm not sure about the dates, but if I find any history of film info on line I'll post it.

    And now tv has caught up with the film industry, but I don't think any thing will replace the movie going experience, but its definitely better to have widescreen at home.

    D
     
  18. ExoticFish macrumors 6502a

    ExoticFish

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    The inner depths of madness, aka Kent, OH
    #18
    Hurray for widescreen!

    My dad always get annoyed when he comes over to watch a movie and all my movies are in 16:9 format. He feels like he's being cheated. Personally I can't stand fullscreen.
     
  19. mattevil macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    #19
    widescreen if it was shot that way.
    I only like widescreen because it gives me more picture but I don't like widescreen versions of films that were filmed fullscreen such as evil dead and most television shows.I see black bars as a neccesary evil until widescreen tvs come down in price.
     
  20. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #20
    Re: Hurray for widescreen!

    Tell him to get you nice 50" or more plasma screen hdtvs and then put on the 16:9 format movie with no black bars on the top and bottom and then he won't him get cheated.....:D
     
  21. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #21
    widescreen, but the black at the top and the bottom of the screen
    starts to annoy me. But I don't care wide is better.
     
  22. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #22
    I prefer widescreen as it offers more detail and the original format of the shots. In a few fullscreen cases I have noticed that the panning has been badly or choppily done. I don't mind fullscreen however but I find widescreen to be better.
     
  23. Over Achiever macrumors 68000

    Over Achiever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Toledo, OH, formerly Twin Cities, MN
    #23
    lol...I'm guessing the consensus is...
    W I D E S C R E E N

    I agree with the general opinion :)
     
  24. medea macrumors 68030

    medea

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    #24
    yeah its a no-brainer here, widescreen, the "fullscreen" or standard formatted version ruins the film. I have no idea why so many people out there though have a problem watching the movie with the the letterbox around it......:rolleyes:
     
  25. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #25
    i DO think that landscape photos are more aesthetically appealing than portrait style.

    as well as wide images in general.... i think i'll make my film like 40:1 ratio... really W I D E!
     

Share This Page