View Full Version : Best examples of Widescreen Vs Fullscreen
Had a huge argument with the folks yesterday afternoon.
Mum -
"ohh, it's nice you've got a DVD that doesn't have those stupid black borders"
Me -
"Those 'stupid black borders' layout the screen so you see all of the picture instead of just a bit of it"
Dad -
"What you talking about, how can you see more of the picture when half of it's missing"
:argue: :brickwall
So..... What films can you think of that show a good example of what's missed off the screen in the Pan and Scan release of the film.
The only one that comes to mind is Ghostbusters when they arrive at the hotel and Venkman shouts "Anyone seen a ghost". In the WS version you can see Egon playing with the PKE meter which is lacking in the PaS version. Any more?
George vader
07-01-2002, 07:44
One of the R1 SE Die Hards has an excellent 10min documentary on how full screen/pan and scan ruins a film...I think its on the first film.
Bolch - Just let them watch their crappy, chopped-up, pan and scan, useless, worthless rubbish.
My folks will insist on watching pan and scan even though they have a (rented) widescreen TV. And they have to use the stretched mode too. It's so annoying!
It would drive me crazy watching a favourite film in that mode.
The film that convinced me of the benefits of W/S was Scream. Maybe you can show them the diff between those two on VHS. Same with Star Wars i'd never seen them in W/S until i saw them on Sky. The difference is amazingly clear.
Sheepking
07-01-2002, 08:12
Another good one was the old tommorow never dies R1 (which has P&S and Widescreen on the same side)
Chapter 3 when the chinese migs fly overhead, on P&S you only see 1 of them, but in widescreen you see both. When you watch it in P&s it actually looks and sounds strange because you hear 2 jets fly past but only see one.
My parents are exactly the same, "its got horrible borders" or "widscreen tv's are too small". :rolleyes:
You could always show them the examples here (http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml)
One of the best examples I've seen is comparing The Good, The Bad & The Ugly DVD with the P&S video, I still can't believe how I used to watch it like that.
The pity of it all is that these vociferous people who love their full-screen pan & scam cropped incomplete versions of movies will eventually sway DVD makers and Blockbuster-type shops in this direction, and we true movie lovers will end up without our full width transfers. Indeed, the number of questions on this forum that go like:
I've got a XYZ widescreen TV and a ABC model 123.56 DVD player and when I watch an anamorphic disc I still get black bars - what can I do to get rid of them?
indicate that your "folks" aren't alone, more's the pity.
I've seen some DVDs (MGM ones I think) that actually have a fullscreen vs widescreen demo on them to show people why widescreen. Can't remember exactly which, though. Sorry.
another good one is Return of the Jedi when Leia gets shot at the bunker.
Han says I love you to her as a bunch of stormtroopers come up behind him saying hands up.
In WS you see them, In P&S all you hear are their voices so when Leia shoots them, you wonder what happened on the P&S.
Bapapapa
07-01-2002, 09:50
This site shows a great example of the differences...
Letterbox vs P&S (http://216.76.4.25/letterbox/)
I lieK Pan & Scan..
:p
Originally posted by Bapapapa
This site shows a great example of the differences...
Letterbox vs P&S (http://216.76.4.25/letterbox/)
I lieK Pan & Scan..
:p
Now I'm sure Blockbusters would really like to display that page as a poster in their stores to illustrate the differences to customers. ;)
Ridcully
07-01-2002, 10:16
Can't speak from owning them but two disc that I have heard may be good
Mad Max SE starts 4:3 and then goes to widescreen
Galaxy quest. In the cinema this was very clever as it used 1.33, 1.85 & 2.35. I think the DVD only uses 1.33 and then 2.35
hometown38
07-01-2002, 10:49
Watching the Godfather II last night ... when Frank Pantangelli is brought before the court to give evidence against Michael Corleone , Michael , Tom Hagen & Pantangelli's brother can be seen watching him in the distance to the left of the screen, if it was P&S then i don't reckon you would be able to see them.
First time i have seen Godfather II for years, God, what a film... looks better than ever now on DVD.
Just stick a piece of paper with a 4:3 hole in it over one of you family photos and see if they think it looks better :)
robbiejm
07-01-2002, 15:10
http://pages.zoom.co.uk/robs/covers/starwars_pan.jpg
http://pages.zoom.co.uk/robs/covers/starwars_wide.jpg
Some other good examples here:
http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml
You might want to tell them that around 45% of the image is lost when a 2:40:1 movie is pan and scanned. :brickwall :D
robbiejm
07-01-2002, 15:19
http://pages.zoom.co.uk/robs/covers/empire_panscan.jpg
http://pages.zoom.co.uk/robs/covers/empire_wide.jpg
Particularly apt in this case as Lando is actually talking with Han and he's off screen in the P&S version. :rolleyes:
SqueakyG
07-01-2002, 15:31
The most accessible 2.35:1 scope films that can be compared to their horrid P&S versions include:
Ghostbusters
Star Wars trilogy
Jaws
Alien
Scream trilogy
Star Trek movies
But many modern films are now made with open matte processes, which *do* actually place black bars over a full-screen picture. Whilst the widescreen version is the correctly framed version, you'll have a hell of a time tryiong to explain this to your parents. So full-on 2.35:1 panned & scanned examples work up to a point, but be careful when your dad says, "Well, why does your copy of The Matrix cover up some of the picture with black bars then? A-ha! I'm right after all!"
wolfkiller
07-01-2002, 16:01
SqueakyG what are you talking about?
The Matrix was filmed and presented at 2.35:1. It wasn't closed matted for the cinema, unlike, say, Eyes Wide Shut and other Kubrick films which were shot at ~1.37:1 and matted for the big screen before being "opened" for video and DVD.
No part of the picture is obscured by black bars.
According to IMDb (http://uk.imdb.com/Technical?0133093) The Matrix was shot using Super 35, which means the 2.35:1 cinema print is indeed matted, and the full-screen version therefore probably has more picture information.
Or maybe that's all BS seeing as I'm no expert in these things. :D
Shingster
07-01-2002, 18:47
I've found that P&S versions of HK films are the worst, - particulary those of Kung Fu titles. 2 good examples are Last Hurrah For Chivalry & Eagle Vs Silver fox.
Last Hurrah has a brief scene where 2 blokes are talking, but are back to back with each other, so they're practically leaning together. The P&S version just shows the back of their heads on screen! No faces, just 2 ponytails touching each other. I suppose it's the better framing if you have a hair fetish! ;)
Eagle Vs Silver Fox features a brief scene where 2 people are talking to each other from opposite sides of a small coffee table in a teahouse. Fine in 2.35:1, but in the P&S 4:3 version, all you see is the table & the hands of the people on either side of the frame!! :D Again, fine if you have a hand fetish.
Panavision
07-01-2002, 19:00
Originally posted by sampath
According to IMDb (http://uk.imdb.com/Technical?0133093) The Matrix was shot using Super 35, which means the 2.35:1 cinema print is indeed matted, and the full-screen version therefore probably has more picture information.
Or maybe that's all BS seeing as I'm no expert in these things. :D
But the f/x scenes are panned and scanned.
davey1970
07-01-2002, 20:09
I seem to remember the scene near the start of blade runner, where a replicant is being interviewed, is a good example.
they are sat at opposite ends of a table and i'm sure pan and scan has to go back and forth between them when w/s doesn't.
maybe i'm wrong though.
one of the best ways of illustrating the benefits is to wait for a film to come on itv, eg alien - it looks like it was made 100 years ago. watch the dvd and it doesn't look old at all.
the same is true of loads of films, even sort of recent stuff from the 90's etc...
SqueakyG
07-01-2002, 21:20
Originally posted by wolfkiller
SqueakyG what are you talking about?
The Matrix was filmed and presented at 2.35:1. It wasn't closed matted for the cinema, unlike, say, Eyes Wide Shut and other Kubrick films which were shot at ~1.37:1 and matted for the big screen before being "opened" for video and DVD.
No part of the picture is obscured by black bars.
The Matrix is a super 35 film. This is a matte process. The film is shot in a frame similar to 4:3, which is then cropped to 2.35:1 for the proper cinematic framing. When shown in full-screen, the matte is opened, and an extra portion of the picture is included in the full-screen frame. Super35 is a compromise technique: the cinematic widescreen frame has more picture at the sides, but the bottom is cropped; the full-screen frame has more picture in the lower third of the frame, but the sides are cropped.
If you compare fullscreen and widescreen versions of The Matrix (or other super35 films, such as T2), you will see that most shots in the fullscreen version include up to 40% more picture in the bottom half of your TV screen, which is cropped by black bars in the widescreen version.
My point is that, when trying to explain widescreen to people, it becomes really frustrating when they don't understand super35 and other matte processes. As you have proved! :D
neverland
07-01-2002, 21:45
I got a fullscreen version of Assault on Precinct 13 free with a magazine a few years back. It's totally unwatchable. I'm not even sure if it's genuine pan and scan, or if they've just lopped off the edges and show the centre of the image. I seem to remember the father and daughter talking in the car, and only the edge of each of their faces was visible. :mad:
If you can show something as appalling as that to your parents and they're still not convinced, I suggest you buy some cheap picture frames and start hacking up their wedding photos so they'll fit in them. If they're still not convinced, maybe you should start hacking up your parents.
These people must be stopped!:nuts:
Paul Bennison
07-01-2002, 22:44
Originally posted by SqueakyG
The Matrix is a super 35 film. This is a matte process. The film is shot in a frame similar to 4:3, which is then cropped to 2.35:1 for the proper cinematic framing. When shown in full-screen, the matte is opened, and an extra portion of the picture is included in the full-screen frame. Super35 is a compromise technique: the cinematic widescreen frame has more picture at the sides, but the bottom is cropped; the full-screen frame has more picture in the lower third of the frame, but the sides are cropped.
If you compare fullscreen and widescreen versions of The Matrix (or other super35 films, such as T2), you will see that most shots in the fullscreen version include up to 40% more picture in the bottom half of your TV screen, which is cropped by black bars in the widescreen version.
My point is that, when trying to explain widescreen to people, it becomes really frustrating when they don't understand super35 and other matte processes. As you have proved! :D
SqueakyG - May I assist your excellent response with a visual from T2 to assist your explanation...
Red=the cinema version
Blue=Open matt version
http://www.bennisononline.freeserve.co.uk/super35.jpg
Check out the scene when Arnie is raising a leg to prove his obedience to John. In the open matt version, hard man Arnie clearly has his tired little leg resting on a box during the scene. All say, "Ahhhhhh". This is not visible in the cinematic version.
Paul Bennison
09-01-2002, 22:48
Bolch - there's also some excellent examples at
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html
Paul.
Take your parents to the cinema, and then get the projectionist to open up the curtains only halfway.....:D
Any of Sam Peckinpah's Panavision movies look horrendous in pan/scan. Try making sense of the 4:3 version of "Junior Bonner". As for "Pat Garratt And Billy The Kid", well it's totally incomprehensible in the wrong ratio.
the chariot race in Ben Hur is a good example of how Pan&Scam destroys a scene.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.