DVD sales figures: WIDE SCREEN vs FULL

[Viking Bastard]

I think this is without doubt one of oddest debates I've ever
encountered on these board. Can't you just agree to disagree?

 

[Kai Lord]

I think this is without doubt one of oddest debates I've ever
encountered on these board. Can't you just agree to disagree?

Good suggestion. So how about it, Mistwell, should we just agree to disagree on whether or not your magic tape measure overrules the truth?

 

[Viking Bastard]

 

[Umbran]

There's two parts to experiencing a movie, WHAT you see and hear, and HOW you see and hear it. Movie theatres present every degree of both. [/B]

Yes, but those two things cannot really be separated, especially for the acousitcs. You can present the same image, you can have the speakers emit the same frequencies. But in the end what matters is what the person experiences. Having a "more complete" WHAT does not ensure a more fulfilling experience.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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.

I think that a big part of what these guys are missing (especially after Mistwell's last statement) is the whole definition of what an aspect ratio is. Especially the whole RATIO part.

As per Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary:

Aspect Ratio: aspect ratio
Function: noun
Date: 1907
: a ratio of one dimension to another: as a : the ratio of span to mean chord of an airfoil b : the ratio of the width of a television or motion-picture image to its height

Were concerned with is the definition b.

Now when they say ratio of width to hieght, theyre talking about that w:h whether it's measured in inches, feet or miles. When Someone says that a full screen image is bigger it's because it's artifically made bigger in relation to what it originally was. Of course you and I know this but I'm guessing by his statements that Mistwell doesnt.

When people attend a feature film in the cinema 90% of the time the screen is rectangular. With the exception of the newer 16:9 diplays (which are designed to accomodate HD broadcasts and WS movies) most TV viewing areas are Square.

How do you make a rectangular image into a square frame? You lop off the edges and blow the remaining image up to fill the screen.

or

You leave it in the original format (aspect ratio) and place it on the screen as is.

This is why on alot of recent broadcasts of feature films on tv over the last few years and even on fullscreen editions of widescreen movies on DVD it says:

This movie has been edited for content and FORMATTED TO FIT YOUR SCREEN.

Once again, the image in the fullscreen version of most widescreen films have been altered. If that is what they prefer then fine, but to say that there is no significant difference between the two is inaccurate.

Talk to a movie projectionist they'll tell them the same thing.

And with this, I'm done.

 

[Kai Lord]

It was a joke. But why recognize that when you can make the issue bigger than it is by classifying your run-of-the-mill messageboard debate as a "flamefest" (just noticed you were the first to bring that to the table) before congratulating yourself on being the noble third-party peacemaker.

Being ignorant of something is a literal truth when you spout incorrect info about it, and I have found Mistwell's assertions that I'm aggressive and rude to be mildly amusing. So where do you come in again?

 

[Umbran]

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.

Um, Mistwell... it takes two to tango. One person cannot turn a whole topic into a flamefest. He (or you) can rant and rave to heart's content, but it only becomes a flamefest when you rant and rave at each other.

Simply put, if either one of you chose to back down, that would have ended it. If either one of you cared more for peace than for being right, there'd be no heat to the discussion.

 

[Kai Lord]

Yes, but those two things cannot really be separated, especially for the acousitcs. You can present the same image, you can have the speakers emit the same frequencies. But in the end what matters is what the person experiences. Having a "more complete" WHAT does not ensure a more fulfilling experience.

Now this is pure opinion...and one that I mostly disagree with, but only because of my own preferences.

Edit: Fixed the bold brackets.

 

[Kai Lord]

If either one of you cared more for peace than for being right, there'd be no heat to the discussion.

And really, what's wrong with a little heat? I don't think classifying a position as "ignorant" really qualifies as a scathing personal attack in a discussion over picture ratios.

EDIT: For the record, Mistwell, enjoy movies however the heck you want to. Seriously. I bear no ill will toward you now, or in any other thread.

 

[Mistwell]

EDIT: For the record, Mistwell, enjoy movies however the heck you want to. Seriously. I bear no ill will toward you now, or in any other thread.

Fair enough. Why don't we end this on that pleasant note. I too bear you no ill will.