Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by JD, Feb 6, 2012.
Yeah... Don't know how initialisms work, do we?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
I think films shot in 'Super-35' or something they called it. I seem to recall 'Terminator 2' was shot this way.
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.
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!
I love the 1.33:1 compositions of old movies shot in the Academy ratio like Citizen Kane or The Third Man, but whatever the original aspect ratio happens to be is best.
Hopefully the cinematographers and the directors use the entire frame, though. Many filmmakers have become lazy, shooting in widescreen, but protecting for 1.33:1 to the point that the edges of the frame contain almost no relevant information.
Yep, it was filmed widescreen, mastered and edited for 4:3 but the DVDs were just released in 16:9 here, from season 4 onward. Same happened with Angel season 2, where there was a couple of mistakes, like being able to see Boreanez in a mirror at one point. But I prefer having them in widescreen.
My UK Buffy DVD's are in 1.33:1 Ratio (aka 4x3). Well the earlier seasons
Seasons 1, 2 and 3 are 4:3, 4-7 are 16:9, Angel season 1 4:3 the rest 16:9.
I spent years watching the SW movies in fullscreen on VHS. When I finally made the jump to WS dvd, the movies looked so much better. I can never go back to FS anymore.
Whatever it was originally shot in.
That being said, I prefer it when productions are originally shot in wide screen.
Another original aspect ratio fan here.
Originally, though, I didn't care for widescreen because I had a small older model TV at the time and stuff generally wound up being scrunched into the middle third of the screen. Sure, I could see things as a director envisioned, but it sucked having the image greatly reduced in size more than it already was.
It really wasn't until I got a TV with a bigger screen that I began to appreciate widescreen more.
I think the industry is getting frustrated about people who prefer full screen and complain about the black bars in widescreen. I have a copy of True Grit here, and on the box it says: "This Film is presented in 'Widescreen' format. The Black bars on the top and bottom of the screen are normal." I've seen statements before, but I've never seen it so bluntly stated on a package before.
Yea,that really sucked, when they took 16x9 converted it to 4x3 and then stretched the 4x3 back out to widescreen, I don't think they do that anymore.
I used to dislike the true "Letter Box" with smaller square screens, because the picture was only about 1/5 of the height of the screen, and on a small screen, that could be only a few inches, so, although you got the whole picture, it was too small to actually see anything.
But, yea, nowadays, definitely OAR is best. My TV has a 4x3 and a 16x9 setting (Along with a couple of other widescreen settings), so, if I want to stretch a 4x3 picture to fill up the screen, I can.
Widescreen if it was made that way. But I am offended when I come across a film or TV show produced in 4:3 that has been artificially rendered as widescreen (or worse, letterboxed). That's just as bad as pan-n-scanning a widescreen film to 4:3. Anyone who wants to see a widescreen rendering of Citizen Kane or Metropolis is pissing on the graves of Orson Welles and Fritz Lang, IMO.
@JD Yeah you have to watch when you buy at Wal-Mart. It's one of the only places that still sells both widescreen and 4:3 versions of recent movies. But the format should be clearly marked on the back of the box. Similarly, if you're buying, say, the first season of Kung Fu from the 1970s or some movie from 1939 and the box indicates 16:9 letter boxing, then you know something is amiss.
Separate names with a comma.