Come on put widescreen and fullscreen on the same effing disc!

[Ocelot_Snake]

Seriously after all these years youd expect to see it more often. i have a projection tv out in the living room that works great with wide screen but i have a 12 year old tv in my room, that widescreen isnt the greatest for. 90% of the time i cant even find a full screen copy,

[Weapon X]

While I don't go near fullscreen regardless of the aspect ratio of my TV (the black bars are a mark of honor, man!), I do find it strange that widescreen and fullscreen version are separated the way they are, especially considering once upon a time wide and fullscreen options were offered on the same disc (Anchor Bay's Evil Dead DVDs, for example).

[SAI]

'Fullscreen' is an offence to God and man. Fortunately I think we've nearly stamped it out now. No OAR = No Sale.

[CyclicNightmare]

It's time to end this Widescreen/Fullscreen bullshit altogether. Movies should only be available in the aspect ratio in which they were filmed. Bottom line.

[God of War]

What is fullscreen? :p

[Ocelot_Snake]

i prefer widescreen, but i have a tv out in my living with a screen thats as big as i am tall, so its nice on that. but on a old 25 inch tv, its not so much.

[MisterChristian]

Who buys FULL SCREEN anymore??? The practice should be eliminated by all studios - more so today with the increase in widescreen television sales. I haven't watched FULL SCREEN since the days of VHS.

NO OAR (original aspect ratio), NO SALE!

[drc5145]

'Fullscreen' is an offence to God and man. Fortunately I think we've nearly stamped it out now. No OAR = No Sale.


This. There are some special cases where Fullscreen must be retained such as Full Metal Jacket and The Truman Show. But frankly, Fullscreen should be killed altogether.

[bigred760]

Some of the DVDs I own do offer both full and widescreen on the same disc. One's on one side, the other on the flip side.

I never watch any of my movies fullscreen though. It's just wrong.

[athf1980]

i don't go near fullscreen because its incorrect. i go for oar.

[CyclicNightmare]

Flip discs are the worst.

[someguy]

I might be wrong on this but in order to have WS and FS on the same disc you would have to put the movie twice on the same DVD, one for the FS version and one for the WS version. I'd actually be against having them on the same disc then because it would take up a huge chunk of space and lessen the overall quality of the picture/audio.

I'm with everyone else here obviously though, keep the original AR or don't buy it. The good thing about Blu-Ray and HDTV is that it'll get rid of Pan and Scan thanks to WS televisions. Of course the bad news is that people will still whine about the bars and probably have studios start cropping movies to the 1.78:1 AR (I believe this already happened with some of Kubrick's movies).

[bima.pringgo]

I might be wrong on this but in order to have WS and FS on the same disc you would have to put the movie twice on the same DVD, one for the FS version and one for the WS version. I'd actually be against having them on the same disc then because it would take up a huge chunk of space and lessen the overall quality of the picture/audio.


You're not wrong. To have both version on the same side of the disc, the movie would have to be half the size.

And I can't believe people are still using the term FULLSCREEN now that 16:9 TV's are becoming more common.

[Badbird]

i prefer widescreen, but i have a tv out in my living with a screen thats as big as i am tall, so its nice on that. but on a old 25 inch tv, its not so much.

So why does the small TV win over the big TV? I had a 25 inch TV for many years and letterboxed movies never bothered me.

Unless you plan on getting one copy for each TV, chances are that at some point you will replace the small TV with a newer, comparable widescreen TV.

It's a lot easier to replace one TV than your entire DVD library.

[Phenia Films]

What the Hell is the point?? why would you want to even consider watching a film in lame ass Full Frame..
Have you figured it out yet? still asleep...?

Still not getting the Full (Widesreen) Picture yet?

does this help
2:35
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff202/joebarbarisi/STARMAN2.jpg

1:85
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff202/joebarbarisi/ajax.jpg

1:33 (standard/TV size)
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff202/joebarbarisi/evanscitycemetery4.jpg
why would you want a $1.33movie when you can have the same for $2.35?!
why would you want less then whats up there on the screen as the filmakers intended...why should P&S tell you what to see?..who are they to decide.
youve just been getting ripped off all this time with the brainwashing over the years (many) of the pan and scan g-g-g-g-generation


http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff202/joebarbarisi/STARMAN.jpg

[cloneofkelso]

Fullscreen?yeah thats great lets cut out most of the shot

[creekin111]

Full Screen is affront to humanity. Why the fuck do they still release those? Who the fuck buys full screen over wide screen? Why? So insanely stupid.

Even if you don't have a wide screen television its still stupid. And if you do have a wide screen tv and prefer full screen dvds... may God have mercy on your soul.

[razgriz21]

Who watches full screen anymore these days?

I don't get it.

[Donnie_Darko]

I own one "fullscreen" movie, and that's only cause it was shot in 4x3. Can you guess which one? :rolleyes:

I called a guy a "stupid moron" at the video store over WS vs FS. He was going on and on about his new 46" flatscreen and how it's the best picture. He then rented some flicks and bitched cause all the store had were "those stupid widescreen versions". Needless to say, he was escorted out of the store by the chinstrap on his bicycle helmet and helped onto the little yellow bus.

Agreed tho, OAR all the way.

[Noct]

It's time to end this Widescreen/Fullscreen bullshit altogether. Movies should only be available in the aspect ratio in which they were filmed. Bottom line.

Amen.

[CoryChaos]

What the Hell is the point?? why would you want to even consider watching a film in lame ass Full Frame..
Have you figured it out yet? still asleep...?

Still not getting the Full (Widesreen) Picture yet?

does this help
2:35
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff202/joebarbarisi/STARMAN2.jpg

1:85
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff202/joebarbarisi/ajax.jpg

1:33 (standard/TV size)
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff202/joebarbarisi/evanscitycemetery4.jpg
why would you want a $1.33movie when you can have the same for $2.35?!
why would you want less then whats up there on the screen as the filmakers intended...why should P&S tell you what to see?..who are they to decide.
youve just been getting ripped off all this time with the brainwashing over the years (many) of the pan and scan g-g-g-g-generation


http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff202/joebarbarisi/STARMAN.jpg

I just wanted to give you props for using "Starman" stills, lol.

..and as for "Evil Dead". IIRC, the only version that EVER offered it in the correct aspect ratio (1.33:1) was that uh-may-zizing Elite Entertainment release, which is long OOP.

[The Postmaster General]

I just picked up Monsters, Inc. for my son and it has WS and FS on the same disc -- I like the idea of being able to transfer FS for a portable device. The movie looks great as well, great quality - looks better than anything out of Kubrick Collection. If I'm not mistaken there is a way they can encode the disc so that it only has one movie file, but an extra attribute to change the ratio.

Honestly I think it depends on the movie. A lot of you guys are overreacting. Many movies are framed for FS, especially Disney releases.

It really depends on the movie; there's a big difference between my kid wanting to watch Cars on the go and me wanting to watch Heat on the couch.

[CyclicNightmare]

If a movie is not presented in its original aspect ratio, then there's no such thing as overreacting. It's a major problem and should be put to an end.

[The Postmaster General]

If a movie is not presented in its original aspect ratio, then there's no such thing as overreacting. It's a major problem and should be put to an end.


So I take it you only watch foreign language movies with the subtitles off.

[Cop No. 633]

I might be wrong on this but in order to have WS and FS on the same disc you would have to put the movie twice on the same DVD, one for the FS version and one for the WS version. I'd actually be against having them on the same disc then because it would take up a huge chunk of space and lessen the overall quality of the picture/audio.

Very good point.

WS for me isn't a big deal. I don't even think about it anymore because pretty much every DVD you get is widescreen. It seems like you would have a harder time trying to find FS if that's all you want.

I think it's cool that WS has become the standard now among movie fans but there is no point in arguing over FS or WS anymore. The choices are there and people should be able to watch whatever they please. Not every film really benefits at all from WS. I doubt Judd Apatow shoots any of his movies thinking, "Oh, I need that blue light in the corner of the shot to better show off Seth's inner sadness..."

Not every director is like Paul Thomas Anderson who is more meticulous about his frame and shots. There's a difference in watching Pan's Labyrinth in WS and watching Anchorman in WS. You would lose some of the symmetry in the editing and the way shots are framed in Pan's but you won't miss anything with Anchorman.

[The Postmaster General]

Right-o, and I doubt anyone here would skip watching a movie on cable TV (which offers no WS options except HD broadcasts) just because it's FS.

I think it should be left up to the director, as they all have different intents. It's funny because on TV, LOST, a show with a lot of cinematic flourishes is framed for FS, while THE OFFICE, which is a sitcom, isn't. I can't watch The Office without watching it in the HD broadcast, but Lost isn't a problem because you aren't missing any details. The Office, you get a lot of scenes of people off frame talking - so you just have a character looking off camera.

About fitting both versions on a disc - I'm pretty certain that modern DVDs use coding that draws the FS version from the WS source, so there is only one video file per disc, and just an algorithm that the player uses to frame it for FS. I'm pretty sure of this because I just pulled an MPEG-2 file from the Monsters Inc. disc to store on my computer to watch on TV, and there was only one video file, despite there being options for FS and WS --- I was initially worried I'd accidentally waste time drawing the FS version, but then found only the one file.

What I actually dislike more that FS when the movie isn't framed for it --- PAN AND SCAN. That never looks good, and that's all because it's distributers trying to circumvent the director's intent to frame his film in widescreen.

A list of some directors who make the most of widescreen: Scorsese, The Andersons - Wes & PT, Spielberg... ?

[someguy]

So I take it you only watch foreign language movies with the subtitles off.

Please Bubba, tell us how text at the bottom of a screen is equivalent to chopping out almost 60% of the image.

[The Postmaster General]

Please Bubba, tell us how text at the bottom of a screen is equivalent to chopping out almost 60% of the image.

The same way a movie being presented in fullscreen is equivalent to world hunger or other things I'd consider major problems.

I think there's very little hope when I'm the person who thinks you are taking something too seriously. You might have more fun if by reading everything else I've written instead of nitpicking a close-ended remark I made toward a similar response, and trying to engage in the discussion instead of trying to formulate and win an argument no one is having.

With all that said, how in the hell did you come up with 60%? I've ruled out metric conversion, so help me out.

[CyclicNightmare]

Major problems:

-People having children too young
-Famine
-Pollution
-Poverty
-Not presenting movies in their original aspect ratio


And I can't watch a movie on TV unless it's in widescreen. (Unless it was shot in full frame)

[The Postmaster General]

Major problems:

-People having children too young
-Famine
-Pollution
-Poverty
-Not presenting movies in their original aspect ratio


And I can't watch a movie on TV unless it's in widescreen. (Unless it was shot in full frame)


LOL, I understand. If you notice, I prefer widescreen. There's no comparison, or any debate on which is better as far as I'm concerned.

I believe where the thread starter was coming from, though, is that if they are going to release DVDs in fullscreen, they shouldn't do it as separate releases. Sans higher compression to fit them both on, I don't see an issue with that, but as I said, I don't think that's how they do it anymore.

The only instance where I'd probably use a fullscreen video is if I was compressing it for my kid to watch on my phone or something similar because it only allows for certain dimensions... Of course, I think putting movies on portable devices is an abomination unto itself, but when you're sitting in a doctor's office without a sitter, it ain't so bad.

Hell, my in-laws are almost 60 and I convinced them to only purchase widescreen discs. I did this by showing them Empire Strikes Back on my computer and cropping the picture to take out the letterboxes. Even my kid doesn't question those black bars. He's almost 4 and he knows the score.

You can trust me, Cyclic. I'm one of the good guys.

You have my word.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff175/mooncove/m_emerson/youhavemyword1.jpg

[creekin111]

Ask those who prefer FS over WS how they can fit a rectangle into a square.

[someguy]

The same way a movie being presented in fullscreen is equivalent to world hunger or other things I'd consider major problems.

I think there's very little hope when I'm the person who thinks you are taking something too seriously. You might have more fun if by reading everything else I've written instead of nitpicking a close-ended remark I made toward a similar response, and trying to engage in the discussion instead of trying to formulate and win an argument no one is having.

With all that said, how in the hell did you come up with 60%? I've ruled out metric conversion, so help me out.

Why do you assume I'm taking the issue in such a serious light when I made a one sentence response? I just thought your comparison as a response to Cyclic's point was weak because it's absurd to try and put the two (subtitling and pan/scan) on the same level. You seem to be taking offense to what I said when I wasn't really insulting you over it. Maybe I should have just told you that your comparison wasn't too good straight out and then we wouldn't have this problem.

Subtitles are put on the screen because people don't understand the language. It's a necessity for audiences that don't speak whatever the movie's language is. I don't really see anyone having problems where they can't watch the left and right parts of a screen. If that was your argument against people who prefer watching movies in their original aspect ratio then it was pretty weak.

I do find it funny how your only real examples for FS having a purpose is to make your kids have better distractions. Parenting getting a little too stressful for you lately? :)

[The Postmaster General]

Why do you assume I'm taking the issue in such a serious light when I made a one sentence response? I just thought your comparison as a response to Cyclic's point was weak because it's absurd to try and put the two (subtitling and pan/scan) on the same level. You seem to be taking offense to what I said when I wasn't really insulting you over it. Maybe I should have just told you that your comparison wasn't too good straight out and then we wouldn't have this problem.

Subtitles are put on the screen because people don't understand the language. It's a necessity for audiences that don't speak whatever the movie's language is. I don't really see anyone having problems where they can't watch the left and right parts of a screen. If that was your argument against people who prefer watching movies in their original aspect ratio then it was pretty weak.

I do find it funny how your only real examples for FS having a purpose is to make your kids have better distractions. Parenting getting a little too stressful for you lately? :)

I don't think you were being combative, but thought you were nitpicking, hence serious. Yeah, I knew you'd just thought it was a weak analogy, but in general I think anytime someone tries to get technical about an analogy, they are taking things too serious. No offense or insult inferred, just, "Jesus Christ, does he really not know what I getting at?" Definitely no problems.

Subtitles are a distraction, and I think at times even more so than a FS transfer. If I'm reading subtitles, how can I even begin to appreciate the footage to the left or right of the center of focus?

You simply can't, but it's just one of those things you have to deal with in order to enjoy a good story and the other x% of the film. It's sort of a necessary evil to me, because it's usually always better than dubbed version, minus some exceptions like Das Boot, where they had a great voice cast doing the dubbing.

FS is a greater evil, I don't doubt that, and beyond that, if it's P&S, it's all but the devil himself for people who appreciate the aesthetics of film. Even there, though, I believe there is room to overlook that for the sake of enjoying a movie. Using Cosmic's example of something like 40-Year Old Virgin, or pointing toward the fact that pretty much every movie shown on cable stations is FS.

It's not ideal, maybe far from it, but it sure the hell beats not watching movies. I think that's ultimately where I stand on the whole thing. WS is definitely better, but FS, to me, isn't a major problem, especially when compared to the fact that there are so many shitty movies. I'd much rather watch a FS P&S 2nd generation copy of Airplane! than Meet the Spartans. KnowWhutIMean?

No stress at all from the kid here. I wish everything in life were as easygoing as my kid. Out of every upper, downer, lefter, side-flippers, head-twister, rocket boosting, mind numbing thing I'd consumed in my adult life, nothing has made me feel more relaxed or even more strange than the time I spend with that kid.

Now this is what I like, some discussion.

[hoojib127]

With widescreen TVs continuing to be on the rise, I think the evil pan-n-scam has been finally death... though not quick enough for Lionsgate to put "Ironweed" out in that format. :mad:

[rilocay]

I think this is an old and tried discussion, yes OAR is always the winner but i have trouble with something else...

Films shot on 4 perf. I know Kubrick and Cameron have done this. Do you choose to watch it as it's widescreen presentation shown in theatres or it's fullscreen version meant for older tv's. Kubrick was very strict on have home's only seeing his films in fullscreen (mind you this was back in the day), hence why films like the Shining and Full Metal Jacket's full screen release may cut off the sides of the frame but show more towards top and bottom. Cameron did this with T2 and true Lies, and those of you who have seen Avatar in Imax and a normal theatre will notice. So what do you watch?! :p

eg:http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/shining/1.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews33/a%20teh%20shining%20two%20disc/the%20shining%20PDVD_004.jpg

[JCPhoenix]

OAR all the way. What a lot of people don't think about with pan & scan is the fact that they fuck up the editing of the film completely. There's a little something called eyeline matching that often gets completely fucked over when people cut off chunks of what you see onscreen as they do with pan & scan. I see terrible disjunctive editing when I see a lot of films on TV in fullscreen. Let's not forget that certain graphic cuts or matches-on-action could potentially be screwed over with someone's bad hacking of the two sides of the screen.

Also, I really don't think someone can critique a film beyond story, dialogue, and acting if they're not watching the film in the OAR. The framing and composition of a shot again gets fucked over with the hacking off of the sides and often, you really can't tell of the image was well-composed or not if you're watching the film in the wrong aspect ratio. You don't have a complete idea of a director's visual sense or style. Pan & scan when the actual method of pan & scan is used is even more abominable. The fake pans across the image create a terrible sense of movement and completely distort the pacing and tone of the original film.

If you're watching for pure entertainment value and nothing else, fine. It's not a big deal. But as soon as someone opens their mouth and tries to have an actual discussion about the film as a piece of art, they better have watched the film in the original aspect ratio or quite frankly, I'll find their opinion near worthless. If a painting was hacked off at the top and bottom, would you consider yourself able to make a valid judgment of the piece? I think not.

In the same way, I think a lot of people who dismiss OAR as a non-issue are the same people who think the only films in the universe are narrative films (because they believe the visual composition doesn't matter, only that you get the gist of the story). Seriously, just step out of the Hollywood groove for a moment and you realize that there are tons of films out there that are not simply about a fun or good story but rather about the experience or the visual stimulation. Okay, so OAR is not as important as famine or war or death. It's still important in the context of film.

And I'll be the first to say - if a film's in the wrong aspect ratio, I don't watch it. And yes, that includes films on TV. I haven't watched a full film in the wrong aspect ratio in many years. Hell, I even rented Running on Empty only to realize the only copy of the film available in North America (and possibly the world) right now is fullscreen. And you know what? I didn't watch it. I refuse to watch a hacked up version of the film because I don't think it's a fair way for me to critique it.

Subtitles are distracting to some extent but again, the visual information in the film is intact. You're adding something onto the screen, not taking something away. If someone chooses not to read the subtitles and look at the visuals in the film, they have that option with subtitles. If you've seen the movie before with subtitles, you can watch it again ignoring the subtitles and get the gist of the film. It's not the same with something that's in the wrong aspect ratio. No matter how many times you watch it, you will still be missing visual information in the film and therefore, have no right to critique it beyond the story.

By the way, I think fullscreen itself is actually a very interesting aspect ratio if you're actually shooting your film for it. It's much more difficult to frame well for fullscreen, but sometimes, fullscreen compositions can be breathtaking...I recently watched Gregg Araki's film The Living End which made gorgeous use of fullscreen. And I hear the movie Fish Tank is great in fullscreen as well (and that's a rare case where the wrong aspect ratio is widescreen rather than fullscreen...and based on the trailer they recently released, it looks like they're releasing it in the widescreen format despite it being the wrong aspect ratio).

[equity space]

My wide screen is full screen, heh.