Friday, February 22, 2008
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
"I just hope that wide screen DVDs win the war against full screen DVDs soon." --Skyhawk
Sky,
I'm not sure if you're just teasing or not, but I thought that that war had been won long ago. Not so, however (as anybody browsing Wal-Mart can tell you). Just recently Warner Bros. started releasing several of their newest movies in standard-definition packages that include widescreen on one side of the disc and full-screen on the other (remember years ago when that was common for studios like MGM?). WB are probably trying to save money by not having to produce separate discs, I dunno. It's discouraging, though, to have to watch the pan-and-scan versions of these things for even a moment or two (for reviewing purposes).
John
Sky,
I'm not sure if you're just teasing or not, but I thought that that war had been won long ago. Not so, however (as anybody browsing Wal-Mart can tell you). Just recently Warner Bros. started releasing several of their newest movies in standard-definition packages that include widescreen on one side of the disc and full-screen on the other (remember years ago when that was common for studios like MGM?). WB are probably trying to save money by not having to produce separate discs, I dunno. It's discouraging, though, to have to watch the pan-and-scan versions of these things for even a moment or two (for reviewing purposes).
John
Friday, February 22, 2008
Member since:
September 2006
September 2006
John,
I was surprised that the two recent releases of Rise of the Silver Surfer and Rush Hour 3 on DVD. Had the Pan and scan version as well as the widescreen. I really thought we had moved past the point of needing both on one disc, just in case.
I was surprised that the two recent releases of Rise of the Silver Surfer and Rush Hour 3 on DVD. Had the Pan and scan version as well as the widescreen. I really thought we had moved past the point of needing both on one disc, just in case.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
John, I was kinda serious. There is no doubt that the aspect ratio war will eventually be won in favor of wide-screen when the majority of people have wide screen TVs, but that's still going to take some time.
I've witnessed people walk out of our video rental store empty handed because the "full screen" versions were all rented and only the wide screen versions of a day & date release were available. While checking out our local Walmart's hi-def selection awhile back, I overheard a couple going through a throw-away DVD bin behind us saying "Oh too bad this isn't full screen, because I love this movie!", then leaving the movie behind. I believe every movie in the bin was $3.99.
Even the name "Full Screen" is terribly misleading and objectively I'd think that version of the movie must contain a "fuller" aspect not seen in the corresponding "wide screen" version. Sometimes I feel like buying about 100 full screen version titles, then taking them all back after opening and telling them "this isn't full screen as advertised! There's BIG BLACK BARS on both sides of my TV display while watching them!".
I've witnessed people walk out of our video rental store empty handed because the "full screen" versions were all rented and only the wide screen versions of a day & date release were available. While checking out our local Walmart's hi-def selection awhile back, I overheard a couple going through a throw-away DVD bin behind us saying "Oh too bad this isn't full screen, because I love this movie!", then leaving the movie behind. I believe every movie in the bin was $3.99.
Even the name "Full Screen" is terribly misleading and objectively I'd think that version of the movie must contain a "fuller" aspect not seen in the corresponding "wide screen" version. Sometimes I feel like buying about 100 full screen version titles, then taking them all back after opening and telling them "this isn't full screen as advertised! There's BIG BLACK BARS on both sides of my TV display while watching them!".
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Sky,
I've always been half-amused, half-exasperated by Disney's keep-case claims that a movie comes in a "family-friendly" full-screen aspect ratio. Full-screen is "family friendly"? Or, better yet, the studios still use the disclaimer with full-screen at start-up that says, "This movie has been modified to fit your screen." No, my screen is wide. It doesn't fit. And it doesn't fit at least a third of all the televisions out there!
John
I've always been half-amused, half-exasperated by Disney's keep-case claims that a movie comes in a "family-friendly" full-screen aspect ratio. Full-screen is "family friendly"? Or, better yet, the studios still use the disclaimer with full-screen at start-up that says, "This movie has been modified to fit your screen." No, my screen is wide. It doesn't fit. And it doesn't fit at least a third of all the televisions out there!
John
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Member since:
February 2008
February 2008
I think the US is the only country that still does Fullscreen releases. 
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
No, unfortunately Canada does also.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Member since:
June 2006
June 2006
John Pucccio said -
Yeah, the ONLY 'full-screen' transfers that I hear are 'OK' to watch that way are some of the films shot in the Super 35 process (which is preferred by James Cameron), as long as the content being filmed is more 'centered' and not at the extreme outer L/R edges of the frame, which avoids having to 'pan and scan' the image too much.
Problem is, I believe that most Super35 films released on DVD are not presented in FF from an actual S35 master, but rather usually from a 1.85:1 'open matte' print.
-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)
Quote:
"It's discouraging, though, to have to watch the pan-and-scan versions of these things for even a moment or two (for reviewing purposes)."
Yeah, the ONLY 'full-screen' transfers that I hear are 'OK' to watch that way are some of the films shot in the Super 35 process (which is preferred by James Cameron), as long as the content being filmed is more 'centered' and not at the extreme outer L/R edges of the frame, which avoids having to 'pan and scan' the image too much.
Problem is, I believe that most Super35 films released on DVD are not presented in FF from an actual S35 master, but rather usually from a 1.85:1 'open matte' print.
-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Member since:
November 2007
November 2007
Quote:
I think the US is the only country that still does Fullscreen releases.
... so does Asia, Middle East... and any other 3rd world country that doesn't care, nor can afford a wide screen hdtv set, cares for FULLSCREEN RELEASES. Hate to break to all of you but... FULLSCREEN movies are STILL VERY MUCH IN DEMAND.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
Errr... dude, just in case you haven't seen the news in the last 20 years, not every country in Asia or the Middle East is a Third World country.
Well... other than FOX News I mean...
Well... other than FOX News I mean...
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Love,
Yeah, it's pan-and-scan that I'm referring to: those movies shot and/or released in a widescreen aspect ratio that are then cut, edited, hacked, and butchered to fit a 1.33:1 screen ratio.
I'm not talking about films originally shot at 1.33:1 or 1.44:1 and then released on disc in the aspect ratio of their original camera negatives (e.g., Kubrick's films), or, of course, older movies, which I love, shot at 1.37:1.
Still, my preference is for the film's theatrical-release aspect ratio, no matter how it was shot. I figure if the director intended his film to look a certain way when he exhibited it theatrically, that's the way I'd like to see it in my home.
John
Yeah, it's pan-and-scan that I'm referring to: those movies shot and/or released in a widescreen aspect ratio that are then cut, edited, hacked, and butchered to fit a 1.33:1 screen ratio.
I'm not talking about films originally shot at 1.33:1 or 1.44:1 and then released on disc in the aspect ratio of their original camera negatives (e.g., Kubrick's films), or, of course, older movies, which I love, shot at 1.37:1.
Still, my preference is for the film's theatrical-release aspect ratio, no matter how it was shot. I figure if the director intended his film to look a certain way when he exhibited it theatrically, that's the way I'd like to see it in my home.
John
