Sleeping Beauty: Widescreen Tutorial.

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Scot Gardner, Sep 10, 2003.

  1. Scot Gardner

    Scot Gardner Guest

    The only reason that most "fullscreen" people prefer the bastardized pan
    and scan format is because they have not been properly shown just how
    much of a widescreen movie is chopped off in the destructive pan and
    scan process. The supplementary _Sleeping Beauty_ disk has the best
    widescreen versus pan and scan information that I have ever seen. (Both
    the widescreen and pan and scan versions are included with _Sleeping
    Beauty_.)

    Disk 2 of _Sleeping Beauty_ has a very interesting "Widescreen to
    Pan-and Scan Comparison" which shows both images, one on top of the
    other. This allows even the most ignorant people to plainly see that
    their so-called "fullscreen" movies are actually hacked up travesties.

    Andres Deja: "Hi, I'm Andres Deja, I'm supervising animator at Walt
    Disney studios and I'd like to tell you about Walt Disney's Sleeping
    Beauty. The film was shot in the 1950s on Technarama, which is a
    widescreen film format. So, when you see it in theaters, it's a big
    screen, but the format is a rectangle. Very different from your
    television format, because your television is basically a square. So we
    are really faced with a challenge when we want to show Sleeping Beauty
    on television. There are two different ways of doing this."

    (At this point, a square inlay, which represents the 4:3 aspect ratio of
    a conventional TV is shown with a letterboxed, 2:35:1 widescreen image
    from the film.)

    "We can present the movie in a so-called letterbox format which shows
    the widescreen movie as it was shot, but you will end up with a black
    bar on the top and one on the bottom of your screen."

    (At this point, the letterboxed image is zoomed to fill the 4:3 viewing
    square and 45% of the side information is cut off.)

    "The second option that we have is to present the movie in a technique
    we call pan and scan, which fills the whole television set, but you
    really end up losing the sides of the film. You still get the main
    action, but you will lose a little bit of the artwork and the drawings.
    So, in the split-screen comparison coming up, you can decide for
    yourself which version you like better. The letterbox, or the pan and
    scan."

    At this point, a widescreen image is placed over a "fullscreen" pan and
    scan image and a 2.5 minute scene from the movie runs simultaneously in
    both windows. The "fullscreen" image looks claustrophobic when compared
    with the widescreen image playing above it. The pan and scan image keeps
    panning back and forth in an attempt to keep the "main action" centered
    in its narrow frame.

    If only more studios were interested in educating the public.
    Scot Gardner, Sep 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Scot Gardner

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <20030909223411.455$>, Scot Gardner
    <> wrote:

    > The only reason that most "fullscreen" people prefer the bastardized pan
    > and scan format is because they have not been properly shown just how
    > much of a widescreen movie is chopped off in the destructive pan and
    > scan process.


    And, sometimes they know and just don't care.

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, Sep 10, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Scot Gardner

    Hugh Candlin Guest

    Invid Fan <> wrote in message news:090920032320501053%...
    > In article <20030909223411.455$>, Scot Gardner
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > The only reason that most "fullscreen" people prefer the bastardized pan
    > > and scan format is because they have not been properly shown just how
    > > much of a widescreen movie is chopped off in the destructive pan and
    > > scan process.

    >
    > And, sometimes they know and just don't care.


    There is no resolution to this debate.

    The widescreen devotees realize that there are a lot of movies
    already in the can, including Sleeping Beauty, which cannot be viewed
    on a 4 by 3 or 16 by 9 set without black bars if you want to see
    all of the image that was shot, without the sides chopped off.

    The full screen aficionados look at the black bars and wonder why
    they don't shoot movies the way they used to (Academy ratio).
    They do not share the directorial desire for the wide canvas,
    which results in the top and bottom of their screen being unused.
    They ask: Which is bigger? 16 by 9 or 16 by 12?
    Which looks best on the 4 by 3 ratio screen
    found in the majority of homes?

    The only agreement is that Pan and Scan sucks so bad,
    the dust bunnies won't even get into the straw.
    Hugh Candlin, Sep 10, 2003
    #3
  4. Scot Gardner

    Codswallop Guest

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 03:20:50 GMT, Invid Fan wrote in alt.video.dvd:

    >> The only reason that most "fullscreen" people prefer the bastardized
    >> pan and scan format is because they have not been properly shown just
    >> how much of a widescreen movie is chopped off in the destructive pan
    >> and scan process.

    >
    > And, sometimes they know and just don't care.


    The one on the Die Hard SE is pretty good IMO, too.

    --
    - Cods


    (un ROT-13 to e-mail)
    Codswallop, Sep 10, 2003
    #4
  5. "Scot Gardner" <> wrote in message
    news:20030909223411.455$...

    > both windows. The "fullscreen" image looks claustrophobic when compared
    > with the widescreen image playing above it. The pan and scan image keeps


    There is some hope. My dad thought he would like the fullscreen DVDs after
    watching a few letterboxed widescreen films, mostly because he does not have
    a large tv and his eyes are not as good as they used to be. I put on the
    fullscreen side of a new action film DVD I had that he wanted to see, a
    quarter way through he asked to see the widescreen side. He found with the
    fullscreen version the editor had the faces all huge in the frame, and that
    he was missing some of the action off the side in car chases, etc. I think
    claustrophobic is a good word to describe the result.

    Steve
    Steve Knoblock, Sep 10, 2003
    #5
  6. > "The second option that we have is to present the movie in a technique
    > we call pan and scan, which fills the whole television set, but you
    > really end up losing the sides of the film. You still get the main
    > action, but you will lose a little bit of the artwork and the drawings.


    "A little bit of the artwork and the drawings"?? Excuse me? I like Mr. Deja
    but that's just bullshit. If over 40% of the filmed frame is "a little bit"
    then **** me in the ass.
    Paul Poroshin, Sep 11, 2003
    #6
  7. Overheard at Blockbuster last week:

    Mother to son: "Johnny, of course I'd like to rent Daredevil on DVD, but
    all the copies are widescreen only, so we'll rent the [VHS] video instead".

    Agh! Child abuse!

    ;-)
    Dougie Roberts, Sep 11, 2003
    #7
  8. Scot Gardner

    Wild Coyote Guest

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:43:21 GMT, "Steve Knoblock"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Scot Gardner" <> wrote in message
    >news:20030909223411.455$...
    >
    >> both windows. The "fullscreen" image looks claustrophobic when compared
    >> with the widescreen image playing above it. The pan and scan image keeps

    >
    >There is some hope. My dad thought he would like the fullscreen DVDs after
    >watching a few letterboxed widescreen films, mostly because he does not have
    >a large tv and his eyes are not as good as they used to be. I put on the
    >fullscreen side of a new action film DVD I had that he wanted to see, a
    >quarter way through he asked to see the widescreen side. He found with the
    >fullscreen version the editor had the faces all huge in the frame, and that
    >he was missing some of the action off the side in car chases, etc. I think
    >claustrophobic is a good word to describe the result.
    >
    >Steve
    >


    After I watched my extended version of LOTR: FOTR (WS of course), it
    was on cable Full Screen and claustrophobic is a good way to explain
    it. It wasn't the same movie and after 10 minutes, I went and got the
    DVD and watched it. I just could not get through it Full screen.

    --
    Still Howlin' at the Moon!

    Wild Coyote
    wd_coyote@(remove)whoppermail.com
    Wild Coyote, Sep 11, 2003
    #8
  9. Scot Gardner

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "Paul Poroshin" <!net> wrote in message
    news:lMP7b.142232$...

    > "The second option that we have is to present the movie in a technique
    > we call pan and scan, which fills the whole television set, but you
    > really end up losing the sides of the film. You still get the main
    > action, but you will lose a little bit of the artwork and the

    drawings.

    <<"A little bit of the artwork and the drawings"?? Excuse me? I like Mr.
    Deja but that's just bullshit. If over 40% of the filmed frame is "a
    little bit" then **** me in the ass.>>


    Yes, I too noticed that. As a matter of fact, I played that passage over
    again to make sure that I had heard him correctly. But after all, he's
    representing Disney and Disney made the decision to include the
    "fullscreen" version with the widescreen version.

    Mr. Deja should have said, "... you will lose a LOT of the artwork and
    the drawings", but unfortunately, he didn't. Or maybe he couldn't.
    However, the split-screen comparison make it obvious that 45% of the
    artwork, drawing and large parts of the "main action" are missing from
    the "fullscreen" version of _Sleeping Beauty_.
    Scot Gardner, Sep 11, 2003
    #9
  10. Scot Gardner

    Sparky Guest

    Child abuse indeed!

    On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:15:56 GMT, "Dougie Roberts"
    <> wrote:

    >Overheard at Blockbuster last week:
    >
    >Mother to son: "Johnny, of course I'd like to rent Daredevil on DVD, but
    >all the copies are widescreen only, so we'll rent the [VHS] video instead".
    >
    >Agh! Child abuse!
    >
    >;-)
    >


    -Sparky


    "She's mine, mine, mine you hear- you have all the wives you need!"
    -Torgo
    Sparky, Sep 12, 2003
    #10
  11. Scot Gardner

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <090920032320501053%>,
    Invid Fan <> wrote:

    > And, sometimes they know and just don't care.


    I think these are the idiots Roger Ebert was talking about when he said
    "People who like to have the sides of movies chopped off shouldn't be
    licensed to operate video players." I've got to agree with him,
    --
    BL
    Black Locust, Sep 13, 2003
    #11
  12. Scot Gardner

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <>, Black Locust
    <> wrote:

    > In article <090920032320501053%>,
    > Invid Fan <> wrote:
    >
    > > And, sometimes they know and just don't care.

    >
    > I think these are the idiots Roger Ebert was talking about when he said
    > "People who like to have the sides of movies chopped off shouldn't be
    > licensed to operate video players." I've got to agree with him,


    So people who think films are entertainment and not "art" shouldn't be
    allowed to watch them? Well, that's one way to go...

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, Sep 14, 2003
    #12
  13. Scot Gardner

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <130920031917257816%>,
    Invid Fan <> wrote:

    > So people who think films are entertainment and not "art" shouldn't be
    > allowed to watch them? Well, that's one way to go...


    Well, that's very subjective. While a movie like The Godfather can very
    easily be regarded as cinematic art, I don't think Dude, Where's My Car?
    can be. But yes, people who like to watch movies that have been chopped
    up to shit should not be allowed to even view movies in a theatre(let
    alone at home) since they clearly have no respect for a film makers work
    and are nothing but selfish, ignorant idiots. This would be no different
    than going up to Jimmy Page and telling him to remove a part of Stairway
    to Heaven because you don't like it for whatever reason. Despite what a
    lot of jackasses like to believe, NOBODY has the right to modify a movie
    to their liking. I don't care how many people have piece of shit 4:3
    square televisions. They never have and never will have some special
    "right" to fill that tv up to their liking. If they can't stand that a
    film makers work doesn't fit their tv right, then they need to go a buy
    tv that will fit that movies aspect ratio properly or simply not watch
    that movie at all. The only people have rights are the film makers, who
    have the right to film the movie the way they and the studio deem fit
    and to have that film displayed properly; whether it's on a 40 foot
    movie theatre screen or a 20 inch tv.

    And please don't tell me you were actually defending pan & scan lovers
    here...
    --
    BL
    Black Locust, Sep 14, 2003
    #13
  14. Scot Gardner

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <>, Black Locust
    <> wrote:

    > And please don't tell me you were actually defending pan & scan lovers
    > here...


    I'm saying so long as a widescreen version exists for you, you have no
    right to say what version a company can or can't make for non
    widescreen fans, or what said viewers can or can't enjoy when you're
    not in the room. Live and let live :)

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, Sep 14, 2003
    #14
  15. Scot Gardner

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <140920031326102174%>,
    Invid Fan <> wrote:

    > I'm saying so long as a widescreen version exists for you, you have no
    > right to say what version a company can or can't make for non
    > widescreen fans, or what said viewers can or can't enjoy when you're
    > not in the room. Live and let live :)


    Oh, but where was that line of thinking back in the 80's and 90's when
    pan & scan VHS completely dominated the home video market? Pan & scan
    lovers spent the past 20 years telling us widescreen fans that we don't
    need widescreen because it doesn't fit "taevae's" correctly. Or worse
    yet, many of them were stupid enough to tell us that widescreen must not
    be allowed because "you don't see the whole picture." Now that the
    market has shifted to our side, I'm sure as hell gonna tell these idiots
    they do not have a right to butcher a film makers work to their liking.
    Not just because I can finally do so with a look of confidence on my
    face, but also because I'm RIGHT god damn it.

    Also, there's been a recent trend of releasing almost all new releases
    in a "full screen" in addition to the widescreen version. How long is it
    until the studios start releasing DVD's only in "full screen" just like
    they did with VHS for all those years? Believe me, if pan & scan lovers
    have their way, every outlet from Best Buy to Blockbuster will have
    shelves stocked with nothing but POS pan & scan movies with many titles
    having the so called 100 dollar "rental window" on them. They want DVD's
    to mimic the old VHS days to a tee. It's our job to keep the DVD market
    the wonderful widescreen only, priced for sell-through, high quality,
    film buffs dream come true entity that it is now.
    --
    BL
    Black Locust, Sep 15, 2003
    #15
    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. Scot Gardner

    Sleeping Beauty: $14.88 at Walmart.

    Scot Gardner, Sep 9, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,585
    Impmon
    Sep 26, 2003
  2. ClockXXI

    Is Sleeping Beauty limited release?

    ClockXXI, Sep 12, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    941
    Douglas Bailey
    Sep 16, 2003
  3. Limited Edition Clear Vinyl

    Widescreen shows on widescreen TV

    Limited Edition Clear Vinyl, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    881
    Ronald Cole
    Apr 4, 2004
  4. liukaiyuan

    Widescreen: Widescreen TVs at SEARS

    liukaiyuan, May 4, 2008, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    591
    liukaiyuan
    May 4, 2008
  5. N.Bruges

    New Sleeping Beauty DVD

    N.Bruges, Oct 3, 2008, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
    N.Bruges
    Oct 3, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page