PAN & SCAN RELEASES SHOULD STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Gosh dang it, when are the big companies going to learn that the default
aspect ratio for a new movie is NEVER pan & scan!!!!
I went to Blockbuster because it was 3 minutes away from my house, and
purchased T3 - the clerk grabbed the copy for me.
I went home, fixed a steak, popped in the disc and it was the Pan & Scan
version.
I paid $23.00 for this disc, while I'm sure Wal-Mart is selling it for
around $15-17.00.
I am accustomed to DVD's being WIDESCREEN as that is the way all DVD's ought
to be.
Almost every single gosh-darned DVD I own is widescreen, so I am not
accustomed to having to make certain that a new movie is widescreen or not.
The future is WIDESCREEN, five years from now no 4:3 TV's will even be
manufactured, so why are these studios making all these damn pan & scan
versions for all those Joe Sixpacks out there?
Blockbuster WILL give me a refund or order me a Widecreen version tomorrow
since when I called the clerk he said they don't have any in stock.
I paid MORE than what a widescreen version would have cost me just about
anywhere else, so opened case or not, I will get a refund or a widescreen
version.
I realize there are many people out there who will say, "Hey, dumbass, why
didn't you read the cover?"
Simple - because ususally the only thing I notice on the cover is the title,
and I am not used to having to look out for pan & scan versions since the
VAST majority of DVD's are widescreen.
If they don't take it back I guess I can always give the P & S version to my
brother for Christmas, but, damn, Warners should have just marketed the film
in widescreen only - I am quite certain that it would not have hurt sales!

Joseph S. Powell, III

"Joseph S. Powell, III" <> waxed eloquent in
news::

> Gosh dang it, when are the big companies going to learn that the
> default aspect ratio for a new movie is NEVER pan & scan!!!!
> I went to Blockbuster because it was 3 minutes away from my house, and
> purchased T3 - the clerk grabbed the copy for me.
> I went home, fixed a steak, popped in the disc and it was the Pan &
> Scan version.
> I paid $23.00 for this disc, while I'm sure Wal-Mart is selling it for
> around $15-17.00.
> I am accustomed to DVD's being WIDESCREEN as that is the way all DVD's
> ought to be.
> Almost every single gosh-darned DVD I own is widescreen, so I am not
> accustomed to having to make certain that a new movie is widescreen or
> not. The future is WIDESCREEN, five years from now no 4:3 TV's will
> even be manufactured, so why are these studios making all these damn
> pan & scan versions for all those Joe Sixpacks out there?

[Some ranting snipped]

Some months back, my wife went into Circuit City to pick up a movie for
me. I much prefer widescreen, even on a plain old 27" TV, as that is the
way the movie should look. The salesperson said that they were suprised
we wanted widescreen, most everyone wants fullscreen.

Thinking about it, I can sort of see why. Most people *want* the movie
to fill the whole screen, and not have those annoying black bars at the
top and bottom of the screen. Joe Six-Pack doesn't want the movie to
only cover 1/2 his 19" TV that hes' had for the last 9 years, he wants it
to cover the whole gosh darned thing!

So what that he's missing stuff on the edges, it must not have been
important to the movie anyway! It doesn't help that most people also
don't know WHY a 16x9 TV will show the movie better, they look at the
cost difference between a 4x3 27" TV, and a 16x9 19" TV, and figure
bigger has to be better, doesn't it?

As long as there's people with 4x3 TVs, the studios will make and
market full screen DVDs. Eventually, once widescreen TVs are the norm,
full screen DVDs will go away, but even if everyone had a 16x9 TV in 4
years, you'll still have people who will for some odd reason or another,
buy full screen....

Just my 2c

And yes, I would much rather not have to worry about accidently grabbing
a pan & scan DVD off the rack, and not realizing it until I've gottne
home. And having to drive 15-20 minutes BACK to the store to exchange
it. And maybe having to pay a RESTOCKING fee if I opened the plastic
BEFORE I found out it was P&S.

Jason A.

Jason Ash

Joseph S. Powell, III wrote:
> I realize there are many people out there who will say, "Hey, dumbass, why
> didn't you read the cover?"
> Simple - because ususally the only thing I notice on the cover is the title,
> and I am not used to having to look out for pan & scan versions since the
> VAST majority of DVD's are widescreen.
> If they don't take it back I guess I can always give the P & S version to my
> brother for Christmas, but, damn, Warners should have just marketed the film
> in widescreen only - I am quite certain that it would not have hurt sales!
>
>

First off, is your name for real? Joseph S. Powell, III? I imagine you
as living in some huge New England mansion, reading something by George
Plimpton while watching a tennis match on your tv. Preconceptions,
ain't they wonderful? Seriously though, most major studio releases get
dual-releases, otherwise the Wal-Marts of the world wouldn't do business
with them.

Read this: > http://www.widescreen.org/commentari...2_10_oct.shtml

Read it all, but pay close attention once he starts talking about Attack
of the Clones. Then read all of his other commentaries, and browse
around the site. It's a great resource for OAR stuff.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

Grand Inquisitor

Jason Ash wrote:
> And yes, I would much rather not have to worry about accidently grabbing
> a pan & scan DVD off the rack, and not realizing it until I've gottne
> home. And having to drive 15-20 minutes BACK to the store to exchange
> it. And maybe having to pay a RESTOCKING fee if I opened the plastic
> BEFORE I found out it was P&S.
>
> Jason A.

Happened to me when I bought a gift, during the Christmas rush. It was
the Mummy and Mummy Returns set, the tech specs were on the bottom of
the package, in grey-on-brown lettering. You had to be looking for it
to know it was there.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

Grand Inquisitor

"Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in message
news:...

> I am accustomed to DVD's being WIDESCREEN as that is the way all DVD's
ought
> to be.

That's a matter of opinion. I see nothing inherently "superior" about
widescreen aspect ratios, except that it's easier to make high quality DivX
copies...

Brian

"Jason Ash" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9436DA9814701jash7165wideopenwest@216.196. 97.132...
<<Eventually, once widescreen TVs are the norm, full screen DVDs will go
away, but even if everyone had a 16x9 TV in 4 years, you'll still have
people who will for some odd reason or another, buy full screen....>>

The problem will become reversed once 16:9 TVs become commonplace. The
same people who intensely disliked those horrible black bars on the top
and bottom of their 4:3 screens will now intensely dislike the horrible
black bars on the sides of their 16:9 screens.

This will prompt movie studios to produce 16:9 versions of pre-1953
Academy Ratio 1.37:1 movies. Just imagine how _Citizen Kane_, _Robin
Hood_, _Casablanca_, _Gone With The Wind_, _Pinocchio_ etc. will look
with 25% of the top and bottom of their images chopped off to make them
fit into a 16:9 frame.

As a matter of fact, this type of destructive matting has already been
done to a 4:3 image. Take a look at _Yellow Submarine_:

_Yellow Submarine_ was originally created in the 1.37:1 academy ratio.
Minimal cropping of only 3% from the sides would be needed to create a
1.33:1 presentation. This is standard procedure on most academy ratio
DVDs and the loss of picture detail is considered negligible. On the
other hand, converting a 1.37:1 aspect ratio film to 1.66:1 results in
the loss of 18% of the top and bottom of the image. The resulting black
bars at the top and bottom of the DVD picture are definitely hiding
critical parts of the original cartoon artwork contained in _Yellow
Submarine_.

For example, the introductory Pepperland sequences show characters with
the tops of their hats and heads cut off (when compared with the 1.33:1
LaserDisc) and this culminates with the top of a tower cut off at 10min.
50sec. into the disk. During the Eleanor Rigby sequence at 11min.
34sec., there is a tombstone which says, "Here Lie Buried." The
LaserDisc also says "Here Lie Buried", but under that it shows "William
McMillen." This information is totally matted out at the bottom of the
DVD.

This top and bottom matting continues to obscure heads, hats, ceilings,
feet, dorsal fins on fish, the tops and bottoms of doors and so on. I
realize the DVD box says that this widescreen version is done in the
original theatrical release format. But, so what? This is a home video
edition. The artists who created _Yellow Submarine_ painstakingly drew
these highly-detailed cells and now much of their highly-detailed work
is blotted out.

Matting is done to bring the aspect ratio of a film into the perspective
intended by the director and it also often covers hanging boom mikes and
other things which were never meant to be included in the final release
version of the film. However, _Yellow Submarine_ is animated, so there
are no boom mikes hanging down from the tops of any frames. Why would
artists waste their time drawing elements of an animated movie if parts
of these drawings are only going to be matted out?

Scot Gardner

> why are these studios making all these damn pan & scan
>versions for all those Joe Sixpacks out there?

Because all of those people are buying theM????
kyle.
Porn Star Quote Of The Week
"It's impossible. I have done some R Rated stuff late night crap on..Cinemax.
It's good money but nothing that I consider acting. I would like to do
something that takes some actual acting ability."
-Marilyn Chambers

kyle.

"Grand Inquisitor" <> wrote in message
news:tHfub.18340$...
> Joseph S. Powell, III wrote:
> > I realize there are many people out there who will say, "Hey, dumbass,
why
> > didn't you read the cover?"
> > Simple - because ususally the only thing I notice on the cover is the
title,
> > and I am not used to having to look out for pan & scan versions since
the
> > VAST majority of DVD's are widescreen.
> > If they don't take it back I guess I can always give the P & S version
to my
> > brother for Christmas, but, damn, Warners should have just marketed the
film
> > in widescreen only - I am quite certain that it would not have hurt
sales!
> >
> >
>
> First off, is your name for real? Joseph S. Powell, III? I imagine you
> as living in some huge New England mansion, reading something by George
> Plimpton while watching a tennis match on your tv. Preconceptions,
> ain't they wonderful? Seriously though, most major studio releases get
> dual-releases, otherwise the Wal-Marts of the world wouldn't do business
> with them.
>

LOL! Yes, it's my real name and, I'm in Alabama instead of New England, and
live in a slighly smallish house on a mountain (but only 3 min away from the
grocery store & Blockbuster, and only 8 min from the Galleria mall
(BTW, also unlike George Plimpton, I had an ATARI in the 80's instead of an
Intellevision system).

Joseph S. Powell, III

"kyle." <> wrote in message
news:...
> > why are these studios making all these damn pan & scan
> >versions for all those Joe Sixpacks out there?
>
> Because all of those people are buying theM????
> kyle.

LOL, they won't be within 5-7 years when all TV's are 16:9.
Either way, not to give any spoilers, but I went ahead & saw T3 before my
steak got too cold, and was somewhat disappointed - but every cloud has a
silver lining, I can always give it to my Brother & sis-in-law for
Christmas - she prefers pan & scan because she doesn't understand
widescreen.

Joseph S. Powell, III

P&S sucks supreme, but a large segment of the consumer marketplace still
gobbles 'em up. until ordinary tv viewers get educated, there will always be
a strong demand. just take a look at VHS-- 30 year old shithouse technology,
but only now is DVD replacing it throughout the industry. your average
consumer can't even adjust their tv, much less appreciate top quality home
theater. the $40,000 laserdisc archive in my basement attests to this fact,
yet i replace these only when the dvd is better, i would say perhaps half of
the time, at best---
reminds me of my grandmother when my father got his first VCR in 1986---
"how do you wind it up????"
enjoy---*
"Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Gosh dang it, when are the big companies going to learn that the default
> aspect ratio for a new movie is NEVER pan & scan!!!!
> I went to Blockbuster because it was 3 minutes away from my house, and
> purchased T3 - the clerk grabbed the copy for me.
> I went home, fixed a steak, popped in the disc and it was the Pan & Scan
> version.
> I paid $23.00 for this disc, while I'm sure Wal-Mart is selling it for
> around $15-17.00.
> I am accustomed to DVD's being WIDESCREEN as that is the way all DVD's
ought
> to be.
> Almost every single gosh-darned DVD I own is widescreen, so I am not
> accustomed to having to make certain that a new movie is widescreen or
not.
> The future is WIDESCREEN, five years from now no 4:3 TV's will even be
> manufactured, so why are these studios making all these damn pan & scan
> versions for all those Joe Sixpacks out there?
> Blockbuster WILL give me a refund or order me a Widecreen version tomorrow
> since when I called the clerk he said they don't have any in stock.
> I paid MORE than what a widescreen version would have cost me just about
> anywhere else, so opened case or not, I will get a refund or a widescreen
> version.
> I realize there are many people out there who will say, "Hey, dumbass, why
> didn't you read the cover?"
> Simple - because ususally the only thing I notice on the cover is the
title,
> and I am not used to having to look out for pan & scan versions since the
> VAST majority of DVD's are widescreen.
> If they don't take it back I guess I can always give the P & S version to
my
> brother for Christmas, but, damn, Warners should have just marketed the
film
> in widescreen only - I am quite certain that it would not have hurt sales!
>
>

douglas pratt