Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How do I watch a movie in itunes on my mac without 2 big black bars ?
- Thread starter PaulMBPEngland
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but the director had a specific way of telling that story, which utilises the whole screen (take Ben Hur as an example). Simply knowing the overall story and events that happened does not mean you watched their film as intended. By panning and scanning you're watching a rederected version of the film which has been cut by some technician, not the original director. That technician has moved the camera out of necessity, rather than artistically, and in any case certainly not as the director intended.
Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings is not the same as JRR Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. Andrew Lau's Infernal Affairs is not the same as Martin Scorsese's The Departed. Each director has their own way of telling the story, even though the story is the same. It's a bit like taking a Beatles album and removing the base guitar - you're no longer listening to the album as intended.
A more appropriate analogy would be watching a surround sound film with only one speaker - the centre speaker. I mean, if you ruin the wide picture by cutting off the edges, why not remove the side speakers and only have the centre speaker. You loose picture, and you loose sound.raggedjimmi said:
Fortunately, most DVDs contain more dual sound tracks, but in any case, 5.1 surround sound only enhances the sound/experience. Using standard speakers only does not remove anything, unlike pan and scan.
Thanks for your thoughts. It's also interesting to see how directors become concerned by various techniques for avoiding/distorting the full picture.
However, the colours seen by your eyes (~1/10 men are considered colourblind, and how can we test whether you see blue as I see blue?), the colour profile of the screen, the sharpness of the screen, the absolute size of your screen, the darkness of the room, the frequencies to which your ears are most sensitive, the environment in which you watch the film (distraction / temperature / comfort) are all well out of the director's control.
Meanwhile, my brain will do a lot of unconscious processing determined by my genetics and environment, so that a technique the director considers effective for e.g. emphasising some scene or mood might not even register to me. In fact, I've noticed in general that I don't process physically large areas well with my eyes - without noticing, I'm usually quickly focusing on some area of detail that interests me. Perhaps this is one reason I don't appreciate wiiiidescreen.
Arguments concerning specific cases where the full width is important - e.g. a painting of the Last Supper - are not arguments for the general case. Even then, Jesus' central placement is not incidental and I might be able to gain a lot of insight by only considering a central square, say.
I guess that when it comes down to it, I don't enjoy art - whether I'm studying some mathematics or watching a film - for the primary benefit of the artist. I'm either enriching myself with the possible intention of contributing back, or just chilling out. If someone were to supply their film and ask me to critique it then my approach would be different, but I would make the author aware of the above.
^ Good point. My right eye is lazy so the image is slightly darker in that eye. My body isn't conforming to what these directors have it mind so I guess I'm not seeing it (even in the cinema) as it was intended.
I'm curious to what you think about games, if the player can't afford a super computer and has to turn graphics to low does that also mean they're getting the experience? The developer intended the most beautiful and high-resolution of environments with as minimal load time as possible.
What about people who can't afford super brilliant speakers or headphones, are they not listening to music as it was intended since you potentially miss out on subtle instruments tucked away in a song?
So now we're removing 4/5 of the overall experience? Wouldn't a better (and slightly generous) analogy be removing the 2 rear speakers of a 5.1 setup?
I'm curious to what you think about games, if the player can't afford a super computer and has to turn graphics to low does that also mean they're getting the experience? The developer intended the most beautiful and high-resolution of environments with as minimal load time as possible.
What about people who can't afford super brilliant speakers or headphones, are they not listening to music as it was intended since you potentially miss out on subtle instruments tucked away in a song?
Do everyone still arguing:
the OP doesn't care anymore
And if you really want to crop sides in iTunes just hold Ctrl and scroll up.
Does that work with Windows/iTunes? I don't have any rented movies to test.
I don't rent/buy anything from itunes, but it works on my other movies/TV shows in iTunes.
I don't see why it wouldn't work, its just a system-wide feature and all it does is zoom lol.
There are actually people who don't even notice when a movie is distorted (worst is old 4:3 TV shows stretched to fill a modern 16:9 TV, or 2.35 : 1 movies squashed together). It makes me sick watching it, and they don't take any notice.
Cutting film on the sides to fill up the space makes some sense, because your picture gets bigger. It makes less sense on a 50 inch screen, but if you had a MacBook screen, positioned a few feet away so that three people can watch a movie simultaneously, then the overall experience could be better by getting a larger picture with the edges cut off.
I think there should be a switch to allow people their choice, probably with a compromise setting: Instead of just having settings (full movie, large black stripes) and (lots cut off, no black stripes) have a third setting (a bit cut of, small black stripes). And distorting the film should _not_ be allowed.
Yeah, I agree with this. The iPhone/iPods have the capabilities for 1 and 2, but not for 3. Should be pretty trivial to add it to iTunes.
Right, but the director did not intended for the film to be watched in a specific environment given that it would be out of his or her control, however the ratio within which they choose to tell the story is within their control, and altering it does effect the intentions of the director.Veri said:
What do you mean by "physically large areas"? Surely panning and scanning creates more 'physically larger areas' than widescreen which does not completely fill the screen, and so is obviously not as large.Veri said:
Widescreen does not mean everything becomes bigger, it just gives more space to tell the story; you can fit more people in the scene; you have more freedom in where you place actors and how you design sets, etc.
Although some films really are better in widescreen, the director could really shoot any film in any ratio. The point is not that one is better than the other, rather it is that when a film is shot in a certain ratio, the environment and the acting have been designed specifically for that ratio, so we should keep the ratio as it was originally intended, whether it is 4:3, 16:9 or something else.
Doesn't matter... the point remains: information is being removed.raggedjimmi said:
I don't see how this relates to video games. Gaming comes from the experience of doing, rather than watching, and games are interactive and changeable. The graphics play little part in the enjoyment of the game.raggedjimmi said:
Music comes from the totality of the instruments, not individual instruments. A better analogy would be cutting off the start and end of the track, or removing an instrument entirely.raggedjimmi said: