Widescreen or Full Frame

[Aragorn]

nvek86 wrote:

---

OAS.
I never understood why the FullFrame thing was even developed; I've heard that people complained about the black bars on their tv screens, but why would you want to miss part of the picture.

It was just a mentality a lot of people had where they felt like they were seeing less if it wasn't filling up the whole screen. I knew people who complained about the "black bars." Even the term "full screen" that was on all the DVD covers doesn't really explain what's actually happening and probably made people think they were getting more on their screen.

I wonder now with widescreen TVs being the norm if these same people complain about "black bars" on the side. Of course, now they simply just press the picture stretching button.

[Mysterion]

Widescreen.

Full-Screen should be prohibited by Federal law.

[T'Baio]

Original Aspect Ratio, of course.

[Trekker4747]

What the hell is the "OAS" people mention above?

[CorporalCaptain]

OAS = original aspect ratio. I'm glad it's getting a lot of support.

[Trekker4747]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

OAS = original aspect ratio. I'm glad it's getting a lot of support.

Yeah... Don't know how initialisms work, do we?

[MacLeod]

Aragorn wrote:

---

It was just a mentality a lot of people had where they felt like they were seeing less if it wasn't filling up the whole screen. I knew people who complained about the "black bars." Even the term "full screen" that was on all the DVD covers doesn't really explain what's actually happening and probably made people think they were getting more on their screen.

I wonder now with widescreen TVs being the norm if these same people complain about "black bars" on the side. Of course, now they simply just press the picture stretching button.

Widescreen TV's have been the norm for over a decade, at least on the European side of the pond. Though remember WS TV's can stretch a 4x3 picture to full the screen a bit more sometimes to 14:9 rather than 16:9.

[AviTrek]

Aragorn wrote:

---

It was just a mentality a lot of people had where they felt like they were seeing less if it wasn't filling up the whole screen. I knew people who complained about the "black bars." Even the term "full screen" that was on all the DVD covers doesn't really explain what's actually happening and probably made people think they were getting more on their screen.

I wonder now with widescreen TVs being the norm if these same people complain about "black bars" on the side. Of course, now they simply just press the picture stretching button.

If you read the TNG-R discussion you wouldn't wonder. There are people convinced widescreen is better. Even if it means ruining the framing, cutting off parts of the image, and stretching the image. They just claim "widescreen is more cinematic" or that they hate seeing the black bars.

[T.Geiger]

Sometimes movies are cutting off the picture if they display in widescreen. House on Haunted Hill (1959) for example. Sort of the Back to the Future movies (they actually add picture for full frame). Terminator 3 is an oddball where you don't get the full picture with either format, but full frame gives you the most.

Typically, I am for whatever format gives me the most picture information.

I find it difficult to believe Seinfeld can be converted to proper widescreen, but Star Trek cannot. My cynical side suggests its all about money (either not wanting to spend it or waiting to double-dip for it).

[Enterprise is Great]

JD wrote:

---

I had a friend back when Widescreen DVDs were just starting to come out who hated them because he insisted the black bars were cutting off part of the picture and the "Full Frame" versions were the whole picture. I have a feeling he probably wasn't the only one who thought that.

I have a feeling that the word "full" made a lot people think that they were getting the whole picture. They probably thought widescreen meant that the picture was stretched out and distorted a bit.

[Mr. Adventure]

T.Geiger wrote:

---

Sometimes movies are cutting off the picture if they display in widescreen. House on Haunted Hill (1959) for example. Sort of the Back to the Future movies (they actually add picture for full frame). Terminator 3 is an oddball where you don't get the full picture with either format, but full frame gives you the most.

Typically, I am for whatever format gives me the most picture information.

I find it difficult to believe Seinfeld can be converted to proper widescreen, but Star Trek cannot. My cynical side suggests its all about money (either not wanting to spend it or waiting to double-dip for it).

Regarding Seinfeld I think it looks terribly warped in widescreen. At least the last time I attempted to watch the mangled versions on the superstation.

I generally prefer the intended aspect ratio for most shows though some DVDs have lost some of their gratuitous nudity compared to their VHS counterparts.

[Yoda]

I am generally an original aspect ratio kind of guy. But things like 'open matte' where you add extra information for the 'full frame' release didn't bug me. I'd rather have that on a 4:3 screen than black bars, but since 4:3 is now obsolete, it's kind of a moot point.

Didn't the Buffy DVDs end up being widescreen in Europe or something along similar lines? That is, they didn't crop the 4:3, but just opened up what was actually filmed to create the widescreen version? If I recall Joss Whedon wasn't thrilled with that... but frankly I'd probably prefer that version even with the occasional production equipment showing up on camera. I could understand why you wouldn't.

Cropping something from one aspect ratio to fit another is a no-no in my book. As are the various ghastly stretching modes for filling out widescreen TVs with 4:3 content.

[Brikar99]

BillJ wrote:

---

But I think there are a few films out there actually shot in 4:3 then were cropped for theatrical release. It's been a while since I read the article and need to do some research...

I think films shot in 'Super-35' or something they called it. I seem to recall 'Terminator 2' was shot this way.

[JD]

AviTrek wrote:

---

If you read the TNG-R discussion you wouldn't wonder. There are people convinced widescreen is better. Even if it means ruining the framing, cutting off parts of the image, and stretching the image. They just claim "widescreen is more cinematic" or that they hate seeing the black bars.

Ugh, I wouldn't like that anymore than I do when they cut the picture for 4:3. I just want to see the whole image, whichever ratio that is.

[Mr. Adventure]

I hate it when they often show Alien on TV even in 1.85 instead of its true wiiiiiidescreen ratio because the whole composition looks off.


EDIT: I just had a terrible thought. I wonder how many "black bars, oh noes!" people out there are watching all those Full Screen DVDs they bought with their new fangled LCD TV's stretching out the image. The horror!