The death of Widescreen DVD's.......?

[silverpenguin7]

Has anyone seen this thread (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum15/HTML/031499.html) at hometheaterforum.com?

Could this be the end of DVD as we know it?

[feverpitch96]

Originally posted by silverpenguin7
Has anyone seen this thread (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum15/HTML/031499.html) at hometheaterforum.com?

Could this be the end of DVD as we know it?

Terrifying, but the thread offers a lot of commonsense solutions too...let's try to think positively on this one....please God....I'm another of the many folk on that thread who will feel that they've wasted a whole pile of money by moving to a new format, short-lived and about the be cut off at the knees (um, or even the 4:3 line) if they go through with this....

[Shingster]

I'm not that bothered, i'm living in Europe, & we're more comfortable with widescreen. Even if they do revert back to pan & scan for the U.K there's always the French, they'll be a lot more reluctant to switch back to P&S

[feverpitch96]

Originally posted by Shingster
I'm not that bothered, i'm living in Europe, & we're more comfortable with widescreen. Even if they do revert back to pan & scan for the U.K there's always the French, they'll be a lot more reluctant to switch back to P&S

True enough for European films, but you're almost certainly not going to get a widescreen transfer of a Hollywood film in Europe if they don't bother with one for the States...

[Lenny Nero]

Originally posted by feverpitch96


True enough for European films, but you're almost certainly not going to get a widescreen transfer of a Hollywood film in Europe if they don't bother with one for the States...

Oh my god that is truly stupid and scary. Goddamn joe six pack asswipes are going to dictate the studios? Argh, these are the times when everyone should go out to their local hardware store and order some dynamite and then blow their local Walmart eh!? :D
Anyway, I think the clearest solution to all this is continue releasing dual sided discs like EVERY single one was from WB in the beginning, with one version of the film on one side and widescreen on the other. An informative 20 second spot as suggested in that linked thread on each DVD is also a good idea.
But seeing how this is only because of SOME big chains, I don't think widescreen is gona go away. Maybe there will be more pan & scan DVD versions, as there are hardly any these days, but as long as widescreen is also there then who cares, let dumbasses watch their cut off films.
Also, even if some titles are only released in Pan & Scan in US, doesn't mean they wont be released in OAR in Australia or European countries right? Because there is no such pressure there. And transfering a film to DVD is not that expensive or long of a process compared to how much damage in sales a studio is gona take by NOT releasing any widescreen version. They know it, they do.

[The_Evil_Dean]

I AM SICK of the money men making desicions out of there ...well i wont swear but we all know what orifice these ideas are coming from .....PAN AND SCAN only ....gee this is great for there key audiences with widescreen televisions ....if those stupid whiners want pan and scan i have an idea

BUY THE VHS

or dont buy the dvd with the big logo at the top saying WIDESCREEN ....although i forgot most of the people making this complaint probably cant even understand english , thats the only way i can justify it .

I dont give a Rats about what WAL-MART think

Maybe i want to see the films like the director intended instead of some idiot friendly version ....and people wonder why hollywood doesnt make any decent films .......BECAUSE idiots like this go and see the crap they put out and give them there money , yes that is related because it shows that all the while there market demands poor quality they will dish it out ...

They will not ruin our precious dvds ......

Rant over

[Lenny Nero]

Yeah Evil Dean!
And it's good we all have decent and large collections right now. Better load up on ammunition and weaponry and get kick ass security systems as we're gona have to protect those "rare" widescreen DVDs in 2025 as J6P Gangs are gona go house to house and burn them because they are "eeeveeel".

[Shingster]

Just out of interest Lenny, how popular are widescreen TVs in the U.S? I'm not that worried about this news because it's 4:3 owners that are ignorant to the benefits of OAR that are kicking up a fuss. WS owners will not want P&S, they'll want WS so they shouldn't be the ones moaning.
Now, if WS TVs are popular in the U.S, all the WS owners will start moaning if the studios try & revert back to P&S.

I live in a typical working class, council estate in the U.K & almost every house in my street has a WS T.V set in it. I'm the only person out of my friends & immediate family that doesn't own a WS set. In fact walk into any Dixons or Comet & you'll find more WS sets that 4:3. Also TV broadcasts are switching over to WS, this all adds up to one thing: WS is here to stay in the U.K & if these U.S studios think they can switch back to P&S releases in this country, just when everyone has become comfortable with WS then they have another thing coming.

[dvdfan10]

I dont care to much about full version myself because you dont see nothin widescreen you can .vcr dont sell widescreen they no it besides i had a tape get eat up in one of my vcr and now it want come on no more vcrs eates tapes anyways i likem on cds better now the one dvd that gave me trouble is nightmare on elm street it has both on it it messes up on wide because its not wide its full it is better when i buyem from walmart in nashville or media play or best buys or cuircut city thats were i go some places to get mine had no trouble withem then if ya get my drift?


ps: i think widescreen rules

[feverpitch96]

Originally posted by dvdfan10
I dont care to much about full version myself because you dont see nothin widescreen you can .vcr dont sell widescreen they no it besides i had a tape get eat up in one of my vcr and now it want come on no more vcrs eates tapes anyways i likem on cds better now the one dvd that gave me trouble is nightmare on elm street it has both on it it messes up on wide because its not wide its full it is better when i buyem from walmart in nashville or media play or best buys or cuircut city thats were i go some places to get mine had no trouble withem then if ya get my drift?

Erm, pardon? :)

ps: i think widescreen rules

Oh. :)

[Lenny Nero]

Originally posted by feverpitch96


Erm, pardon? :)



Oh. :)
Hahah, I don't understand what that entity typed either, but it's sure something incoherent.

Originally posted by Shingster
Just out of interest Lenny, how popular are widescreen TVs in the U.S? I'm not that worried about this news because it's 4:3 owners that are ignorant to the benefits of OAR that are kicking up a fuss. WS owners will not want P&S, they'll want WS so they shouldn't be the ones moaning.
Now, if WS TVs are popular in the U.S, all the WS owners will start moaning if the studios try & revert back to P&S.

I live in a typical working class, council estate in the U.K & almost every house in my street has a WS T.V set in it. I'm the only person out of my friends & immediate family that doesn't own a WS set. In fact walk into any Dixons or Comet & you'll find more WS sets that 4:3. Also TV broadcasts are switching over to WS, this all adds up to one thing: WS is here to stay in the U.K & if these U.S studios think they can switch back to P&S releases in this country, just when everyone has become comfortable with WS then they have another thing coming.

Oh that's interesting Shingster, it's not THAT popular here. Widescreen TVs only take up a fifth of floor space and inventory in stores and I don't think they sell as well as the regular ones, because people come and see a huge 52-60 inch TV for 3-4 thousand dollars and next to it a half as high tv for twice or more as much, 10 thousand dollars or so, and they go for the full screen one, but thats the "uninformed" crowd again. I'm sure widescreen fans do get a 16:9 tv if they can and there are some broadcasts in widescreen too.
In LA's Beverly Hills, Hollywood Hills, Pacific Palisades and Bel Air areas everyone's got widescreen TVs, but in other poorer areas and in smaller cities as well as in a couple dozen middle states people don't know about or don't want to or can't afford widescreen TVs. So if a Joe 6 pack's got money, he will get the most expensive thing, be it a car or a TV, and the most expensive TV is the widescreen 1inch thick wall mountable plasma 16:9 progressive scan HDTV ...blah blah blah. Plus all the DVD retail stores have thrown out most of their VHS inventory and all the floor space is dedicated to DVDs and 95% of them are widescreen, I don't see studios stopping releases in OAR, there is still a huge market all over the world and its getting bigger.
They only want to please everyone so that they could make more money and therefore will probably release also pan & scan versions but widescreen should still be available.

[Michael Mackenzie]

This is indeed worrying. I think a petition is called for. Warner listened after we chipped in signing the Willy Wonka petition -- if someone (not me, I'm no good at wording those things) set up a petition letting the studios (and WalMart) know that we'll only accept OAR, we may have a chance of nipping this in the bud.


I have also prepared a written letter which I plan to circulate to a few of the stores responsible:

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has come to my attention that several retailers have been putting pressure on distributors and studios to stop releasing DVD movies in their original aspect ratio (OAR) and instead to release them in ‘pan & scan’ format.

I want to make my stance on this matter quite clear. If the DVD is not in its OAR, I will not be purchasing it. Not only that, but I will take my business for other, non-DVD purchases, elsewhere.

When DVD first started out, it catered to a market of enthusiasts. We care about our transfers. We want to see the film in the way the director envisioned, not in some chopped up pan & scam (not a spelling mistake) format.

In the 21st century, with widescreen television sets becoming increasingly popular, it is ludicrous to attempt to standardize the DVD market to pan & scan transfers just so it “fills all of Jo Blo’s TV screen”. With the onslaught of DVD, I seriously hoped that the dark ages of cropped releases were over. I still hope this is the case. Otherwise, you have lost a customer.

Yours faithfully,


Michael Mackenzie

I would encourage you all to do the same. Nothing gets their attention better than a slew of angry letters invading their mailboxes.

[Paul490]

I don't want pan and scan. Again, I have an old 21" mono 4:3 which I watch my DVDs on, but I do not, ever want rid of the original aspect ratio.

When I first got into DVD, I bought... Midnight Express and Speed - Midnight Express was dual sided. I always put in the pan and scan version because there were no black bars.

Then, when I got Speed, I was thinking, why is the picture so small? Has someone been messing with my picture? Is the PC wrong?

Everything's fine now. I'm a converted OAR-ist.

Let's kill off pan and scan. :mad:

[John Nelson]

I used to buy widescreen VHS until I got into DVD. I remember the hours of fun I had scouring the shelves for the widescreen versions...

Now that DVD has taken off, widescreen VHS seems to be disappearing. Take MI:2 for example - VHS was pan&scan only, DVD was W/S only.

If W/S DVD disappears, what then?

Please let's not go back to the 80s when there were no widescreen transfers in any format.

:(

-- J.

[silverpenguin7]

To put simply: WS is THE future for everything! First we had black and white, mono sound and no remote controls. All these things changed for the better and the latest evolution is WS. To not support this would be suicide for the studios. I just hope this is not learnt the hard way :(

[Michael Brooke]

<B>Please let's not go back to the 80s when there were no widescreen transfers in any format. </B>

There's no chance of that happening whatsoever - whatever the majors decide, it's simply unimaginable that companies like Criterion, Artificial Eye, Anchor Bay, Hong Kong Legends and countless others will go for anything other than the original aspect ratio.

HKL in particular is unlikely to make that switch, since they originally got their fingers burned by slightly cropping their initial releases to fill the 16:9 frame, and switched to OAR after pressure from their customers!

[Kevin Harper]

I think education on the subject for the masses is needed. I have lost count the times I have been to people's houses who have widescreen tv's only to find them watching everything is WS ! The reverse widescreen issue is also a problem. They watch everything blown up in the wrong aspect ratio just so it fills the screen. 4:3 blown up to 16:9 does not look good and you are losing the same from the top and bottom as you do on a P/S movie shown at 16:9.
Education is needed to tell these people which side the black lines go and why. Same argument is true of the 2:35 vs 1:85 aspect ratio.
I for one will not accept anything other than the original aspect ratio. If you want fullscreen stick to VHS....eventually it will die out totally and then they will be forced to covert to the superior format.
Then again I still have friend who won't watch b/w... but that's another story !

[sampath]

I thought it was interesting to note that MGM set the RRP of the R1 P&S version of SOTL higher than the WS version (all these abbreviations in a single sentence :D ). If this is a trend then that's fine by me; after all if people want studios to spend extra time & effort chopping up films so they'd fit their precious little screens, it's only fair they have to pay for the previlege. :cool: What I wouldn't want to see is WS being priced higher than P&S as was the case with VHS.

[Adge]

Originally posted by dvdfan10
I dont care to much about full version myself because you dont see nothin widescreen you can .vcr dont sell widescreen they no it besides i had a tape get eat up in one of my vcr and now it want come on no more vcrs eates tapes anyways i likem on cds better now the one dvd that gave me trouble is nightmare on elm street it has both on it it messes up on wide because its not wide its full it is better when i buyem from walmart in nashville or media play or best buys or cuircut city thats were i go some places to get mine had no trouble withem then if ya get my drift?


ps: i think widescreen rules

I have widescreen once and brother of Tony (who used to liev in my street but now had flat near londn), had video casssetem I think was predator2 or 1and when he show me and I see film are big and not as many tre3es seen on his screen then I lost tape and when I bought a new one it has a labelm now where do I get more that are wider Som when it shows the message I click twice and another time it doesn'tm so when it trieds to make another there are no8ne for the meagsses that were first so I click agian and again until it snaps and I can't afford to go back to get more unlesss Ttony gets my keys. WIDESCRNE YES!!!

[sampath]

Speaking of educating people about the greatness of WS, maybe the studios should throw in a bit of guidance on Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar as well, if some of the posts on this thread are anything to go by!

:p :D ;)

[Kevin Harper]

i cudnt agreeee mre

[Michael Brooke]

<B>maybe the studios should throw in a bit of guidance on Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar as well</B>

What about Unnecessary and Faintly Germanic Capitalisation? :D

[Adge]

I do hope you realise I was joking above.....

But I don't think dvdfan10 was (although I thought he was at first), I just read he's previous posts and although they are not on par with the one in this topic they still are of the same standard..... More power to these posters!! They always make me smile.

[nc]

The thing I don't understand is that most players have settings, 16:9, 4:3 letterbox, 4:3 pan and scan. So why can't Joe 6 pack watch WS film in his preferred P&S by simply changing the settings????

[Robby]

I believe the only way out of this situation is to educate the un-educated. Yes short adverts at the beginning of each dvd are fine but that isn't going to reach those people who have yet to jump on the DVD bandwagon.

What is stopping studios putting out small ads on TV and in the press. They did a pretty good job of it when they were promoting DVD so why not do it to promote W/S?.

Kevin Harper i too have been round loads of peoples houses who have bought W/S tv sets only to either re-calibrate their settings or show them the difference in OAR. The sad thing is people are getting USED to watching 4:3 images stretched or cropped on their sets.

There simply isn't enough information out there for regular Joes about the benefits of W/S. Heck even electrical stores like Dixons/Comet and what have you, don't even show their W/S sets in their correct settings. It's no wonder people are getting
confused.

If it comes to it, it's only going to be us hardcore film aficianado's:D that are going to dispute and petition with the studios. Can anyone out there say there is enough of us to make a difference and stop this?? i have my doubts.

This is all wrong and a little backwards in my book.

Damn those heathens all to VHS:mad: ;)

[feverpitch96]

Originally posted by Adge


I have widescreen once and brother of Tony (who used to liev in my street but now had flat near londn), had video casssetem I think was predator2 or 1and when he show me and I see film are big and not as many tre3es seen on his screen then I lost tape and when I bought a new one it has a labelm now where do I get more that are wider Som when it shows the message I click twice and another time it doesn'tm so when it trieds to make another there are no8ne for the meagsses that were first so I click agian and again until it snaps and I can't afford to go back to get more unlesss Ttony gets my keys. WIDESCRNE YES!!!


STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!!! :(

[StuBruise]

Originally posted by Lenny Nero

people come and see a huge 52-60 inch TV for 3-4 thousand dollars and next to it a half as high tv for twice or more as much, 10 thousand dollars or so, and they go for the full screen one, but thats the "uninformed" crowd again.

I think Michael Brooke's said before that he chose a 4:3 TV over a 16:9 one... "uninformed", eh? ;)

~~stu

[Robby]

DVDfan10 don't take none of that stuff personally. Heck you make me laugh:D keep it coming.

[sampath]

Originally posted by Adge
I do hope you realise I was joking above.....


Yeah that did occur to me, but then so was I. :)

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
What about Unnecessary and Faintly Germanic Capitalisation? :D


I did wonder if I sounded vaguely like The Great One (that's not Unnecessary and Faintly Germanic Capitalisation, right? :p ) when typing that post, and you know what, I think I just about did! Except for the Unnecessary and Faintly Germanic Capitalisation thingamajig, of course.... :o :D

[Michael Brooke]

...and I'd make the same decision again tomorrow!

But I had very good reasons for preferring the giant 4:3 set that I bought a few months ago over the medium-sized widescreen set that I used to rent, and they have nothing to do with preferring pan-and-scan, which I fully agree is an abomination.

[AndyWilson]

Surely there's an easy answer... just implement the "center of interest" flag and let the player do the P&S for those that prefer it..

..in fact, most of those who prefer P&S wouldn't even notice if there was no P or S, just the sides chopped off!

[laff2k]

Has anyone got the MIB special edition R2 or Bug's Life? These are Double sided discs that have Widescreen on one side and that awful other thing on t'other.

I'd prefer this to those [sometimes] god-awful "picture discs".

Steve

[Paul490]

Why do you prefer them? The dual-sided DVDs are harder to handle properly than the single-sided discs. In fact, they are annoying.

And some DVDs have the film on one side and the extras on the other - Enter The Dragon, The Exorcist: 25th Anniversary Edition, etc.

[DavidW]

I really can't understand the mentality of people who would pay several hundred pounds for a DVD player and then want to watch P & S films on it. Do they want to pay considerably extra for a film because the quality of the picture is better than VHS, yet they don't care that they're only seeing a proportion of the proper picture?

[LauraLC]

Originally posted by Paul490
Why do you prefer them? The dual-sided DVDs are harder to handle properly than the single-sided discs. In fact, they are annoying.



Why are they any harder to handle? If one side is P&S and one side is WS, then there is only one side I care about and I'll handle it exactly the same as I would a regular DVD. Who cares about finger prints on the side i'm never going to play.

laura.

[rgfinch]

Given that about 90% of non-portable TVs on sale in shops today are widescreen , reverting to 4:3 P+S for the UK just won't happen - no industry is that stupid . I think the real threat from the "it doesn't fill the screen" brigade is cropping 2.35 films down to 1.77 to fill a widescreen TV ("I didn't buy a widescreen TV to still have those bloody black bars"). This seems distinctly possible to me and so that's the real threat which must be jumped upon straight away.

Does anybody know why the pan and scan on the fly feature isn't used ? I assume it's a mastering issue but would love to be told for sure .

[LauraLC]

Originally posted by DavidW
I really can't understand the mentality of people who would pay several hundred pounds for a DVD player and then want to watch P & S films on it. Do they want to pay considerably extra for a film because the quality of the picture is better than VHS, yet they don't care that they're only seeing a proportion of the proper picture?

Because there is more to DVD than just better picture quality...

Convenience for one, chaptering allowing instant access to chapters, no rewinding after you're done.

Better durability ( no more worrying about tapes being chewed up or wearing out).

I'm sure VCD would have caught on better for these reasons if only it could have stored more.

And lets face it, so long as the picture quality is as good as broadcast TV people will be happy, and most of them aren't ringing up the beeb demanding more widescreen movies....

These days the difference between DVD and VHS in terms of price is minimal. So people will plump for DVD for those sort of reasons.

laura.

[Joe]

Originally posted by laff2k
Has anyone got the MIB special edition R2 or Bug's Life? These are Double sided discs that have Widescreen on one side and that awful other thing on t'other.

I'd prefer this to those [sometimes] god-awful "picture discs".

Steve

Ah, but A Bug's Life has a specially re-mastered full-screen version. It's not Pan and Scan as such, as Pixar went back and rejigged certain scenes to make it lovely. And it's just as nice as the W/S version.

But this would be pretty much the only example I can think of of a *good* full-screen version of a movie!

[Michael Brooke]

...and even if it does happen in the UK, it sure as hell won't happen in France, where they've always been rather more aspect ratio-conscious even before the widescreen TV era!

For instance, the French DVD of <I>The Commitments</I> is anamorphic 1.85:1, as opposed to the 4:3 of the US and UK versions.

[DavidW]

It does seem apparent that there is a new breed of DVD users who have moved to the format primarily for convenience issues, rather than (like I would assume most of the people here) because they wish to own films in more or less the most definitive versions that are likely to be produced.

However, even if more studios do choose to start releasing their titles in P&S versions to appeal to the mainstream, I would still be very suprised if they stopped releasing widescreen. The format has been built on a market of consumers who demand definitive versions of films in their OAR, and will happily refuse to buy inferior P&S versions. It would be very suprising if the studios completely forgot about this market.

[elrond]

just noticed in this forum that Quadrophenia has just got a R1 release that is in WS. Seeing as the old R2 release is 4:3 perhaps we should not panic just yet.

[Michael Mackenzie]

I've done a quick post about this on my web site. Hopefully it'll get some peoples' attention. I think it would be a good idea that everyone with their own web site should do something along these lines. The more people that hear about this the better.

[Michael Brooke]

<B>Ah, but A Bug's Life has a specially re-mastered full-screen version. It's not Pan and Scan as such, as Pixar went back and rejigged certain scenes to make it lovely. </B>

There's a documentary on the Collector's Edition that illustrates the process - basically, whenever cropping the image didn't work, they re-rendered the shot in question, and apparently some two-thirds of the film ended up being re-rendered.

<B>And it's just as nice as the W/S version. </B>

Indeed, if you have a widescreen telly, you have an equally valid choice of <U>either</U> version, since they're equally legitimate, and both produce black bars - do you want them at the sides or at the top and bottom?

<B>But this would be pretty much the only example I can think of of a *good* full-screen version of a movie!</B>

Well, there are plenty of others - most of Stanley Kubrick's output springs to mind, where the theatrical versions were 1.85:1 but Kubrick personally preferred the 4:3 video versions.

[Joe]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke

<B>But this would be pretty much the only example I can think of of a *good* full-screen version of a movie!</B>

Well, there are plenty of others - most of Stanley Kubrick's output springs to mind, where the theatrical versions were 1.85:1 but Kubrick personally preferred the 4:3 video versions.

You old show-off! ;)

But you're right, of course...

[SqueakyG]

A agree with the idea of a 20-second feature at the beginning of DVD's (skippable, of course).

Remember those old VSC intros that went, "This film has a 15 certificate: it may contain some scenes of..."?

Well, a widescreen-information intro should be tailored in the same way. I suggest they use a regulated 20-second intro for 2.35:1 anamorphic Panavision, 2.35:1 super35, 1.85:1 spherical, etc. Each version of this feature should show the visual difference between the widescreen and fullscreen version, with diagrams where appropriate. A simplistic but honest voice-over should explain the image comparisons.

Emphasis would have to be on making the common plebian realise that they are getting MORE FILM rather than LESS SCREEN-SPACE. They have a tendency to think they are getting less film because it doesn't fill the screen. The tricky part is when you try to explain open-matteing. Then you are indeed telling them that the black bars are COVERING some of the picture.

Then there is the issue of "Wouldn't you rather have the film-makers correct vision?" It would help if major directors backed a campaign, and their input went onto this widescreen-explanation intro. If you have Spielberg, or Scorcese, or people like that saying, "I prefer my movies to be released in their correct widescreen aspect ratio rather than reformatted to fit a full screen", it might persuade some people.

But lets face it, what these common people really need is a 3-week Art Design course, to teach them about composition of the frame, and lines of vision, etc. Only then would they understand why the original composition of a frame is destroyed in the full-screen version.

[theblairwitch]

what these common people really need is a 3-week Art Design course, to teach them about composition of the frame, and lines of vision

Or just point out to them that its the difference in watching:

"Dick Tracy" - 1.85:1

or just

"Dick" - P&S

:D

[budgenk]

Originally posted by SqueakyG

Remember those old VSC intros that went, "This film has a 15 certificate: it may contain some scenes of..."?



Yeah, we could have Simon Bates at the start of each dvd explaining the difference :D This way people would soon stop demanding P&S versions and focus on getting rid of Bates

Seriously though, I really hope this (the re-marginalisation of WS) doesn't happen, it's just too depressing to contemplate

[theblairwitch]

Yeah, we could have Simon Bates at the start of each dvd explaining the difference

Can't think of that without remembering the wonderful Harry Enfield skit that preceeded his "Badfellas" masterpiece.

"This film is classified 18 - meaning the BBC will have ruined it for television, the viewer should be advised that it may contain sexual swear words, such as f___, s___ & bo______"

Great stuff :D

[Creamstick]

Didn't Martin Scorcese film a short um.. piece of film :) about the benefits of OAR over Pan and Scan?

Surely they should just put this on the front of W/S videos and DVDs to educate the masses.

[Bamse]

I have had a lot of people, come around to my house to watch DVD’s on my WS TV, and almost every time we watch a 2.35:1 film, I hear; “I thought you said this is a wide screen telly, why are there black bars at the top and bottom”. A few times I have tried to explain, but it takes me ages to get it through to them.
When it finally clicks that while 1.85:1 films fill the screen, 2.35:1 films are wider and can not, they ask if I can zoom the picture in.

Do you think that maybe there will be a new kind of pan&scam, one that crops all widescreen films, to fit 16:9?

[Shingster]

Didn't Martin Scorcese film a short um.. piece of film about the benefits of OAR over Pan and Scan?

You looking at the borders?
You looking at the borders?
I don't see anyone else looking at the borders!!!
Watch the **************** film morons!!!

[Michael Brooke]

The funny thing is, I used to run a cinema and I never <U>once</U> got a complaint about the "black bars" that appeared when the screen was masked to fit a particular aspect ratio!

So if people don't mind in the cinema, why on earth is it such a big deal on video?

[Creamstick]

Originally posted by Shingster
Didn't Martin Scorcese film a short um.. piece of film about the benefits of OAR over Pan and Scan?

You looking at the borders?
You looking at the borders?
I don't see anyone else looking at the borders!!!
Watch the **************** film morons!!!

:D :D

[Fatboydim]

I haven't had time to read all through this thread and maybe someone has already said this. If so I apologise. But as for getting rid of Widescreen DVD's get real.

Do you really think that major studios are going to be that bothered? No. All they'll do is what they're doing already... Release different versions at different times of the year so that we all end up buying the same product several times over.

Is "Joe Six Pack" going to be bothered about Director's Cuts, Special Editions, Extras, Extended Versions, Superbit, DTS etc????

Of course not. At least I wouldn't have thought so as the first thing most DVDphiles look for is aspect ratio.

And we see all these kinds of releases. My guess is we'll just see more fullscreen versions hit the streets as well... not instead of.

Widescreen is safe as long as movie theatres have widescreens, and of course the reason they have widescreens initially is seating... To get the most people in front of the picture.

If this was April 1st I'd think it was a joke.

[AndyWilson]

Having read the thread on that forum my main conclusion is that I would happily accept ***all*** DVDs being P&S in the future in return for the "abbreviation" "JP6" being made illegal...

Andy

[Bodger]

Originally posted by AndyWilson
Having read the thread on that forum my main conclusion is that I would happily accept ***all*** DVDs being P&S in the future in return for the "abbreviation" "JP6" being made illegal...
It wasn't until page 8 on the Home Theatre Forum thread that I realised they weren't talking about Jurassic Park 6.:p

[budgenk]

Originally posted by AndyWilson
Having read the thread on that forum my main conclusion is that I would happily accept ***all*** DVDs being P&S in the future in return for the "abbreviation" "JP6" being made illegal...

Andy

How about Eddie Punchclock and Sally Housecoat then? ;)

[tezmo]

on a side note today I saw The Score, which was the first film in a long time that ive seen make proper use of a 2.35:1 frame - the scene where Ed Norton first meets Bob DeNiro is very intelligently shot, as is the one where


Bob sends his heavy to mess Ed up


looking at these makes it clear that on occasion, J6P (as the dvdtalk forum have dubbed him) would appear to be accidentally close to correct, the likes of Deep Blue Sea being big wastes of the format, which might have been better done in 1.85:1...ill stop rambling now......

[Bamse]

The funny thing is, I used to run a cinema and I never once got a complaint about the "black bars" that appeared when the screen was masked to fit a particular aspect ratio!

This is very true, but I think what it comes down to, is the cinema screen adjusts to fit the picture size, so there isn't any black bars.
Of course the picture itself, is exactly the same with or without the black bars.

Here is another way of looking at the aspect ratio issue.
People who claim to like Pan&Scam films so much, would not be happy if the film producers decided to make all films on this ratio from now on. I remember going to the cinema to watch The Blair Witch Project, and heard many people moan, when they realised the film was in 1.33:1.
Probably the same people who wish DVD's to be Pan&Scam.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Panic]

Why doesn't someone make-up a petion. Send it to all the DVDweb sites collect them together then send it to all the stupid studio's, Keep on sending it till it gets thru their head and stays there.:mad: :D :mad: :D

[Shingster]

Originally posted by Bamse
This is very true, but I think what it comes down to, is the cinema screen adjusts to fit the picture size, so there isn't any black bars.
Of course the picture itself, is exactly the same with or without the black bars.
There are quite a few cinemas that mask the screen instead of using an adjustable one. All 3 UGC cinemas in Brum do this & I bet you they rarely get a complaint.

[Paul490]

No. The studios are just the monkeys, trying to please everyone. What we have to do is get into their stupid J6P's head that cropping to fit a screen on a 16:9 set and pan and scan are wrong. But 1.33:1 isn't wrong.

Either that, or we get an army together to take them all out. :D

[SqueakyG]

I don't wish to defend the attitudes of "J6P" (ewww, I used the abbreviation, I feel so dirty). But I think people care about having their screen space wasted because they paid for their TV sets.

You say that nobody complains when a cinema screen isn't used to the full, because everyone is sat in the dark and they don't notice. And we kinda recommend that you should sit in the dark to watch DVDs so that you don't even notice the black bars on your TV.

But there is a difference between not caring about the black bars on a cinema screen and caring about the black bars on your TV screen. You don't OWN the cinema screen, but you paid £400 for your TV set. So when J6P (eww, I said it again!) sees black bars on his screen, maybe he thinks, "I paid £400 for this TV set, and I'll be damned if half the screen is going to be wasted!".

I know I shouldn't be defending this attitude. But I can understand why the common guy might feel this way.

[Shingster]

I don't think this attitude can be defended. They should be thinking, I've paid £400 fir this T.V, & I'll be damned if I should miss up to 40% of the picture!

[LauraLC]

At the end of the day surely its the case that DVD was bought into being by the electronics companys and the studios just to create a superior carrier for video rather than just a carrier for superior video.

It was designed for everyone not just for us home cinema nuts. 4:3 is one of the accepted video formats for the medum. We may not like it but thats how it is.

We should be pushing for support of OAR material on DVD but not at the expense of the rest of the users of DVD who couldn't care less.

Sure it would be nice if we could educate them all how wonderful widescreen and OAR is, but for most people with standard size TV sets you're just spitting in the wind.

The studios should be the target of our efforts getting either dual sided discs, or discs that use DVDs ability to do pan and scan or even just OAR special editions.

I would put good money on most people who like 4:3 format discs that they don't give a toss about directors commentaries, extra features etc.

Perhaps the studios could churn out cheap 4:3 "Rental" DVDs with just the movie (in 4:3) and then standard price OAR DVDs. (Though i'd bet it would be standard price "rental" and more expensive OAR DVDs).

Maybe i'm naive, but having read some of the posts over on the forum that started this thread, i'm astounded that people are saying that it should be only an OAR format and screw the rest. Hardly a likely scenario when you look at the balance sheet is it....

laura.

[neverland]

I've got the perfect idea for an educational short to be put at the beginning of P&S videos and DVDs.

Simply show the scene from Hollyoaks where Tony cut the edge off a Lowry original so it would fit in his cheap picture frame.

Over the top, have that bloke who used to do the spoof charity appeals on the 11 O' Clock Show read out the following:

This man is a moron. If you don't want people to realise that you are as stupid as him, stop watching pan & scan videos like this one. Go on, have some sense. Don't be a c-

[Tony Keats]

It's a daunting prospect sure, but (TBH) it's an absolute miracle that we've held out this long!.

When I originally got a player, I was truly mystified by the lack of fullscreen material and so purchased The Crow in a stubborn act of defiance (despite not being particularly keen on it). I bought Blade first of all and was appalled by the 2.35:1 display on my (then) 14" T.V (an accurate depiction of the word "letterbox" if ever there was one!). I bought a couple of other films that I wasn't overly keen on (but were 4:3) and was getting increasingly disillusioned with the DVD format.

I was actually on the brink of selling the player and washing my hands of the whole sorry affair. Luckily for me (and in the nick of time) an old favourite that I simply couldn't resist buying (thanks in part to the extras) became available...... Ghostbusters!. Now, regardless of your opinion of the movie, it is one of the most obviously cropped 4:3 releases ever perpetrated. By that I mean ENTIRE people chopped off the visible image and irritatingly noticeable cutting between faces (primarily during conversations).

I wasn't aware of this before re-watching it of course and I sat through the whole thing with a look of awe/satisfaction (not the usual letterbox-related bewilderment). The feeling of realisation that washed over me was great in terms of my recent purchase (and future purchases), but when it actually dawns on you that you've been watching deplorably "vandalised" versions of movies all these years...... It's pretty hard to take in. So, average consumers that have watched 4:3 images since year-dot will be equally ill-informed as I was back then (and will be understandably reluctant to "lose" screen-space all of a sudden).

Basically, I was a J6P myself(!) and was only converted after witnessing visual proof of the differences. So I think the only thing that separates US from the majority of THEM is a bit of understanding. Most of those guys/gals probably think (as I did) that widescreen is some kind of magically created entity that is made specifically for WS sets (and that it's partly about choice and personal preferences).
Sadly, trotting out the old 40% argument and verbally explaining things just won't cut it I'm afraid.

This U.S backlash has been a long time coming though! (although it hasn't really got going yet)..

[Lenny Nero]

Originally posted by Bamse
I have had a lot of people, come around to my house to watch DVD’s on my WS TV, and almost every time we watch a 2.35:1 film, I hear; “I thought you said this is a wide screen telly, why are there black bars at the top and bottom”. A few times I have tried to explain, but it takes me ages to get it through to them.
When it finally clicks that while 1.85:1 films fill the screen, 2.35:1 films are wider and can not, they ask if I can zoom the picture in.

Do you think that maybe there will be a new kind of pan&scam, one that crops all widescreen films, to fit 16:9?

It has started. My One Night at McCool's dvd has just arrived, it was either 1.85 or 2.35 in theaters, and even though the DVD is "widescreen enhanced for 16:19" (a typo btw, they meant 16:9), is not in OAR but in 1.77:1, which is actually what ratio WS TVs are, not in 1.85 as many think, so even 1.85 movies should have really thin black lines on top and bottom, if yours doesnt have it, it overzooms like many do.
So, One Night at McCool's has been Hack&Scammed to fit 16:9 1.77:1!!! and the bottom of the back of the DVD it says the evil words "Formated to fit your TV" UGH!

[Michael Brooke]

<I>One Night at McCool's</I> was shot in 1.85:1, so cropping it to 1.77:1 will make virtually no significant difference (we're talking a tiny sliver off the top and bottom) - not least because cinemas crop similar amounts off all the time!

So calling this version "hacked and scammed" is a tad hysterical, especially when far greater damage is often done to films.

[John Nelson]

Wouldn't the 16:9 transfer be achieved by just opening up the mattes a tiny bit? There's no need to cut anything off the sides, unless the film was shot hard-matted.

-- J.

[gZa]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
<I>One Night at McCool's</I> was shot in 1.85:1, so cropping it to 1.77:1 will make virtually no significant difference (we're talking a tiny sliver off the top and bottom) - not least because cinemas crop similar amounts off all the time!You're getting a tiny sliver more ain't you?
Unless the film was hard matte to 1:85:1 the transfer to 1:77:1 would open up the image slightly - giving more image top and bottom. Not less left and right.

Beside you'll miss ALL this unless you've got your TV set up with virtually no overscan. Mine's around 2% top/bottom and about 4% left/right :D
BTW the difference between this and before is :eek: :cool:

[silverpenguin7]

Originally posted by Garry Cowell

Beside you'll miss ALL this unless you've got your TV set up with virtually no overscan. Mine's around 2% top/bottom and about 4% left/right :D
BTW the difference between this and before is :eek: :cool:
What be this overscan business then?

[gZa]

Originally posted by silverpenguin7

What be this overscan business then? Well to stop the far edges of the TV picture showing especially the top (which contains colour and teletext information) the TV crops the image on ALL sides. This is called overscan. Most TVs as standard should have around 5% overscan on all sides. However some TVs over do it! In particular WSTVs are a double headache as they have different screen ratio's which each have there own overscan levels.

Note: You can ONLY adjust these through the TV's Service Menu and as you can imagine - if you cock up in there you're in a world of hurt!

[Michael Brooke]

Also note that this has an equivalent in cinema projection, where a small part of the image often spills out onto the black masking surrounding the screen.

Any halfway competent cinematographer will be aware of this and will compensate accordingly by not framing absurdly tightly - which is why tiny adjustments from 1.85:1 to 1.77:1 will almost certainly not make any significant difference.

[Bamse]

I have over scan on my WSTV so 1.85:1 films fill my screen, and I have a question.
Is the over scan always in operation, for instance, does the TV know when a film is in 1.77:1, or does it still crop 5% or so of the top and bottom?

[gZa]

Originally posted by Bamse
I have over scan on my WSTV so 1.85:1 films fill my screen, and I have a question.Hmmm...could you rephrase? That's sounds like you confusing overscan with you WSTVs Zoom/Cinema mode.
Originally posted by Bamse
Is the over scan always in operation, for instance, does the TV know when a film is in 1.77:1, or does it still crop 5% or so of the top and bottom? It still crops ALL the image - tho' to what degree(%) it can vary.

[Lenny Nero]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
<I>One Night at McCool's</I> was shot in 1.85:1, so cropping it to 1.77:1 will make virtually no significant difference (we're talking a tiny sliver off the top and bottom) - not least because cinemas crop similar amounts off all the time!

So calling this version "hacked and scammed" is a tad hysterical, especially when far greater damage is often done to films.

First of all it's cropped on the sides, and second I always call Pan&Scan as Hack&Scam, it sounds better. Also I'm not comparing it to obviously much worse cutting with 1.33 ratio but directly answering to a poster's question if they're gona fit widescreen TVs now, no need to call me hysterical :mad:
Also, I'm not screaming here about it, just saying and aren't there 100s of people moaning about this kind of thing with some Hong Kong Legends releases or whatever, I heard anyway. :rolleyes:

[gZa]

Originally posted by Lenny Nero
Also, I'm not screaming here about it, just saying and aren't there 100s of people moaning about this kind of thing with some Hong Kong Legends releases or whatever, I heard anyway. :rolleyes: ALL those movies (SitES, DM and LoaF) where originally shot with anamorphic lenses at approx 2.35:1 So it's an entirely different issue.

GENERALLY speaking...

P&S of anamorphically shot 2.35:1 = Huge loss of picture! (left and right)
P&S of spherically shot 1.85:1 = Different perspective and an image compromise (you lose a tad of left and right plus gain more top and bottom)

[Lenny Nero]

Well we don't know whether it was an open matte transfer or just a cropped on the sides one in the case of One Night at McCools.
And again, I'm not comparing or complaining here, why do people have to relate everything to something else.
We just have one movie here, it is not in its OAR, and that is a problem and a step in the wrong direction.
It's not even a "family" title.

[Michael Brooke]

<B>First of all it's cropped on the sides, and second I always call Pan&Scan as Hack&Scam, it sounds better.</B>

It might "sound better" (to you), but it's totally inaccurate, as what's happened here is not panning and scanning in the technical sense.

Either the top and bottom have been opened up by a tiny amount (revealing slightly more picture) or have been cropped at the sides (revealing slightly less picture) - but I guarantee you're losing no more than you'd lose in the cinema under normal projection conditions.

<B>and aren't there 100s of people moaning about this kind of thing with some Hong Kong Legends releases or whatever, I heard anyway. </B>

They're complaining about 2.35:1 titles cropped to 16:9, which is obviously a far more serious situation.

[Adge]

Originally posted by Lenny Nero
I always call Pan&Scan as Hack&Scam, it sounds better.

That's funny I always call it Jam&SteveCram. What a Crazzzeeee world we live in.:rolleyes:

[Lenny Nero]

... a renowned psychopath Lenny Nero's influential biopic comes to the silver screen this Friday, including the infamous "Hack&Scam" incident on TheDVDForums back in 2001. Pre-order your tickets at LennysMoviefone.com. In other news today, the death toll of yesterday's Christmas Cease Fire is still rising, it currently stands at around five HUNDRED and seventy eight, with the counter attack now well under way, I send this note of Holliday cheer to all of you in range of my voice... Kill Kill Kill! :D

[neverland]

Lenny, why do you bother with these forums? Don't the voices in your head give you enough people to talk to?