I LOVE FULLSCREEN

If you have noticed, theater prosceniums and baseball diamonds and great
paintings are all basically square shaped... while tennis is played on a
field (widescreen) where you have to keep your head swinging back and forth
in order to follow the game... very few great works of art are painted in
"widescreen"... except Guernica...

If you don't like my website, don't go there...


Dave Chabot www.Shemakhan.com

Lookingglass

"Lookingglass" <> wrote ...
> very few great works of art are painted in
> "widescreen"... except Guernica...

You may prefer compositions that are more square shaped,
but would you ever agree with someone cropping Guernica's
paintings so that they fit the "better" ratio?

People who prefer Widescreen tend to want to see the film
in the form the creator's originally intended it to be viewed.
Respecting the artist's intentions seems to be something you
might understand.

-Jay

Jay G

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:20:52 GMT, "Lookingglass"
<> wrote:

>If you have noticed, theater prosceniums and baseball diamonds and great
>paintings are all basically square shaped... while tennis is played on a
>field (widescreen) where you have to keep your head swinging back and forth
>in order to follow the game... very few great works of art are painted in
>"widescreen"... except Guernica...

you are a putz, we see in a 2:1 aspect ratio

most stages at theatres may have a square frame, but all the action
takes place in an area much wider than it is tall (the height being
mostly for rigging and lighting)

many paintings are in a wide aspect, especially landscapes,

and most films since the 50's are in a wide ratio. Seeing a wide film
pan and scanned is like looking at the Last Supper with 5 missing
apostles. Or at the sistine ceiling with blinders on.

GK
>
>If you don't like my website, don't go there...
>
>
>Dave Chabot www.Shemakhan.com
>

The Mad Doctor

Lookingglass wrote:

> If you have noticed, theater prosceniums and baseball diamonds and great
> paintings are all basically square shaped... while tennis is played on a
> field (widescreen) where you have to keep your head swinging back and forth
> in order to follow the game... very few great works of art are painted in
> "widescreen"... except Guernica...

The average standard television set actually fits the golden ratio. If you
don't know what the golden ratio is, do a search on google about it. It is
the most aesthetically pleasing ratio in nature and all nature follows it.
Widescreen television ratios do NOT fit it.

Huck

> You may prefer compositions that are more square shaped,

Not square, but to the golden ratio. Look it up.

> but would you ever agree with someone cropping Guernica's
> paintings so that they fit the "better" ratio?

But that is what we all have to do when we frame something. Frames
only come in certain dimensions, and one always has to cut photos so
that they fit the frames. When you make a car, it should be made to
fit the width of the lanes on the roads, you don't create a car that
requires you to build all new roads.

> People who prefer Widescreen tend to want to see the film
> in the form the creator's originally intended it to be viewed.

Good directors film with the television set in mind. Watch the
fullscreen version of Finding Nemo where they explain how there is more
picture in the fullscreen version, and the widescreen version actually
has less, the top and bottom of the video is missing. Same with Harry
Potter and most movies that will be made from now on.

> Respecting the artist's intentions seems to be something you
> might understand.

If an artist's intentions is to make something that does not fit the
format of the medium it is using to be displayed on, than that is not an
artist, but an idiot.

If I build a car that takes up two lanes of traffic, are you going to
buy that car and just be able to drive it on a few new roads built to
fit it, or buy a car that fits on 99.9% of the roads that now exist?

Don't fall into the bullshit fads. They are even making tv
commercials now with black bars on them just to be "cool" and follow the
letterboxing fad. The only reason the fad took off, is because to
rush and get all the movies remastered for the explosion of the new DVD
format, there was not enough time to properly format them to fit the
video dimensions, so they just took the easy and less costing method of
pumping them out in letterboxed format and starting a publicity
propaganda campaign that was VERY successful considering how people like
yourself prove.

Huck

Huck wrote on [Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:55:17 GMT]:
> Lookingglass wrote:
>
>> If you have noticed, theater prosceniums and baseball diamonds and great
>> paintings are all basically square shaped... while tennis is played on a
>> field (widescreen) where you have to keep your head swinging back and forth
>> in order to follow the game... very few great works of art are painted in
>> "widescreen"... except Guernica...
>
> The average standard television set actually fits the golden ratio. If you
> don't know what the golden ratio is, do a search on google about it. It is
> the most aesthetically pleasing ratio in nature and all nature follows it.
> Widescreen television ratios do NOT fit it.

Odd....

16:9 = 1.777777
4:3 = 1.333333

Golden Ratio = 1.61803399

Now, which is closer?

Justin

Huck wrote on [Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:05:25 GMT]:
>> You may prefer compositions that are more square shaped,
>
> Not square, but to the golden ratio. Look it up.

I do believe you need to look it up.


>> but would you ever agree with someone cropping Guernica's
>> paintings so that they fit the "better" ratio?
>
> But that is what we all have to do when we frame something. Frames
> only come in certain dimensions, and one always has to cut photos so
> that they fit the frames.

Nope. Photos only come in certain sizes, and frames are generally in
those dimensions.

> When you make a car, it should be made to
> fit the width of the lanes on the roads, you don't create a car that
> requires you to build all new roads.

There's your problem, you are assuming that movies are made for TVs.
They are not. They are made for movie screens.

Do NASCARs have to fit in the lanes on the roads? Forumla one cars? Indy
cars? No....



>> People who prefer Widescreen tend to want to see the film
>> in the form the creator's originally intended it to be viewed.
>
> Good directors film with the television set in mind.

No. Good directors film with the whole frame in mind.


> Watch the
> fullscreen version of Finding Nemo where they explain how there is more
> picture in the fullscreen version, and the widescreen version actually
> has less, the top and bottom of the video is missing.
Finding Nemo is a poor example of this as (and this is explained in
the intro on the widescreen disc) since it's computer generated they
reformated the image to make a full screen image. It's not cropped or
open matted, it's a completely different rendering of the digital
image.

> Same with Harry
> Potter and most movies that will be made from now on.

Nope.


>> Respecting the artist's intentions seems to be something you
>> might understand.
>
> If an artist's intentions is to make something that does not fit the
> format of the medium it is using to be displayed on, than that is not an
> artist, but an idiot.

A movie is not made for your TV, it is made for the movie theatre.

Justin

> >> but would you ever agree with someone cropping Guernica's
> >> paintings so that they fit the "better" ratio?
> >
> > But that is what we all have to do when we frame something. Frames
> > only come in certain dimensions, and one always has to cut photos so
> > that they fit the frames.
>
> Nope. Photos only come in certain sizes, and frames are generally in
> those dimensions.

I have yet to ever find a frame that fit to any picture I had, the picture
always had to be trimmed. Thank god with digital photos and photoshop, you
can now make the picture to fit the frames.

> > When you make a car, it should be made to
> > fit the width of the lanes on the roads, you don't create a car that
> > requires you to build all new roads.
>
> There's your problem, you are assuming that movies are made for TVs.

They are. Your problem is that you think that DVDs and video are made for
theater screens, when in fact they are made for television sets.

No movie is ever on a theater screen for more than a few weeks. All movies
are seen on television sets for the majority of their existence. MOST
movies have only been seen by the majority of the population buying DVDs on
television and they never saw them at a theater ever.

> They are not. They are made for movie screens.

False. That is like saying that DVD players are made to sit on store
shelves, instead of be used in people's homes. Most people never see
movies in theaters anymore, the minority that do, only get to see them there
for a few weeks, and even then, only see them there for ONE viewing. The
movie will be watched hundreds of times on a television set and live the rest
of it's life being watched that way.

> Do NASCARs have to fit in the lanes on the roads? Forumla one cars? Indy
> cars? No....

And they are not allowed on the roads, are they? You don't change the roads
to accommodate them, you only allow cars that fit the format to drive on the
roads. That is common sense.

Want to put something on video? Then you have to conform to the video
standard. Simple.

> >> People who prefer Widescreen tend to want to see the film
> >> in the form the creator's originally intended it to be viewed.
> >
> > Good directors film with the television set in mind.
>
> > Watch the
> > fullscreen version of Finding Nemo where they explain how there is more
> > picture in the fullscreen version, and the widescreen version actually
> > has less, the top and bottom of the video is missing.
> > Same with Harry
> > Potter and most movies that will be made from now on.
>
> >> Respecting the artist's intentions seems to be something you
> >> might understand.
> >
> > If an artist's intentions is to make something that does not fit the
> > format of the medium it is using to be displayed on, than that is not an
> > artist, but an idiot.
>

A movie will be watched by the majority on a television set, not a movie
screen.

I have not seen a movie on a theater screen since I was a child many decades
ago.

Huck

Huck wrote on [Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:38:57 GMT]:
> I have yet to ever find a frame that fit to any picture I had, the picture
> always had to be trimmed. Thank god with digital photos and photoshop, you
> can now make the picture to fit the frames.

Then your photos aren't the normal sizes.


>> > When you make a car, it should be made to
>> > fit the width of the lanes on the roads, you don't create a car that
>> > requires you to build all new roads.
>>
>> There's your problem, you are assuming that movies are made for TVs.
>
> They are. Your problem is that you think that DVDs and video are made for
> theater screens, when in fact they are made for television sets.

No, DVDs are made for watching at home. Movies are made for watching in
the movie theatre. The rest is gravy and NOT the primary reason movies
are made.

DVDs are used to display an inferior approximation of a movie in a home
environment.


> No movie is ever on a theater screen for more than a few weeks. All movies
> are seen on television sets for the majority of their existence. MOST
> movies have only been seen by the majority of the population buying DVDs on
> television and they never saw them at a theater ever.

And that has what to do with the point? The majority hasn't seen the
original Mona Lisa either. Did the original artist intend the majority
to see photos or prints of it? No.



>> They are not. They are made for movie screens.
>
> False. That is like saying that DVD players are made to sit on store
> shelves, instead of be used in people's homes. Most people never see
> movies in theaters anymore, the minority that do, only get to see them there
> for a few weeks, and even then, only see them there for ONE viewing. The
> movie will be watched hundreds of times on a television set and live the rest
> of it's life being watched that way.

So, the close to two billion dollars of movie tickets sales for the LOTR
series is something to be sneezed at?

Is the impact of an LOTR movie as great in a living room as it is in a
theatre? No. These movies were made for the big screen.


>> Do NASCARs have to fit in the lanes on the roads? Forumla one cars? Indy
>> cars? No....
>
> And they are not allowed on the roads, are they? You don't change the roads
> to accommodate them, you only allow cars that fit the format to drive on the
> roads. That is common sense.

So, you butcher a movie to put it on a TV? Where it is siginificantly
different.

> Want to put something on video? Then you have to conform to the video
> standard. Simple.

The video standard? You mean NTSC, PAL, or SECAM? They do that.

> A movie will be watched by the majority on a television set, not a movie
> screen.

Yes. And the majority of people who enjoy movies will want to see the
whole picture.


> I have not seen a movie on a theater screen since I was a child many decades
> ago.

Then you are missing a great deal

Justin

>> There's your problem, you are assuming that movies are made for TVs.
>
> No movie is ever on a theater screen for more than a few weeks. All
> movies are seen on television sets for the majority of their
> existence. MOST movies have only been seen by the majority of the
> population buying DVDs on television and they never saw them at a
> theater ever.

A movie may be shown on TV for a long period of time, but it is in
the theatrical presentation that it will be judged. The theatrical
showings earn the movie its primary revenue, pay for the cost of filming
(hopefully), and gain its critical acclaim (or disdain). The reputation
of the movie rests upon the theatrical cut.

Which is why, while some allowances may be made for video, the real
effort is put into making the theatrical version better.

> Want to put something on video? Then you have to conform to the
> video standard. Simple.

And DVDs, widescreen and fullscreen both, do conform to the standard.
Otherwise, they would not be viewable.

> I have not seen a movie on a theater screen since I was a child many
> decades ago.

Well, they're wider now.


--

Aaron J. Bossig

http://www.GodsLabRat.com
http://www.daily-reviews.com

Aaron J. Bossig