American Pie 2:Unrated - Full Screen version

[mr_woo]

i was just wondering does anyone know what the full screen version of this was like ? ie is there much chopped off the sides etc

I got this by accident instead of the Widescreen version and would normally be fuming but it just doesn't seem to be the type of film which really needs widescreen (ie not an action flick with fights which would be severely effected etc)

Also, i'm a lazy git and couldn't be arsed sending it back again :D:D

So is the picture adversely affected or is it alright in P&S ?

cheers

[Just Call Me Wanda]

So is the picture adversely affected or is it alright in P&S ?

Nothing is alright in pan and scam! :nuts:

[Alanok]

No film is alright in P&S unless the director intended it to be seen in this way ala Kubrick.

I urge you to send it back and get the WS version.

[ed rooney]

Originally posted by Alanok
No film is alright in P&S unless the director intended it to be seen in this way ala Kubrick.
Even then it wouldn't be P&S because Kubrick would have framed it as such.

The cropped versions of these films would be the widescreen ones.

Any one more knowlegeable care to give examples?

[Just Call Me Wanda]

Kubrick framed his films in a ratio of 4:3. No pan and scan needed.

Widrescreen films are panned and scanned to created a 4:3 image to fit standard 4:3 television sets. A 4:3 frame is created by illiminating about 30% of the image and the word pan and scan comes from the use of the artificial 4:3 frame being moved across the widescreen image so as to not miss out on important attributes.

The Die Hard 5 Star disc has an excellent example of the pro's of widescreen over pan and scan versions.

Further info can be found at DVD Times (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk). Michael Brooke has written an excellent article concerning some of the issues mentioned in his piece entitled Widescreen Unravelled (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=Feature&id=9&story=2606).

[SqueakyG]

People will tell you to send it back and get the widescreen version on principle, because we're all widescreen nuts, campaigning for an end to the dumb Joe Six-Pack necessity for fullscreen films because some people are too dumb to cope with black bars on their screen. The fact that AP2 is availablein fullscreen is an annoyance, because people should be able to cope with small black bars without complaining.

But anyway. Like you say, AP2 isn't the kind of film that needs to use the widescreen frame, nor is it a cinematic work of art that carefully creates themes and meanings with ingenious mise-en-scene. So I actually think it probably doesn't matter if you have the fullscreen version.

If it was open matte, it just means the top and bottom of the picture are shown rather than cropped. If it really matters to you how the nameless/pointless/unknown director framed the film, just imagine the top and bottom of the picture aren't there.

[mr_woo]

well in the end i decided to send the film back and get the Widescreen version. Just managed to catch the last post :D

For some reason the words Full Frame on the cover really bothered me, i've no idea why, maybe it's just because im a nutter :nuts:

[tj_director]

i'd normally agree, and hopefully via my username, you can see that i'm someone who appreciates cinematography, artistic value and all that stuff. But there are benefits to P&S.

Films like American Pie 2, are ones which will make a considerable amount of money in the home viewing market, and as a result the director/DOP will purposely frame a film so that when the cropping is done, there isn't much cut out. And it will look perfectly fine on a 4:3 TV. Even more cinematic films are done in
this way, as the director is aware that many people watching the film for the first time will do so on TV etc...

A player like Power DVD 3.0 has a P&S option, where it does a rough crop of a film. And playing about with it you can see how P&Scanning on most films doesn't actually do that much harm. off course doing a full screen conversion of a 2.35:1 can in most cases look very poor, but with the majority of 1.85:1 films, a P&S version really isn't the great butchering that people seem to claim.

I myself own a 4:3 TV, and will almost always with certain 1.85:1 films, which aren't really visual to any great extent, i.e. Adam Sandler films, i will opt for the 4:3 version, as it gives a bigger picture on my TV, and it simply involves me more - such is the benefit if a bigger picture. There really isn't much that i'm missing
out on. My TV is pretty big, and sometimes watching in 4:3 is simply better than 16:9, as it feels more cinematic, the picture envelopes you. Off course i can't take advantage of the higher resolution from anamphoric encoding, but really it doesn't matter that much. And don't think i don't know the difference.

Anyway before i go on and on... Woo, if you own a 4:3 Tv, then i really don't see any problem with holding onto it. Like Squeaky says, it isn't a particulary visual film, and just remember the film-makers made the film with P&S strongly in mind. Just look at
sales in America and you'll see that P&S version sales are virtually equal or even greater than it's WS counterpart, due to many of them owning 4:3 TVs, so they know not all the market are film-buffs or own WS TVs.

And i personally don't see why people should have to just get used to black bars, i personally don't see what's so great about watching a WS film on a small/medium sized TV, if you can't really
see what's going on, and the characters look like insects -- you want to be able to feel that close up. Anyway not all film-goers really care about visuals, they just want to watch a story, get involved and relax, P&S doesn't always get in the way of that. I personally love it when a DVD gives the option for 16:9 and 4:3, but i'm not a huge fan of seperate discs, i'm sure the picture quality isn't affect that much (is it??).

But if you own a 16:9 Tv, then i've just wasted my time!! :rolleyes:

TJ :)

[sidebog7]

Originally posted by tj_director
I myself own a 4:3 TV, and will almost always with certain 1.85:1 films, which aren't really visual to any great extent, i.e. Adam Sandler films, i will opt for the 4:3 version, as it gives a bigger picture on my TV, and it simply involves me more - such is the benefit if a bigger picture. There really isn't much that i'm missing out on. My TV is pretty big, and sometimes watching in 4:3 is simply better than 16:9, as it feels more cinematic, the picture envelopes you. Off course i can't take advantage of the higher resolution from anamphoric encoding, but really it doesn't matter that much. And don't think i don't know the difference.


Burn the heretic!!!!1111;)

[Budge]

With Adam Sandler films I tend to go for the 0:0 ratio.

[SqueakyG]

Originally posted by Budge
With Adam Sandler films I tend to go for the 0:0 ratio.


http://www.gavin.clayton.btinternet.co.uk/adamsandler.jpg