Isn't It Time Pan & Scan/"Full Screen" Went Away?

Honestly, for the life of me, I can't understand why it still exists, other than to be sold at Wal*marts around the world in their "$5.99 bins". Are there still that many people out there ignorant to the disadvantages of "Full Screen"? Are there still that many people out there saying "I just hate those black bars, and it's just too small"? Maybe it's time to lose that 20" full screen Zenith with the rabit ears, that they inherited from mom and dad, and pop on over to the local electronics store and invest in a shiny new wide screen! Take in the full flavor of that 16:9 aspect ratio!

With the advent of the number of wide flat panel TV adopters growing daily, isn't it about time this archaic format is done away with? Now, of course we'd have to preserve the films that were originally released in Full Screen, like "101 Dalmatians", and... uh... well, I'm sure there's at least one other film originally released in Full Screen, but, beyond that, can anyone come up with legitimate reasons for it to stay?



- Josh

"Are there still that many people out there ignorant to the disadvantages of 'Full Screen'?" --Josh

Josh,

I think we recently discussed this subject in another thread. Studios are in business to make money, not educate the public. Since over half the general public still own 1.33:1 ratio, standard-screen televisions, many of them seem to want a picture that fills their screen. So the studios give it to them, even though it means cutting out up to half the original theatrical picture left and/or right.

To each his own. So long as studios also offer widescreen versions, I'm happy. It's when a studio occasionally only offers a movie in 1.33:1 "full-screen" (less common these days, thankfully) that I'm ticked off. Universal, for instance, has never offered "The Shadow" in widescreen on DVD. Maybe they'll give us a BD version in widescreen some day.

John

Well Josh, I think if we were to account for every TV out there in the world, those old Zenith with rabbit ears would outnumber HDTVs in a heartbeat -- probably even some decent JVC televisions come to think of it. You have to keep in mind that most of the population are not tech savvy as the rest of us and it just comes with the territory. Also, it would have to be apparent that those fullscreen DVDs still sell very well, otherwise they would probably have been gone a long time ago. As long as the studios can make a buck off of them they will keep making fullscreeners until HDTV is the norm and majority -- even then I'm sure the studios will still cater to the unwise. Remember, it's not always about what's right but what makes money when it comes to Hollywood.

josh,

the Pan-&-Scan garbage is almost entirely indigenous to the U.S. i went on a global trip in 2005, and in every country that i visited, i did not see a single MAR (modified aspect ratio) dvd. this may be the only country, literally, to have those abominations. part of the problem may be the fact that the home video market here developed years before other countries' did, but we also have many boneheaded consumers who refuse to accept that OAR (even 2.35:1 with thick black bars) lets you see all of the intended picture.

eddie

I hear ya Josh, but a tidbit of info that you should know. Most camera (panoramic) equipment has been cropped down to 2.35:1, or 1.85:1 for your features. That's right they actually shoot similar to a full frame shot. The use of lenses helps them get that wide angle shot. I have played around with a camera, and was able to shoot some footage in full frame as well. No quite full screen like we know it, more like IMAX, big and clumsy. Fish eye view, I think its called. Skyhawk, will probably correct me on this post.

I do agree, it too bad there is two generations of people before us that feel differently.

To be fair, the studios do cater to the needs of all the people...but I'm still waiting for my 16:9 fullscreen, which I think would be enough for untechsavy people...and for us too.

Quote:
Skyhawk, will probably correct me on this post.

Well.. if you like.

I think you're confusing the cropping used in Super 35 format, to anamorphic formats. No "special" camera lenses are required for Super 35, meaning no lenses that stretch the image (and make people look like sticks) that anamorphic formats use. Super 35 records the image in 1.33:1 aspect ratio, which is then later cropped to the desired AR. One disadvantage with Super 35 is that it doesn't take advantage of the resolution offerred by the full 35mm negative frame. A digital or optical intermediate is also necessary for Super 35, since it cannot be shown in theaters in this format and must be cropped and then "anamorphosed" before transferring it to a regular anamorphic negative master.

Wide angle lenses (and fish eye as the extreme version) simply refer to any lens with a focal length of under 50mm, and are used to make things smaller (fitting more people into a scene at a given distance), or to make the distance behind elements seem much greater. Zoom lenses have been used a long time in cinema, and often the focal length will go from wide angle to 200mm telephoto in a single scene (zooming in). Focal length has nothing to do with film formats or aspect ratios though.

In my Opinion 1.85:1 is the sweetest ratio since it fills a 16:9 screen. I have two JVC fullscreen televisions. They last forever and are quite nice but I still would rather watch widescreen movies on them. I have always bought widescreen since it was available and have only had a widescreen tv for 2 years.