"Full screen" = Pan & Scan???

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by G. M. Watson, Feb 3, 2008.

  1. G. M. Watson

    G. M. Watson Guest

    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
    G. M. Watson, Feb 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. G. M. Watson

    Netmask Guest

    "G. M. Watson" <> wrote in message
    news:C3CAC865.C370%...
    > 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/articles/anamorphic/page2.html#demos
    Netmask, Feb 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. G. M. Watson

    PapaBear Guest

    "Netmask" <> wrote in message
    news:Ongpj.10602$...
    >
    > "G. M. Watson" <> wrote in message
    > news:C3CAC865.C370%...
    >> 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/articles/anamorphic/page2.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! :eek:)

    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.
    PapaBear, Feb 3, 2008
    #3
  4. G. M. Watson

    Mark B. Guest

    "PapaBear" <2x> wrote in message
    news:x1kpj.9151$...
    > "Netmask" <> wrote in message
    > news:Ongpj.10602$...
    >>
    >> "G. M. Watson" <> wrote in message
    >> news:C3CAC865.C370%...
    >>> 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/articles/anamorphic/page2.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! :eek:)
    >
    > 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
    Mark B., Feb 3, 2008
    #4
  5. "PapaBear" <2x> wrote in message
    news:x1kpj.9151$...

    >
    > 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.
    Obscured by Clouds, Feb 3, 2008
    #5
  6. "Mark B." <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > 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:PanScan7BridesPan.gif
    Obscured by Clouds, Feb 3, 2008
    #6
  7. G. M. Watson

    Winfield Guest

    Obscured by Clouds wrote:
    > "PapaBear" <2x> wrote in message
    > news:x1kpj.9151$...

    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
    Winfield, Feb 3, 2008
    #7
  8. G. M. Watson

    Jim Guest

    "Obscured by Clouds" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > 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
    Jim, Feb 3, 2008
    #8
  9. G. M. Watson

    T.B. Guest

    "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/articles/anamorphic/page2.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! :eek:)
    >>
    >> 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.
    T.B., Feb 3, 2008
    #9
  10. G. M. Watson

    GMAN Guest

    In article <x1kpj.9151$>, "PapaBear" <2x> wrote:
    >"Netmask" <> wrote in message
    >news:Ongpj.10602$...
    >>
    >> "G. M. Watson" <> wrote in message
    >> news:C3CAC865.C370%...
    >>> 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/articles/anamorphic/page2.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! :eek:)
    >
    >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)
    GMAN, Feb 3, 2008
    #10
  11. G. M. Watson

    Netmask Guest

    "Winfield" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Obscured by Clouds wrote:
    >> "PapaBear" <2x> wrote in message
    >> news:x1kpj.9151$...

    > 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..
    Netmask, Feb 3, 2008
    #11
  12. G. M. Watson <> 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.
    Neill Massello, Feb 4, 2008
    #12
  13. G. M. Watson

    Winfield Guest

    Netmask wrote:
    > "Winfield" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Obscured by Clouds wrote:
    >>> "PapaBear" <2x> wrote in message
    >>> news:x1kpj.9151$...

    >> 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
    Winfield, Feb 4, 2008
    #13
  14. G. M. Watson

    Winfield Guest

    Winfield wrote:
    > Obscured by Clouds wrote:
    >> "PapaBear" <2x> wrote in message
    >> news:x1kpj.9151$...

    > 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
    Winfield, Feb 4, 2008
    #14
  15. G. M. Watson

    Netmask Guest

    "Netmask" <> wrote in message
    news:jLrpj.10812$...
    >
    > "Winfield" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Obscured by Clouds wrote:
    >>> "PapaBear" <2x> wrote in message
    >>> news:x1kpj.9151$...

    >> 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 .
    Netmask, Feb 4, 2008
    #15
  16. G. M. Watson

    Guest Guest


    >
    > 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
    Guest, Feb 4, 2008
    #16
  17. G. M. Watson

    G. M. Watson Guest


    > From: (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 <> 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
    G. M. Watson, Feb 4, 2008
    #17
  18. G. M. Watson

    GMAN Guest

    In article <1ibqua9.cncv4y19i0iidN%>, (Neill Massello) wrote:
    >G. M. Watson <> 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.
    GMAN, Feb 4, 2008
    #18
  19. G. M. Watson

    Netmask Guest

    "G. M. Watson" <> wrote in message
    news:C3CBF83F.C387%...
    >
    >
    >> From: (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 <> 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...0005A3Q5| B00005Y7R6| 1574927728&link_code=qs

    or a bit cheaper in the UK
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/026-18219...0005A3Q5| B00005Y7R6| 1574927728&link_code=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.
    Netmask, Feb 4, 2008
    #19
  20. G. M. Watson

    Richard C. Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >>
    >> 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????
    Richard C., Feb 4, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Michael Rogers

    Indy Temple of doom pan and scan question

    Michael Rogers, Oct 27, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    462
    ymenard
    Oct 28, 2003
  2. Joseph S. Powell, III

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

    Joseph S. Powell, III, Nov 18, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    1,012
    Nero Wolfe
    Nov 21, 2003
  3. JMH

    pan and scan

    JMH, Jan 9, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    439
  4. Max Christoffersen

    Richard C watches Pan and Scan!

    Max Christoffersen, Feb 18, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
    Max Christoffersen
    Feb 18, 2004
  5. Arminio Grgic
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    609
    Arminio Grgic
    May 24, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page