When buying DVDs, which do you prefer? I like wide screen... I bought a full-screen DVD today by mistake. Do you think it's worth going back and exchanging it? I mean, we're only talking about 'Office Space' here... but still, it'll probably end up bugging the hell out of me.
Here's a very basic link explaining the difference:
http://www.ryanwright.com/ht/oar.shtml
Wide screen vs. Full screen
2Unless a lot has changed since I was in the biz back in the 90's, the best format for DVD's is Anamorphic, aka "formatted for widescreen", as opposed to "widescreen".
The problem with letterboxed DVD's? They take the already shit resolution of teevee, and make it even worse by dedicating whatever 30% or something to blank lines.
Also, if you use a video projector or a teevee, if you spend all of your time watching letterboxed films, after several years, there may be noticably uneven wear when you watch non-letterboxed stuff... from what I remember, this is especially an issue with CRT projectors, where the red, green, and blue guns wear unevenly at the top and bottom.
The beauty of Anamorphic is that it uses the full verticle, all 350 or 500 lines of resolution... and then your playback device just needs to expand it in the horizontal so it fills up your whole wide screen.
Unless you're talking about HD DVD and HDTV playback, in which case who cares about those lines of resolution. I should be just about ready to get on the HD bandwagon in about 5 years or so.
The problem with letterboxed DVD's? They take the already shit resolution of teevee, and make it even worse by dedicating whatever 30% or something to blank lines.
Also, if you use a video projector or a teevee, if you spend all of your time watching letterboxed films, after several years, there may be noticably uneven wear when you watch non-letterboxed stuff... from what I remember, this is especially an issue with CRT projectors, where the red, green, and blue guns wear unevenly at the top and bottom.
The beauty of Anamorphic is that it uses the full verticle, all 350 or 500 lines of resolution... and then your playback device just needs to expand it in the horizontal so it fills up your whole wide screen.
Unless you're talking about HD DVD and HDTV playback, in which case who cares about those lines of resolution. I should be just about ready to get on the HD bandwagon in about 5 years or so.

"The bastards have landed"
www.myspace.com/thechromerobes - now has a couple songs from the new album
www.myspace.com/thechromerobes - now has a couple songs from the new album
Wide screen vs. Full screen
3whatever the original aspect ratio was, that's what i wanna see. period. any cropping of the original image is detestable at best.
that being said, i once lent a guy at work, who was already into film, a copy of tarkovsky's andrei rublev on DVD. but it's a three hour widescreen epic, and he had a 17" tv, so watching it would have been very tedious for him. he decided not to watch it. if it has been in 1:33 or something closer to a standard screen, he may have sat through it, but then he'd literally only be seeing a fraction of the film (not a good thing, imnsho).
that being said, i once lent a guy at work, who was already into film, a copy of tarkovsky's andrei rublev on DVD. but it's a three hour widescreen epic, and he had a 17" tv, so watching it would have been very tedious for him. he decided not to watch it. if it has been in 1:33 or something closer to a standard screen, he may have sat through it, but then he'd literally only be seeing a fraction of the film (not a good thing, imnsho).
Wide screen vs. Full screen
4Back before DVDs I used to go to the local VHS rental boutique a bitch like a spoiled sorority girl about the horrible dearth of WS selections. It drove me nuts.
FS when the picture is cropped sucks ass and is crap. The only exception I have seen is The Shining, whose claustrophobic air is somewhat defeated by the original, theater-release AR. Otherwise give it to me as wide as possible.
Watching Andrei Rublev FS would be blasphemous. Better to not see it at all. Better to be completely ignorant of its existence until the proper viewing circumstance arises.
FS when the picture is cropped sucks ass and is crap. The only exception I have seen is The Shining, whose claustrophobic air is somewhat defeated by the original, theater-release AR. Otherwise give it to me as wide as possible.
Watching Andrei Rublev FS would be blasphemous. Better to not see it at all. Better to be completely ignorant of its existence until the proper viewing circumstance arises.
Wide screen vs. Full screen
5Ranxerox wrote:Watching Andrei Rublev FS would be blasphemous. Better to not see it at all. Better to be completely ignorant of its existence until the proper viewing circumstance arises.
yup. but i have an old double VHS of Rublev that, while not full-screen, is still slightly cropped. and it's tolerable. and as much i like WS, i think a good color tranfer is the more important. (this is the main reason i dig critierion; excellent transfers from the best prints available. plus they value original ARs and removable subtitles.)
Wide screen vs. Full screen
6Not trying to sound like a snob at all, but I'd just like to mention that cinematography is very much an art form. To pull, stretch, crop, and perhaps even shrink, is paramount to clipping the side couple of inches off of a VanGogh or something. Point is: the film-makers go about making movies with specific intent with what they want to show on screen and what they don't. Its kinda sad that people accept a chopped up version of someone's labors as readily as they do.
Wide screen vs. Full screen
7but with full screen, you get more of the picture, Tim.
kerble is right.
Wide screen vs. Full screen
8Completely depends on size of television.
20" or below, widescreen is silly and obnoxious. You loose more in small picture than you do in unnatural panning and cropping.
I liked the old full screen where they just stretch the image vertically so everyone looks like skinny giants. The Final Countdown comes to mind.
20" or below, widescreen is silly and obnoxious. You loose more in small picture than you do in unnatural panning and cropping.
I liked the old full screen where they just stretch the image vertically so everyone looks like skinny giants. The Final Countdown comes to mind.
Wide screen vs. Full screen
9regarding the mention of the shining...i'm 99% sure that the shining was shot in 4:3 as opposed to widescreen (same goes for Eyes Wide Shut, Full Metal Jacket and quite possibly, Barry Lyndon) - evidentally, Kubrick preferred it to widescreen.
i have the HDTV and my god, it is good.
i just picked up the Muppets Take Manhattan on dvd (widescreen) - score!
andyk
i have the HDTV and my god, it is good.
i just picked up the Muppets Take Manhattan on dvd (widescreen) - score!
andyk
LingLing - www.myspace.com/linglingchicago
Wide screen vs. Full screen
10I took back the full screen version and watched my newly-acquired wide screen DVD last night. It's still funny and looks good!
Those were the days when they just stretched the picture for a full screen... like watching a movie in a funhouse mirror.
Those were the days when they just stretched the picture for a full screen... like watching a movie in a funhouse mirror.