Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > "Full screen" = Pan & Scan???

Reply
Thread Tools

"Full screen" = Pan & Scan???

 
 
G. M. Watson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
OK, here's a question for which I should already know the answer:

Was in my local DVD bigstore today and noticed two different versions of
John Sayles' "Matewan", a film I've been casually intending to pick up for
years, nestled up to each other. The cheaper disc was from some new
fly-by-night outfit I've never heard of ("Peace Arch video"??). On the back
of the box it gave a runtime of 132M for the film and noted the film was
presented in *"Full screen"*. No extras noted. The other disc was an older,
better-packaged release of the flick from a different company, that cost
three times as much, and proclaimed that film was presented in widescreen.
Plus it had a few paltry extras-- trailers and so forth. And it gave a
running time of 135M, which agrees with IMDB.

I have a sneaking suspicion that "full screen" is code for P & S. If that's
true, I would get the "WS" copy before it disappears and hang the difference
in price. But I don't really know for sure, even though, like I said, I
should-- probably it's pretty basic terminology. Sorry (I don't buy a lot of
el cheapo DVDs). Can anyone fill me in here?
GMW


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Netmask
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008

"G. M. Watson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:C3CAC865.C370%(E-Mail Removed)...
> OK, here's a question for which I should already know the answer:
>
> Was in my local DVD bigstore today and noticed two different versions of
> John Sayles' "Matewan", a film I've been casually intending to pick up for
> years, nestled up to each other. The cheaper disc was from some new
> fly-by-night outfit I've never heard of ("Peace Arch video"??). On the
> back
> of the box it gave a runtime of 132M for the film and noted the film was
> presented in *"Full screen"*. No extras noted. The other disc was an
> older,
> better-packaged release of the flick from a different company, that cost
> three times as much, and proclaimed that film was presented in widescreen.
> Plus it had a few paltry extras-- trailers and so forth. And it gave a
> running time of 135M, which agrees with IMDB.
>
> I have a sneaking suspicion that "full screen" is code for P & S. If
> that's
> true, I would get the "WS" copy before it disappears and hang the
> difference
> in price. But I don't really know for sure, even though, like I said, I
> should-- probably it's pretty basic terminology. Sorry (I don't buy a lot
> of
> el cheapo DVDs). Can anyone fill me in here?
> GMW
>

I have found discs with "Full Screen" invariably are 4:3 but I have found a
couple that what they really meant "full 16:9 screen" just to confuse the
issue. Personally as I have had a 16:9 screen for 2 years I look for
"anamorphic" or WS check out
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ge2.html#demos


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PapaBear
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
"Netmask" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Ongpj.10602$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "G. M. Watson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:C3CAC865.C370%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> OK, here's a question for which I should already know the answer:
>>
>> Was in my local DVD bigstore today and noticed two different versions of
>> John Sayles' "Matewan", a film I've been casually intending to pick up
>> for
>> years, nestled up to each other. The cheaper disc was from some new
>> fly-by-night outfit I've never heard of ("Peace Arch video"??). On the
>> back
>> of the box it gave a runtime of 132M for the film and noted the film was
>> presented in *"Full screen"*. No extras noted. The other disc was an
>> older,
>> better-packaged release of the flick from a different company, that cost
>> three times as much, and proclaimed that film was presented in
>> widescreen.
>> Plus it had a few paltry extras-- trailers and so forth. And it gave a
>> running time of 135M, which agrees with IMDB.
>>
>> I have a sneaking suspicion that "full screen" is code for P & S. If
>> that's
>> true, I would get the "WS" copy before it disappears and hang the
>> difference
>> in price. But I don't really know for sure, even though, like I said, I
>> should-- probably it's pretty basic terminology. Sorry (I don't buy a lot
>> of
>> el cheapo DVDs). Can anyone fill me in here?
>> GMW
>>

> I have found discs with "Full Screen" invariably are 4:3 but I have found
> a couple that what they really meant "full 16:9 screen" just to confuse
> the issue. Personally as I have had a 16:9 screen for 2 years I look for
> "anamorphic" or WS check out
> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ge2.html#demos


Although they may have some individual nuance connotations, I believe the
following terms are generally understood as synonomous: standard, full
screen, 4x3, pan and scan. In other words it fills the screen (no black bars
at top and bottom) on a standard old-fashioned TV which has an aspect ratio
of about 4x3. The term "pan and scan" carries a negative connotation, and is
used by people who hate it, and are usually propagandizing in favor of
widescreen.

The term "WS" or widescreen is confusing because you never know exactly what
aspect ratio they're referring to. It could be 16x9 or 2.35x1 or something
else. Then when you include "anamorphic" into the mix, I don't think 1
person in 100 could tell you what that means! )

The 16x9 TVs are not "standard" or "full screen" yet, even if some
advertisers are hyping them that way! I still have a 4x3, and Walmart &
Kmart & Sears still sell them. The 16x9s are a lot more expensive. Or course
they're trying to push the $500+ HD widescreens on us, but that's too much
for me. I've never paid over $200 for a TV in my life, and don't expect to.
If the widescreens come down to that price, then I might consider it, but
believe 4x3 has some positive points in its favor for portrait-style movies
(rather than panoramic). For example the 16x9 movies must generally cut off
the tops of peoples heads in order to make a closeup image, which looks
really strange to me. In the meantime I'm considering getting a 32" 4x3 as
an upgrade for my 25" 4x3, and the price around $200 is definitely a big
factor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008

"PapaBear" <(E-Mail Removed)2x> wrote in message
news1kpj.9151$(E-Mail Removed). ..
> "Netmask" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Ongpj.10602$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "G. M. Watson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:C3CAC865.C370%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> OK, here's a question for which I should already know the answer:
>>>
>>> Was in my local DVD bigstore today and noticed two different versions of
>>> John Sayles' "Matewan", a film I've been casually intending to pick up
>>> for
>>> years, nestled up to each other. The cheaper disc was from some new
>>> fly-by-night outfit I've never heard of ("Peace Arch video"??). On the
>>> back
>>> of the box it gave a runtime of 132M for the film and noted the film was
>>> presented in *"Full screen"*. No extras noted. The other disc was an
>>> older,
>>> better-packaged release of the flick from a different company, that cost
>>> three times as much, and proclaimed that film was presented in
>>> widescreen.
>>> Plus it had a few paltry extras-- trailers and so forth. And it gave a
>>> running time of 135M, which agrees with IMDB.
>>>
>>> I have a sneaking suspicion that "full screen" is code for P & S. If
>>> that's
>>> true, I would get the "WS" copy before it disappears and hang the
>>> difference
>>> in price. But I don't really know for sure, even though, like I said, I
>>> should-- probably it's pretty basic terminology. Sorry (I don't buy a
>>> lot of
>>> el cheapo DVDs). Can anyone fill me in here?
>>> GMW
>>>

>> I have found discs with "Full Screen" invariably are 4:3 but I have found
>> a couple that what they really meant "full 16:9 screen" just to confuse
>> the issue. Personally as I have had a 16:9 screen for 2 years I look for
>> "anamorphic" or WS check out
>> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ge2.html#demos

>
> Although they may have some individual nuance connotations, I believe the
> following terms are generally understood as synonomous: standard, full
> screen, 4x3, pan and scan. In other words it fills the screen (no black
> bars at top and bottom) on a standard old-fashioned TV which has an aspect
> ratio of about 4x3. The term "pan and scan" carries a negative
> connotation, and is used by people who hate it, and are usually
> propagandizing in favor of widescreen.
>
> The term "WS" or widescreen is confusing because you never know exactly
> what aspect ratio they're referring to. It could be 16x9 or 2.35x1 or
> something else. Then when you include "anamorphic" into the mix, I don't
> think 1 person in 100 could tell you what that means! )
>
> The 16x9 TVs are not "standard" or "full screen" yet, even if some
> advertisers are hyping them that way! I still have a 4x3, and Walmart &
> Kmart & Sears still sell them. The 16x9s are a lot more expensive. Or
> course they're trying to push the $500+ HD widescreens on us, but that's
> too much for me. I've never paid over $200 for a TV in my life, and don't
> expect to. If the widescreens come down to that price, then I might
> consider it, but believe 4x3 has some positive points in its favor for
> portrait-style movies (rather than panoramic). For example the 16x9 movies
> must generally cut off the tops of peoples heads in order to make a
> closeup image, which looks really strange to me.


I've never seen a widescreen movie that's cropped on the top & bottom. Old
movies shot in 4x3, such as The Wizard of Oz, are sold as such with no
cropping. I've never seen a movie originally shot in 4x3 that was cropped
to widescreen. Movies originally shot in a wider format are, however
cropped on the sides. As the movie is cropped, it's scanned side to side to
keep the most important part of the frame - thus the term pan & scan. It
has the consequence, of course, of lopping off a good part of the image that
the director originally captured. One example of this is in Ghostbusters
where one of the Ghostbusters is cut completely out of the scene. Even when
I had a 27" TV I hated watching a pan & scanned DVD, seeing how much of the
image was lost to cropping.

Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
Obscured by Clouds
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008

"PapaBear" <(E-Mail Removed)2x> wrote in message
news1kpj.9151$(E-Mail Removed). ..

>
> The 16x9 TVs are not "standard" or "full screen" yet, even if some
> advertisers are hyping them that way! I still have a 4x3, and Walmart &
> Kmart & Sears still sell them.


They also still sell VCR's. Better stock up.


The 16x9s are a lot more expensive. Or course
> they're trying to push the $500+ HD widescreens on us, but that's too much
> for me. I've never paid over $200 for a TV in my life, and don't expect
> to.


I never expected to pay $2 for a gallon of gas, but guess what...


> If the widescreens come down to that price, then I might consider it, but
> believe 4x3 has some positive points in its favor for portrait-style
> movies (rather than panoramic).


Considering ALL programming will be widescreen next year I hardly see how
you can put a positive spin on a 4:3 TV.



For example the 16x9 movies must generally cut off
> the tops of peoples heads in order to make a closeup image, which looks
> really strange to me.


Never seen a movie in a theater, eh? 16x9 does not cut off the top of the
heads, the only way that will happen is if the director WANTS the shot to
look like that and you can't change that. Don't like it? Call Speilberg and
complain.



In the meantime I'm considering getting a 32" 4x3 as
> an upgrade for my 25" 4x3, and the price around $200 is definitely a big
> factor.


Should be a great TV until it quits working next year (unless you took my
advice and stocked up on VCR's and videotapes). Since everything is going to
be widescreen, you might as well just buy a 19" LCD Widescreen TV. That will
give you a larger image than your letterboxed 32" TV.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Obscured by Clouds
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008

"Mark B." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> I've never seen a widescreen movie that's cropped on the top & bottom.
> Old movies shot in 4x3, such as The Wizard of Oz, are sold as such with no
> cropping. I've never seen a movie originally shot in 4x3 that was cropped
> to widescreen. Movies originally shot in a wider format are, however
> cropped on the sides. As the movie is cropped, it's scanned side to side
> to keep the most important part of the frame - thus the term pan & scan.
> It has the consequence, of course, of lopping off a good part of the image
> that the director originally captured. One example of this is in
> Ghostbusters where one of the Ghostbusters is cut completely out of the
> scene. Even when I had a 27" TV I hated watching a pan & scanned DVD,
> seeing how much of the image was lost to cropping.



Here's a good quick example of why pan & scan (and 4:3 TV's) suck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...7BridesPan.gif



 
Reply With Quote
 
Winfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
Obscured by Clouds wrote:
> "PapaBear" <(E-Mail Removed)2x> wrote in message
> news1kpj.9151$(E-Mail Removed). ..

snip
>
>
> In the meantime I'm considering getting a 32" 4x3 as
>> an upgrade for my 25" 4x3, and the price around $200 is definitely a big
>> factor.

>
> Should be a great TV until it quits working next year (unless you took my
> advice and stocked up on VCR's and videotapes). Since everything is going to
> be widescreen, you might as well just buy a 19" LCD Widescreen TV. That will
> give you a larger image than your letterboxed 32" TV.



What a ridiculous assertion. If PapaBear wants a similar size image on
a widescreen TV (compared to his 4:3 letterboxed), he should be looking
in the 36" range.

19" ... pfft! That's for midgets. =)

winf
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008

"Obscured by Clouds" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> Here's a good quick example of why pan & scan (and 4:3 TV's) suck:


thanks!!!
I've been trying to explain P&S to the girlfriend for 3 years.
My napkin stick figure drawings didn't cut it, but I bet this will.

thanks again
Jim


 
Reply With Quote
 
T.B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
"Mark B." wrote:

>>> I have found discs with "Full Screen" invariably are 4:3 but I have
>>> found a couple that what they really meant "full 16:9 screen" just to
>>> confuse the issue. Personally as I have had a 16:9 screen for 2 years I
>>> look for "anamorphic" or WS check out
>>> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ge2.html#demos

>>
>> Although they may have some individual nuance connotations, I believe the
>> following terms are generally understood as synonomous: standard, full
>> screen, 4x3, pan and scan. In other words it fills the screen (no black
>> bars at top and bottom) on a standard old-fashioned TV which has an
>> aspect ratio of about 4x3. The term "pan and scan" carries a negative
>> connotation, and is used by people who hate it, and are usually
>> propagandizing in favor of widescreen.
>>
>> The term "WS" or widescreen is confusing because you never know exactly
>> what aspect ratio they're referring to. It could be 16x9 or 2.35x1 or
>> something else. Then when you include "anamorphic" into the mix, I don't
>> think 1 person in 100 could tell you what that means! )
>>
>> The 16x9 TVs are not "standard" or "full screen" yet, even if some
>> advertisers are hyping them that way! I still have a 4x3, and Walmart &
>> Kmart & Sears still sell them. The 16x9s are a lot more expensive. Or
>> course they're trying to push the $500+ HD widescreens on us, but that's
>> too much for me. I've never paid over $200 for a TV in my life, and don't
>> expect to. If the widescreens come down to that price, then I might
>> consider it, but believe 4x3 has some positive points in its favor for
>> portrait-style movies (rather than panoramic). For example the 16x9
>> movies must generally cut off the tops of peoples heads in order to make
>> a closeup image, which looks really strange to me.

>
> I've never seen a widescreen movie that's cropped on the top & bottom.
> Old movies shot in 4x3, such as The Wizard of Oz, are sold as such with no
> cropping. I've never seen a movie originally shot in 4x3 that was cropped
> to widescreen. Movies originally shot in a wider format are, however
> cropped on the sides. As the movie is cropped, it's scanned side to side
> to keep the most important part of the frame - thus the term pan & scan.
> It has the consequence, of course, of lopping off a good part of the image
> that the director originally captured. One example of this is in
> Ghostbusters where one of the Ghostbusters is cut completely out of the
> scene. Even when I had a 27" TV I hated watching a pan & scanned DVD,
> seeing how much of the image was lost to cropping.


Let me add to the info in both your replies.

First off, ideally a film should be viewed on a "tv" in it's original
theatrical aspect ratio. Obviously a lot of older pre-60's movies were
filmed or matted much closer to an aspect ratio of what's now becoming
obsolete older "4x3" tvs. It should be noted that many of those while
conforming to that aspect ratio are really not "pan and scanned." King Kong
and Citizen Kane never suffered from pan and scan for tv. What *is* panned
and scanned are films that were shot and/or matted for theatrical release
with a more traditional widescreen aspect approaching or conforming to
"16x9" that then have the left and right sides cropped and the image framed
so it fills a 3x4 old style tv screen with often clumsy panning left and
right not present in the original version of the film to capture pertinent
picture information, say two people talking to each other who are standing
on either far side of the frame. That started changing in the mid to late
80's with some laserdisc releases taking advantage of the marginally better
video quality (over vhs/beta tape and broadcast) to properly present the
original theatrical aspect ratio on more and more movies for home video.

On the other hand, there *are* now hundreds of examples of older movies
originally shown in theaters with close to a 3x4 image that have been
"re-matted" thus losing often crucial picture image on the top and bottom
for home video release to conform to a modern 16x9 screen. A personal
favorite of mine, the UK Hammer Studios film "Horror of Dracula" is a good
example.

Because most 16x9, especially projection and HD flatscreen tv owners don't
want *any* black bars on any side or top and bottom of their screen while
watching the tv partially due to image burn-in, now it's a lot of older
movies being released on home video such as the "Horror of Dracula" example
above suffer sometimes composition-destroying matting to accommodate 16x9
tvs. On the other hand, modern movies from the last 30 years or so are
pretty much correctly matted per their theatrical release now.

The thing is, if you're hell-bent on buying a 3x4 aspect tv, make sure it's
a HD capable tv. Older non-hd capable tvs are going to be obsolete in a year
and look crappy anyway. The image of a standard dvd that's composed to a 3x4
aspect may look correctly matted per the original theatrical release, but it
will look quite grainy and mediocre even compared to an anamorphic dvd
because it's not taking advantage of an HD tv's full resolution. HD video or
blu-ray is another thing altogether and I really can't comment on who that
would look with a 4x3 image as I haven't bought any older movies matter
close to that aspect ratio on any hidef format yet.

It's never going to be a perfect world for home theater movie lovers.

T.B.

 
Reply With Quote
 
GMAN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
In article <x1kpj.9151$(E-Mail Removed)>, "PapaBear" <(E-Mail Removed)2x> wrote:
>"Netmask" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:Ongpj.10602$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "G. M. Watson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:C3CAC865.C370%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> OK, here's a question for which I should already know the answer:
>>>
>>> Was in my local DVD bigstore today and noticed two different versions of
>>> John Sayles' "Matewan", a film I've been casually intending to pick up
>>> for
>>> years, nestled up to each other. The cheaper disc was from some new
>>> fly-by-night outfit I've never heard of ("Peace Arch video"??). On the
>>> back
>>> of the box it gave a runtime of 132M for the film and noted the film was
>>> presented in *"Full screen"*. No extras noted. The other disc was an
>>> older,
>>> better-packaged release of the flick from a different company, that cost
>>> three times as much, and proclaimed that film was presented in
>>> widescreen.
>>> Plus it had a few paltry extras-- trailers and so forth. And it gave a
>>> running time of 135M, which agrees with IMDB.
>>>
>>> I have a sneaking suspicion that "full screen" is code for P & S. If
>>> that's
>>> true, I would get the "WS" copy before it disappears and hang the
>>> difference
>>> in price. But I don't really know for sure, even though, like I said, I
>>> should-- probably it's pretty basic terminology. Sorry (I don't buy a lot
>>> of
>>> el cheapo DVDs). Can anyone fill me in here?
>>> GMW
>>>

>> I have found discs with "Full Screen" invariably are 4:3 but I have found
>> a couple that what they really meant "full 16:9 screen" just to confuse
>> the issue. Personally as I have had a 16:9 screen for 2 years I look for
>> "anamorphic" or WS check out
>> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ge2.html#demos

>
>Although they may have some individual nuance connotations, I believe the
>following terms are generally understood as synonomous: standard, full
>screen, 4x3, pan and scan. In other words it fills the screen (no black bars
>at top and bottom) on a standard old-fashioned TV which has an aspect ratio
>of about 4x3. The term "pan and scan" carries a negative connotation, and is
>used by people who hate it, and are usually propagandizing in favor of
>widescreen.
>
>The term "WS" or widescreen is confusing because you never know exactly what
>aspect ratio they're referring to. It could be 16x9 or 2.35x1 or something
>else. Then when you include "anamorphic" into the mix, I don't think 1
>person in 100 could tell you what that means! )
>
>The 16x9 TVs are not "standard" or "full screen" yet, even if some
>advertisers are hyping them that way! I still have a 4x3, and Walmart &
>Kmart & Sears still sell them. The 16x9s are a lot more expensive. Or course
>they're trying to push the $500+ HD widescreens on us, but that's too much
>for me. I've never paid over $200 for a TV in my life, and don't expect to.
>If the widescreens come down to that price, then I might consider it, but
>believe 4x3 has some positive points in its favor for portrait-style movies
>(rather than panoramic). For example the 16x9 movies must generally cut off
>the tops of peoples heads in order to make a closeup image, which looks
>really strange to me. In the meantime I'm considering getting a 32" 4x3 as
>an upgrade for my 25" 4x3, and the price around $200 is definitely a big
>factor.
>
>

Its not HDTV if it cant do 720P and 1080i (Both are widescreen formats)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Auto-connect Bluetooth PAN =?Utf-8?B?SmVmZg==?= Wireless Networking 2 05-09-2005 10:18 PM
Slide show with transitions, audio, zoom/pan? Terry Digital Photography 14 07-05-2004 10:07 AM
pan test Paul Juliano Computer Support 2 12-09-2003 11:03 AM
HOW TO: Create a Photo DVD with Pan/Zoom (Ken Burns) effects Casey Digital Photography 1 08-19-2003 10:19 PM
smoother pan on cheap tripods?? tkranz Digital Photography 3 08-11-2003 09:19 AM



Advertisments