Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

"Full screen" = Pan & Scan???

 
 
Netmask
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008

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


I guess it depends on what country you are located - the uptake of 16:9 in
Japan is quite high as it is in Australia where we tend to be early uptakers
of new technology - going by the local shops people are buying widescreen
displays like there's no tomorrow..


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neill Massello
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
G. M. Watson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Can anyone fill me in here?


Your supposition is correct: "full screen" is the current euphemism for
"pan and scan". To find out whether a particular disc is a P&S version,
try to match it against Amazon's listing, which usually includes the
aspect ratio, and compare it with aspect ratio of the original movie as
listed on IMDb.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Winfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
Netmask wrote:
> "Winfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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

>
> I guess it depends on what country you are located - the uptake of 16:9 in
> Japan is quite high as it is in Australia where we tend to be early uptakers
> of new technology - going by the local shops people are buying widescreen
> displays like there's no tomorrow..



I think you missed my point, Netmask. I agree that 16:9 widescreen tv's
are the cat's pajamas, and are taking the world by storm.

The ridiculous assertion made by Clouds was that a 19-inch WIDESCREEN tv
would give PapaBear "a larger image than [his] letterboxed 32" [4:3] TV"!

That is patently absurd.

winf
 
Reply With Quote
 
Winfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
Winfield wrote:
> 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


pfft on my reply. Calculator page shows 29-30" widescreen will give the
same width and height as 32-inch 4:3.

I am fixated on 4:3 height (fullscreen) on widescreens. This skews
measurent requirements for me.

If it was just a typo on ObC's part above, the clouds obscured my
view. My mistake.

onward thru the fog,
winfield
 
Reply With Quote
 
Netmask
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008

"Netmask" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jLrpj.10812$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Winfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Obscured by Clouds wrote:
>>> "PapaBear" <(E-Mail Removed)2x> wrote in message
>>> news1kpj.9151$(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

>
> I guess it depends on what country you are located - the uptake of 16:9 in
> Japan is quite high as it is in Australia where we tend to be early
> uptakers of new technology - going by the local shops people are buying
> widescreen displays like there's no tomorrow..

Prior to buying my LCD I measured the height of my old 28" Nordemende and
that was my yardstick that the new LCD had to be at least the same height or
better so that ye olde 4:3 movies would appear the same .


 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008

>
> I've never seen a widescreen movie that's cropped on the top & bottom.


I have. 2 of them. They were shot in academy ratio. One side of the DVD
was original, and the other side was cropped to 16 x 9.

Norm Strong


 
Reply With Quote
 
G. M. Watson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008


> From: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Neill Massello)
> Organization: Eidola Enterprises
> Newsgroups: alt.video.dvd
> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:04:41 -0700
> Subject: Re: "Full screen" = Pan & Scan???
>
> G. M. Watson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone fill me in here?

>
> Your supposition is correct: "full screen" is the current euphemism for
> "pan and scan". To find out whether a particular disc is a P&S version,
> try to match it against Amazon's listing, which usually includes the
> aspect ratio, and compare it with aspect ratio of the original movie as
> listed on IMDb.


Thanks for the straightforward info. The unfortunate thing in this case is
that the WS (whatever that means in this case) version of "Matewan" will
probably be supplanted by the much cheaper, "full-screen" one. I actually
had seen the cheaper disc in the store the previous week while looking for
something else and had vaguely registered its existence. Thought about it a
few days later and went back for a look. (They had three copies of the
fullscreen version.) Actually had it in my hand and was on my way to the
till until I began to more carefully examine the low-rent packaging, and
noted not only the lack of extras but the "full screen" notice. You get what
you pay for, I guess.

Question is, "Matewan" is only about 20 years old. Could it be in public
domain already? Why is it suddenly being released by such a cheapass outfit?
Can't really answer that without knowing what the original release company
was, I guess. Obviously it's way too much to hope for that John Sayles had
any say in the matter. He probably won't even get any royalties from the new
version. I think I'd better go back and buy the WS version while it's still
on the shelf.
GMW

 
Reply With Quote
 
GMAN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
In article <1ibqua9.cncv4y19i0iidN%(E-Mail Removed) t>, (E-Mail Removed) (Neill Massello) wrote:
>G. M. Watson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone fill me in here?

>
>Your supposition is correct: "full screen" is the current euphemism for
>"pan and scan". To find out whether a particular disc is a P&S version,
>try to match it against Amazon's listing, which usually includes the
>aspect ratio, and compare it with aspect ratio of the original movie as
>listed on IMDb.
>

Well full screen can be open matte or Super35.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Netmask
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008

"G. M. Watson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:C3CBF83F.C387%(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>> From: (E-Mail Removed) (Neill Massello)
>> Organization: Eidola Enterprises
>> Newsgroups: alt.video.dvd
>> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:04:41 -0700
>> Subject: Re: "Full screen" = Pan & Scan???
>>
>> G. M. Watson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Can anyone fill me in here?

>>
>> Your supposition is correct: "full screen" is the current euphemism for
>> "pan and scan". To find out whether a particular disc is a P&S version,
>> try to match it against Amazon's listing, which usually includes the
>> aspect ratio, and compare it with aspect ratio of the original movie as
>> listed on IMDb.

>
> Thanks for the straightforward info. The unfortunate thing in this case is
> that the WS (whatever that means in this case) version of "Matewan" will
> probably be supplanted by the much cheaper, "full-screen" one. I actually
> had seen the cheaper disc in the store the previous week while looking for
> something else and had vaguely registered its existence. Thought about it
> a
> few days later and went back for a look. (They had three copies of the
> fullscreen version.) Actually had it in my hand and was on my way to the
> till until I began to more carefully examine the low-rent packaging, and
> noted not only the lack of extras but the "full screen" notice. You get
> what
> you pay for, I guess.
>
> Question is, "Matewan" is only about 20 years old. Could it be in public
> domain already? Why is it suddenly being released by such a cheapass
> outfit?
> Can't really answer that without knowing what the original release company
> was, I guess. Obviously it's way too much to hope for that John Sayles had
> any say in the matter. He probably won't even get any royalties from the
> new
> version. I think I'd better go back and buy the WS version while it's
> still
> on the shelf.
> GMW



All the details of the production here and it was shot 1.85:1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093509/

and it is available from Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&tag=...link%5Fcode=qs

or a bit cheaper in the UK
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/026-182197...link%5Fcode=qs

Looking at the price I guess you should have bought their entire stock and
then advertised it on eBay - it's a collectors item

Public domain is more like 50 years - varies from country a tad.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2008
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>
>>
>> I've never seen a widescreen movie that's cropped on the top & bottom.

>
> I have. 2 of them. They were shot in academy ratio. One side of the DVD
> was original, and the other side was cropped to 16 x 9.
>
> Norm Strong

=======================
And the names of the movies are????

 
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