DVD sales figures: WIDE SCREEN vs FULL

[Mistwell]

No you are not.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html

I saw that site. It is totally flawed. Those are not actual screen shots from the movie taken from each version. It is a shot from the widescreen, reduced by the web page owner to portray what he THINKS the fullscreen version will look like based on the aspect ratio written on the package. You can tell this, since the top-to-bottom measurement on each screen is identical, which of course it is not (widescreen is substantially smaller in this respect). By doing it that way and not showing the actual size difference, that site is fundamentally dishonest in what it is portraying in my opinion.

But, again, I want to be clear. I think both options are perfectly acceptable - some people prefer widescreen, others fullscreen, both are acceptable choices.

Is your position that nobody can reasonably prefer fullscreen? That everyone who prefers fullscreen is ignorant?

 

[Kai Lord]

I saw that site. It is totally flawed. Those are not actual screen shots from the movie taken from each version. It is a shot from the widescreen, reduced by the web page owner to portray what he THINKS the fullscreen version will look like based on the aspect ratio written on the package.

That's correct. The history of formatting and the entire photographic film industry, and all records thereof, are nothing more than a massive conspiracy to undermine Mistwell and his magic tape measure.

Hey Mistwell, you want debunk another international conspiracy? Its the lie that the moon is thousands of miles away. Just walk outside, hold one end of your tape measure against the horizon, and position the opposite end against the moon. Look, the moon is only inches away from Earth! Its true! In fact, anyone can perform this simple expiriment, and anyone who tries to explain otherwise is simply aggressive and rude.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I saw that site. It is totally flawed. Those are not actual screen shots from the movie taken from each version. It is a shot from the widescreen, reduced by the web page owner to portray what he THINKS the fullscreen version will look like based on the aspect ratio written on the package. You can tell this, since the top-to-bottom measurement on each screen is identical, which of course it is not (widescreen is substantially smaller in this respect). By doing it that way and not showing the actual size difference, that site is fundamentally dishonest in what it is portraying in my opinion.

Do you have proof that those are not screen shots of the films in question? Other than your eye I mean?


All of the examples shown on this page are freeze frames of actual DVD video, taken from discs which include both full frame and widescreen versions. The widescreen version will always be on the left.

Why do you debate this? Simply because it is a point different than youre own? I'll tell you what, when I worked at Tower Video over ten - thriteen years ago, back when I go into LD's, my supervisor and I did the comparison tests on our monitors in the store. We used two films that we knew that were pure 2.35:1, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Yojimbo. We used the Pan and Scan versions of these films to compare against (the P&S version of yojimbo was a VHS copy but it makes no difference, the debate is over the aspect ratio not the resoolution).

We had each film side by side with it's respective opposite:

Raiders (ws) next to Raiders (P&S)

Yojimbo (WS) next to Yojimbo (P&S)

I'll tell you what I saw not taking the size of the viewing medium (i.e the Monitor) into account, were taking about just the IMAGE that is being presented. You are losing a significant amount of information from either side at any given moment.

There's a scene in Raiders just when things are abou,t to go to hell in Marions bar. There's a standoff between Indy and Toht ( the Nazi with the glasses) and his henchmen. In the P&S version (at least the one that I saw, and I owned a P&S version of Raiders for at least a year until the WS version came out, Indy just turns and fires off to the left for no apparent reason.

In the WS version you can VISIBLY see that there is a shadow moving along the wall to his left, implying that someone was trying to get the drop on him and that's why he fired. No it's quite possible that in newer version of the P&S they could have fixed this by cutting accross to show the shadow, then cutting back to INDY firing. But then that's the studio re-editing for what they want you to see as opposed to letting you notice for yourself.

Now if you prefer P&S that's your buisness. But as someone who graduated from college with a Major in Media Studies and a minor in film and has had this discussion many a time with collegues and professors I can only say that everyone that I've spoken to would say that you do lose a significant part of the intended viewing image with P&S (at least with films shot in 2.35:1 and greater). I mean in older movies like Ben Hur you are even losing more.

Stick to your guns if you wish, but I've been having this discussion with people since I got turned on to it in 1989. I find it a little disconcerting that when presented with actual screencaps from DVD's you say that those are fabrications. I've seen this comparison up close and have done it in my own house. I disagree with you. Am I lying?

 

[danzig138]

do you not plan on buying a HDTV in the next few years to take advantage of all the TV shows that are already or soon going to be broadcast in widescreen HD?

No, no I don't plan on buying one. I don't plan on buying a new tv until the one I have dies. And when it does, I'll buy one I can afford. Will that be HDTV? Well, I guess that will depend on when my tv finally dies.

the only way i can see someone preferring FULL SCREEN is if they have a TV smaller than 25 inches. and if thats the case, they should be buying a new TV before they buy a DVD player.

My tv is smaller than 25 inches. Thanks for telling me what I should buy. No...wait....I still prefer full screen most of the time. I'll prefer widescreen when my tv is five times the size it is now. Otherwise, sure, I might get part of the movie chopped off, but that doesn't bother me more than not being able to see the whole thing because half of my screen is taken up by black bars. Man, I can't stand elitist tech people.

 

[Kai Lord]

that doesn't bother me more than not being able to see the whole thing because half of my screen is taken up by black bars.

The black bars mean you ARE seeing "the whole thing."

Man, I can't stand elitist tech people.

I hear ya. Knowledge is a bitch.

 

[Mistwell]

That's correct. The history of formatting and the entire photographic film industry, and all records thereof, are nothing more than a massive conspiracy to undermine Mistwell and his magic tape measure.

That is not what I said. You saying it is what I was implying is simply outrageous, and I am done with you. Your hostility towards me is uncalled for in this thread.

You, I know, and everyone knows that the fullscreen version is larger than the widescreen, and that it isn't shown that way on that page. It's not debateable.

Hey Mistwell, you want debunk another international conspiracy? Its the lie that the moon is thousands of miles away. Just walk outside, hold one end of your tape measure against the horizon, and position the opposite end against the moon. Look, the moon is only inches away from Earth! Its true! In fact, anyone can perform this simple expiriment, and anyone who tries to explain otherwise is simply aggressive and rude.

We're done. You turned a simple topic, with simple difference of opinion, into a flamefest for your own personal pleasure. It was rude, it was totally uncalled for, and I think others will agree with me.

 

[Kai Lord]

You, I know, and everyone knows that the fullscreen version is larger than the widescreen, and that it isn't shown that way on that page. It's not debateable.

You actually think the fullscreen scans in the comparison should have been taller than the widescreen scans, because they appear that way when blown up on your square TV! Priceless!

That would be like me saying Widescreen images are much bigger than fullscreen because my local theatre shows all movies in widescreen and those images are HUGE.

LMAO. Ah, that's too awesome.

 

[Triumph]

We're done. You turned a simple topic, with simple difference of opinion, into a flamefest for your own personal pleasure. It was rude, it was totally uncalled for, and I think others will agree with me.

Yeah right. What Kai Lord is saying is elementary truth for anyone with the slightest degree of film knowledge. You're the only one who looks foolish, and crying about "flamefests" when people are simply stating the facts only makes you look even sillier.

 

[Mistwell]

You actually think the fullscreen scans in the comparison should have been taller than the widescreen scans, because they appear that way when blown up on your square TV! Priceless!

I meant (and SAID) that it showed that these were not actual screen captures.

And yes, the detail loss of being smaller should have been shown. That is the whole arguement of the fullscreen folks like me, that you see more detail in the picture when it is larger (something you never responded to).

That would be like me saying Widescreen images are much bigger than fullscreen because my local theatre shows all movies in widescreen and those images are HUGE.

LMAO. Ah, that's too awesome.

No, it would be like if your theatre cut the top and bottom of the large screen to fit the picture, which would piss off the audience I am sure since they go to particular theatres because they have a larger screen than other theatres, and would not be getting the full benefit of that larger screen.

I don't know why I am even continuing. You have abandoned logic and turned to emotion.

 

[Umbran]

....but they're not getting the whole film, certainly. Watching a visually powerful film like, say, "Blade Runner" is a different experience in widescreen than fullscreen.

Yes, however, it's a different experience at home than in the theatre, too. Just being "widescreen" does not make it just like it was when it was first shown. The optical characteristics of a screen that emits light are not the same as those of one that reflects light. Nor does a set of dolbly 5.1 speakers compensate for the acoustic differences between your living room and a theatre many times the size. This is why actual theatres still exist.

To do home theatre really correctly takes many thousands of dollars of equipment, and probably calls for you to add another room to your home. Most of us don't have that option. So, we aren't going to get particularly close to the "real" experience anyway. After that, why should we worry quite so much about the specifics of aspect ratio?

And, btw, Mistwell, abandoning logic is not necessarily a demon, here. The value of the experience of film is not set by logic.