guilty about fullscreen

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Walter Traprock, Nov 19, 2005.

  1. i feel guilty about continuing to prefer renting and buying
    widescreen movies, as i support the fullscreen cause.
    Walter Traprock, Nov 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Walter Traprock

    Bratboy Guest

    "Walter Traprock" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >i feel guilty about continuing to prefer renting and buying
    > widescreen movies, as i support the fullscreen cause.


    Why feel guilty? I mean if ppl really want movies with bits missing its
    their choice. Just as long as it roesnt lead to ALL dvd's being FS. Course
    if FS ppl would get over it dvd's might get even cheaper if makers didnt
    have to make 2 versions of every movie.
    Bratboy, Nov 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bratboy wrote:

    > "Walter Traprock" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>i feel guilty about continuing to prefer renting and buying
    >>widescreen movies, as i support the fullscreen cause.

    >
    >
    > Why feel guilty? I mean if ppl really want movies with bits missing its
    > their choice.


    Don't "widescreen" movies have bits missing at the top and bottom?
    Mike O'Sullivan, Nov 19, 2005
    #3
  4. Walter Traprock

    Bob Guest

    On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:55:55 +0000, Mike O'Sullivan wrote:

    > Bratboy wrote:
    >
    >> "Walter Traprock" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>i feel guilty about continuing to prefer renting and buying widescreen
    >>>movies, as i support the fullscreen cause.

    >>
    >>
    >> Why feel guilty? I mean if ppl really want movies with bits missing its
    >> their choice.

    >
    > Don't "widescreen" movies have bits missing at the top and bottom?


    Not sure if this is a troll, but in case it isn't it is time to correct
    some serious misinformation.

    To answer the question: No (at least not typically). If the original
    source material is widescreen (as nearly all recent and even not-so-recent
    movies are), when it is shown on a "fullscreen" (a misnomer) TV, parts of
    the screen (top and bottom) are simply not used (nor needed) to show the
    *full* (widescreen) content of the original material. This is called
    letter-boxing.

    What you do loose is size and some resolution.

    It is when a widescreen movie is put on DVD as a "fullscreen" version that
    "bits" are missing. If this is done crudely, the left and right edges are
    simply chopped off. Slightly better is "pan and scan" where some editor
    attempts to keep the 4x3 viewport centered on the most important action.

    As to the "misnomer" I mentioned above. On my TV (a widescreen TV)
    fullscreen DVDs do use the "full screen". It is the misnamed "fullscreen"
    versions that leave black bars (left and right).

    Now there are some details not addressed above. Not all fullscreen source
    material is the same aspect ratio most widescreen TVs (9x14) so some
    source material leaves black bars at the top and bottom of even widescreen
    TVs. Also, I think some material is clipped a little to fit.

    Also, many (most? all?) widescreen TVs can be configured to stretch 4x3
    material to fit into the 9x14 screen. This can be done cleverly so that
    the stretching is done more at the edges than the center in an attempt to
    make it look more natural. Personally, I find this disorienting,
    especially in an action-packed movie. Almost makes me seasick!
    Bob, Nov 19, 2005
    #4
  5. Walter Traprock

    Sean O'Hara Guest

    In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Bratboy declared:
    > "Walter Traprock" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >> i feel guilty about continuing to prefer renting and buying
    >> widescreen movies, as i support the fullscreen cause.

    >
    >
    > Why feel guilty? I mean if ppl really want movies with bits
    > missing its their choice.


    Unless someone gives you a FS DVD as a present.

    I say if someone wants to see a screen-filling image, they should
    set their player for a 16:9 screen. Any disc enhanced for widescreen
    TVs (which is pretty much all of them these days) will play with the
    image filling the screen. Sure, it might make James Earl Jones look
    like a beanpole, but its no worse mutilation than pan'n'scan.



    --
    Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his
    government.
    -Edward Abbey
    Sean O'Hara, Nov 19, 2005
    #5
  6. Walter Traprock

    Stan Brown Guest

    Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:09:56 -0800 from Walter Traprock
    <>:
    > i feel guilty about continuing to prefer renting and buying
    > widescreen movies, as i support the fullscreen cause.




    _________________________
    /| /| | |
    ||__|| | Please do not |
    / O O\__ feed the Trolls. |
    / \ Thank You. |
    / \ \ |
    / _ \ \---------------------´
    / |\____\ \ ||
    / | | | |\____/ ||
    / \|_|_|/ | _||
    / / \ |____| ||
    * / | | | --|
    \__ | | | |____ --|
    \ | |_|_|_| | \-/
    * -----\ _ \ | ||
    _ \\ | / `´
    * / \_ /- | | |
    ___________________ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________________

    (after Peter Lairo)
    Stan Brown, Nov 19, 2005
    #6
  7. Bob <> wrote:

    >To answer the question: No (at least not typically).


    Some of the atypical examples result from open-matte transfers.
    Koyanisqaatsi definitely should be seen in 1.33:1.
    I prefer A Hard Day's Night that way, too.

    >Also, many (most? all?) widescreen TVs can be configured to stretch 4x3
    >material to fit into the 9x14 screen. This can be done cleverly so that
    >the stretching is done more at the edges than the center in an attempt to
    >make it look more natural. Personally, I find this disorienting,
    >especially in an action-packed movie. Almost makes me seasick!


    Definitely not all. Mine has two zoom modes; one is for typical
    non-anamorphic letterbox transfers (like on TCM) and the other is a
    compromise setting to get a bigger picture out of 4:3 material. The kind of
    stretching you describe would drive me mad, too.
    Kimba W. Lion, Nov 19, 2005
    #7
  8. Walter Traprock

    Bratboy Guest

    "Kimba W. Lion" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Definitely not all. Mine has two zoom modes; one is for typical
    > non-anamorphic letterbox transfers (like on TCM) and the other is a
    > compromise setting to get a bigger picture out of 4:3 material. The kind
    > of
    > stretching you describe would drive me mad, too.


    Yeah, bit of a "Looking thru a fishbowl" effect
    Bratboy, Nov 19, 2005
    #8
  9. Walter Traprock

    Richard C. Guest

    X-No-archive: yes

    "Walter Traprock" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >i feel guilty about continuing to prefer renting and buying
    > widescreen movies, as i support the fullscreen cause.


    =============================
    It is a LOST cause.............
    Besides, it is a LIE!
    They are NOT full screen on my set.
    False advertising.
    Anyone know a lawyer? <g>
    Richard C., Nov 22, 2005
    #9
  10. Walter Traprock

    Richard C. Guest

    X-No-archive: yes

    "Mike O'Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bratboy wrote:
    >
    >> "Walter Traprock" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>i feel guilty about continuing to prefer renting and buying
    >>>widescreen movies, as i support the fullscreen cause.

    >>
    >>
    >> Why feel guilty? I mean if ppl really want movies with bits missing its
    >> their choice.

    >
    > Don't "widescreen" movies have bits missing at the top and bottom?
    >

    ==============================
    Not from the intended theatrical picture.......................
    Richard C., Nov 22, 2005
    #10
  11. Walter Traprock

    Richard C. Guest

    X-No-archive: yes

    "Sean O'Hara" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Bratboy declared:
    >> "Walter Traprock" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>> i feel guilty about continuing to prefer renting and buying widescreen
    >>> movies, as i support the fullscreen cause.

    >>
    >>
    >> Why feel guilty? I mean if ppl really want movies with bits
    >> missing its their choice.

    >
    > Unless someone gives you a FS DVD as a present.
    >
    > I say if someone wants to see a screen-filling image, they should set
    > their player for a 16:9 screen. Any disc enhanced for widescreen TVs
    > (which is pretty much all of them these days) will play with the image
    > filling the screen.


    ==================================
    Why do people keep spreading this false information?
    Only a 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 movie will appear to "fill" the screen.
    2.35:1 movies will NOT!
    ======================================

    > Sure, it might make James Earl Jones look like a beanpole, but its no
    > worse mutilation than pan'n'scan.
    >
    Richard C., Nov 22, 2005
    #11
    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. Arawak
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    611
    Robert de Brus
    Oct 18, 2003
  2. Old Gringo

    Tunnel man guilty of terror charges

    Old Gringo, Sep 23, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    428
    Mike Easter
    Sep 23, 2005
  3. Lucas Tam

    Is Michael guilty or innocent?

    Lucas Tam, Apr 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    396
    Annika1980
    Apr 14, 2004
  4. KING B MAN
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,112
    Eric R.
    Apr 16, 2004
  5. peterwn

    Re: Linux programmer found guilty

    peterwn, May 2, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    347
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    May 6, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page