DVD sales figures: WIDE SCREEN vs FULL

[Mouseferatu]

How the heck did you get a DVD copy of A New Hope? I thought the original SW trilogy hadn't been released on DVD yet, and wouldn't be until the new trilogy was completed!!

 

[Mistwell]

How the heck did you get a DVD copy of A New Hope? I thought the original SW trilogy hadn't been released on DVD yet, and wouldn't be until the new trilogy was completed!!

It's just the VHS widescreen copy burned to DVD...

 

[Ristamar]

It's just the VHS widescreen copy burned to DVD...

Damn. You had my hopes up for a very brief second.

Anyway, I just looked at my last post and realized I was ridiculously unclear about the point I was trying to make... (I have to stop posting in a rush from work). Even though it's my opinion that Fullscreen is 'teh suX0r', I'm cool with people preferring Fullscreen, and I think it's great you guys did actual comparisons to find your preference. My apologies if I came off as snobbish or condescending.

All in all, I simply wish stores would try to educate consumers with their purchases and rentals. Since Fullscreen was the unchallenged standard during the VHS era, the average guy that walks into a video store doesn't understand the difference between Full and Wide. The end result is people who are left unsatisfied, either because the format they want isn't available (as in stevelabny's case), or they find there are 'strange black bars' stealing screen space when they watch a movie.

Now, to get on-topic for once... try www.411mania.com to check DVD sales charts. It seems the site is down at the moment, but I looked at a cached page on google which listed DVD sales rankings when the Scorpion King debuted on DVD. The Fullscreen version came in at #1 while the Widescreen version was at #2. Unfortunately, they didn't list the sales numbers for each title on the chart. You might be able to garner some basic comparisons, though, once the site is up and running again.

 

[Mistwell]

From that site you mentioned:

TOP DVD SALES
For week of March 8th, 2003

1. My Big Fat Greek Wedding (1st week out)
2. Sweet Home Alabama (2nd week out)
3. Brown Sugar (1st week out)
4. Dinner with Friends (1st week out)
5. X-Men 1.5 (1st week out)
6. The Bourne Identity - Widescreen (4th week out)
7. Signs - Widescreen (7th week out)
8. The Bourne Identity - Pan & Scan (4th week out)
9. 101 Dalmations II: Patch's London Adventure (4th week out)
10. Angel - Season 1 (1st week out)

 

[Kai Lord]

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).

Perhaps some of your incorrect information stems from watching VHS movies that were originally shot in Super 35, or "open matte". The Matrix, Jurassic Park and Titanic are a few examples. Its a "TV friendly" format where the filmmakers shoot a film with a 4:3 television aspect ratio with the intent to crop it to for display in movie theatres. The "intended vision" and true shot composition is what's shown in the wider format, and sometimes things such as sound booms and such can be seen in the open matte format when its shown on TV, but its a choice some directors make to prevent their films from being butchered on TV and video.

It should be noted that special effect sequences too expense to create only to be cropped for theatrical release are created for the widescreen format then Pan and Scanned for TV like a film normally would.

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.

You make it hard to claim you aren't ignorant when you believe that Star Wars shown in 4:3 ratio is FAR, FAR from being a 50% loss of a 2.35:1 ratio. Sorry. Do the math. Its about half. Maybe you shouldn't base your conclusions on half-ass DVD bootlegs.

 

[Mistwell]

You make it hard to claim you aren't ignorant when you believe that Star Wars shown in 4:3 ratio is FAR, FAR from being a 50% loss of a 2.35:1 ratio. Sorry. Do the math. Its about half. Maybe you shouldn't base your conclusions on half-ass DVD bootlegs.

I don't know why you are being so aggressive, but calling me ignorant when your beliefs are theory only, while mine are based on doing the actual experiment, is pretty rude.

It isn't a "bootleg", it's my own copy from my own VHS tape, and it isn't a half-assed job. I just wanted it in DVD (which is much easier to store) rather than VHS.

But just to satisfy my own curiosity, I pulled out the original VHS tapes, and right now I have two identical size TVs set up in my den, with two VCRs. On one is the Silver VHS version (widescreen), and on the other is the gold version (fullscreen). They came out at the same time, and are the same exact versions with the exeception of the formatting. They are playing, right now, right in front of me, virtually perfectly synced up (there is about a third of a second difference in their playing...so the sound is echoing from one TV to the next - it's a bit odd).

I wish my digital camera had a battery right now...I could post a picture of it (though pictures of Tv screens never look good).

The loss is not 50%. It's not even 40%. It's not just obvious to the eye, but I can actually measure with a tape measure on the screen the loss on each side, and divide that into the total distance across the screen. It is about a 36% loss.

In addition, it is easy to also spot the loss of detail you get by going to widescreen. In the scene I am watching right now, little detail on R2D2's casing is lost on the widescreen, because it is so small (unless I move my chair much closer to the screen). Those details are easily seen on the fullscreen version.

Which would Lucas prefer I see of his movie, the details on R2D2, or the wall he built next to R2D2 right now that I cannot see on the fullscreen version? I don't know. I suspect he would feel both are important, and would tell me to go see it in the theatre where it belongs, and quit watching two TV sets at the same time.

My conclusions are based on facts. Actual measurements, and actually doing the experiment. Yours are based on theory, not fact. Do the experiment yourself, and you will find I am correct.

 

[Mallus]

What really gets me about pan and scan...

...is the way it shifts the locus of attention in scenes. Consider a shot with two characters talking where you see the speaker fully but can olny see the bridge of the nose on the other. You lose the reactions of the listener. I can't site a specific scene/film but I'm certain I've seen that in some pan and scan jobs. I think in most good films virtually every element of the shot is working to produce an effect.

What's more important, the original aspect ratio or close-up detail? For me, its aspect ratio. I think losing the whole of the scene is potentially far more damaging to a film. To each his/her own. But I can can always sit closer to my hardly impressive 27' TV.

 

[Kai Lord]

I don't know why you are being so aggressive, but calling me ignorant when your beliefs are theory only, while mine are based on doing the actual experiment, is pretty rude.

Do you understand what an aspect ratio is? It isn't a theory, it isn't an expiriment, its a literal figure.

A 2.35:1 film cropped for a 4:3 TV loses exactly 43.26% of the picture. That's a little under half. Claiming that its nowhere near half is simply being ignorant. Not a jerk, just ignorant. And that's a fact. If that seems rude, then I apologize.

 

[Mistwell]

Do you understand what an aspect ratio is? It isn't a theory, it isn't an expiriment, its a literal figure.

A 2.35:1 film cropped for a 4:3 TV loses exactly 43.26% of the picture. That's a little under half. Claiming that its nowhere near half is simply being ignorant. Not a jerk, just ignorant. And that's a fact. If that seems rude, then I apologize.

Kai, your theory is that you have the aspect ratio correct, given to you by someone else. You have faith that what they did and the information you have is accurate. I am looking at it, right here, right now. How can I be ignorant when I am looking right at the thing you are talking about, and telling you it is not what you think it is. I am measuring it, in real time. Perhaps they used some kind of compression while formatting the fullscreen version, perhaps your information is just inaccurate, but I am viewing the ACTUAL FILMS, side by by, and it is not a loss of 50%, nor 43%. It measures at 36% (which is nowhere near 50%).

I didn't call you a jerk, I just said you are being overly aggressive and rude. At this point, I'd ask you to view the actual movies to see for yourself.

Can anyone else out there do this experiment and let Kai know how it turns out?

 

[Kai Lord]

Kai, your theory is that you have the aspect ratio correct, given to you by someone else.

STAR WARS is presented in its 2.35:1 Theatrical Aspect Ratio.--printed on the back of the official THX Laserdisc release.

End of discussion.