PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Rya on January 11, 2004, 03:03:44 AM
-
Just wondering what\'s the general preference around here.
-
This is a somewhat techie forum because we all like games and movies and it\'s necessary to be familiar with some technology to use both so I would imagine widescreen would be the norm. DEATH TO FULL SCREEN!
-
Widescreen for sure, most movies/DVD\'s are made in this way. Once you get used to watching a widescreen TV, a normal 4:3 display looks strange. At least it does to me anyways.
-
Originally posted by Kurt Angle
Widescreen for sure, most movies/DVD\'s are made in this way. Once you get used to watching a widescreen TV, a normal 4:3 display looks strange. At least it does to me anyways.
Same here. I could never go back to a 4:3 TV... yuck. :D
-
Who the heck voted full-screen? Everybody thinks full-screen movies are better at first.. ("Hey, at least it covers the entire screen!") but once you realize what full-screen really is it\'s hard to support it.
With a few exceptions in the movie realm, widescreen is by all means the only true way to view a film. (the exceptions being when a movie is filmed at the full-screen aspect ratio, which is "very rarely")
Of course, most TV shows are designed to be full-screen so obviously they work in the FS format.
-
Originally posted by Blade
Who the heck voted full-screen?
Someone who does not own a 16:9 screen TV. :)
No, I didn\'t vote for full screen. *looks at plasma TV on the wall*
-
I will only watch a fullscreen movie if there is no other choice, which sometimes is quite common when you get into B-rated horror flicks.
-
GmanJoe: I have zero 16:9 aspect ratio TV\'s in my house. :)
Seriously, I don\'t see that as a valid excuse. The letterbox isn\'t an issue equivocal to the wholeness of a movie.
Sorry to rant here, but I\'ve had discussions about this before and nobody ever brings up a valid reason for liking FS!
-
Widescreen for me. I don\'t own a widescreen TV so there are black bars on the top and bottom (I have a normal CRT TV) but I got used to them in like 5 minutes. I would never go back to full screen. The only movie I do have in full screen is Full Metal Jacket, which I plan to get the widescreen format of.
-
Widescreen.
I hate getting the picture clipped.
-
Widescreen here. Even in gaming i prefer widescreen. and you don\'t need a widescreen tv or monitor to support it either.
-
Full screen, until somebody gives me a good reason to say wide screen.
-
they cut out the sides of the screen... reason enough?
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
Full screen, until somebody gives me a good reason to say wide screen.
:sconf:
all full screen dvd\'s should be burned
-
Try watching a fullscreen movie on a widescreen TV...ugh...:( I can\'t watch VHS on my TV anymore...
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
they cut out the sides of the screen... reason enough?
So how much am I missing? A few dots?
I dunno, it doesn\'t bother me at the moment because I don\'t have a widescreen TV.
-
You\'re missing 33% of the movie with full screen.
-
The vast majority of films are filmed in the 16:9 widescreen format, what you see at a theater.
When they get formatted to fit the full-screen aspect ratio.. they have to either cut a good percentage (20-30%, at least) of each frame out.. or pan to show what is off-screen. (you\'ll see it in a lot of movies when they appear on TV, smooth panning that doesn\'t seem natural) It\'s not a super duper huge difference most of the time, but frankly widescreen is what the director and everybody involved in the creation of the film intended for you to see.
Some examples: 1 (http://kdfalin.topcities.com/fullscreen_vs_widescreen.html) 2 (http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/feature/20020925) 3 (http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/movies/sets/hobbiton/view/8465) 4 (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html) 5.. heck, nevermind. I don\'t need to go on after you\'ve seen those links. :)
-
Damn.. It\'s amazing how much you miss. There are so many instances in just about every movie where shit is cut out. It could be a wide shot where two people are talking and you only see one.
Or the horrid digital pans. Oh they are so annoying.
Of when a shot is wide so they squish the shot making everyone real tall. so sad. so sad.
I have a tough time watching regular tv in full screen now. You should try watching alias and 24 side by side wide and full. there is a huge difference.
-
Ok, I\'m convinced.
Holy crap I didn\'t realize how much you lose... Even some main characters on the side, that\'s crazy.
Go widescreen.
-
education does wonders huh.
and for the last f@#ken time, you don\'t need a widescreen tv to view widescreen format.
-
I had a laser disc player for several years because that was the only way to get widescreen content. DId it with my 27 incher...
insert sexual joke here......
-
widescreen of course for when i\'m checkin out those fake pornos on cinemax..erm uh nevermind.
-
There should have been an option original aspect ratio. Wether it be widescreen or fullscreen.
-
Originally posted by Capcom
There should have been an option original aspect ratio. Wether it be widescreen or fullscreen.
Finally someone speaks the truth. :)
Stanley Kubrick shot many of his most famous pictures in 4:3 ratio. Some "widescreen" transfers of those films throw away information at the top and bottom of the frame!
I vote for "Original Aspect Ratio," whatever that may be.
-
I guess someone should point just because you own a 16:9 widescreen TV, doesn\'t mean that you\'ll lose the black bars on all widescreen films.
:)
-
Originally posted by Titan
Widescreen for me. I don\'t own a widescreen TV so there are black bars on the top and bottom (I have a normal CRT TV) but I got used to them in like 5 minutes. I would never go back to full screen. The only movie I do have in full screen is Full Metal Jacket, which I plan to get the widescreen format of.
I can only find it in 4:3, I don\'t think it was ever made in 16:9 or 2.35:1.
Bugger. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Blade
The vast majority of films are filmed in the 16:9 widescreen format, what you see at a theater.
When they get formatted to fit the full-screen aspect ratio.. they have to either cut a good percentage (20-30%, at least) of each frame out.. or pan to show what is off-screen. (you\'ll see it in a lot of movies when they appear on TV, smooth panning that doesn\'t seem natural) It\'s not a super duper huge difference most of the time, but frankly widescreen is what the director and everybody involved in the creation of the film intended for you to see.
Some examples: 1 (http://kdfalin.topcities.com/fullscreen_vs_widescreen.html) 2 (http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/feature/20020925) 3 (http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/movies/sets/hobbiton/view/8465) 4 (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html) 5.. heck, nevermind. I don\'t need to go on after you\'ve seen those links. :)
2.35:1 is the common format in cinemas nowadays, you even see the screen widen as panels move out further if you look at the right time . Very few films seem to come out in 16:9 (sometimes called 1.85:1) which is a shame, they look really big and colourful when the whole screen\'s filled.
-
yeah, most big budget movies are 2.35:1 aspect which i hate. like X-Men 2. X-Men 2 was fim in 5:3 asect ratio (or 1.5:1). Then it could either be cropped in:
1.78:1 (16 x 9)
or
1.85:1
or
2.35:1
but it was cropped into 2:35:1, too wide for 16 x 9 tv. if you watch DVD disc 2 of X-Men 2 and see the trailers, you notice it was cropped into 1.85:1. To easily tell, look at the Washington Logo with White oval around it on the beginning of the movie. The 2.35:1 ratio, you see the oval with top and bottom cropped off while the 1.85:1 you see the entire logo.
so to me, i prefer this two aspect ratio 1.78:1 (16 x 9) or 1.85:1 which fill my tv 16 x 9 screen except 1.85:1 which you see a small 2 - 3 % black bars at top and bottom but not noticeable if you have your tv overscan at 3%.
1.78:1 (16 x 9)
or
1.85:1
watching 2.35:1 on 16 x 9 tv is like watching 4 x 3 on 16 x 9 tv. You lose about the 33% of the screen which filled with black bars. Unlike 4 x 3 on 16 x 9 where you have 33% black bars on the side, you have 33% black bars on top and bottom.
So, maybe that\'s why Finding Nemo maybe a cool move to make the screen aspect ratio exactly 16 x 9 (1.78:1). Hey, its CG, it can be easily done. So are 35mm film it can be cropped into 1.78:1, but those directors doesn\'t want to, which suck.
Bottom line is, if movies film in 16 x 9 ratio, i would go all the way supporting widescreen. or at least in 1.85:1 aspect ratio. I don\'t like 2:35:1 very much, too wide and not necessary, at least to me. I find 1.78:1 perfect enough for widescreen and I think 4 x 3 is too narrow.
I own Sony 34" Tv and I love it.
-
I have a 32 inch TV and I hate that 4 inches of it is taking up by the black lines at top and bottom so maybe some day when I have a widescreen fromat tv I will think differently
-
Cyrus: Did you view the links, dude? :)
Anywho, yes.. Kubrick\'s movies are an example of full-screen at work. When movies are filmed in that format, those films should be viewed in full-screen mode. The thing about that is, it\'s comparatively rare.
All in all, I\'d vote for "Original Aspect Ratio". Widescreen nowadays is practically standard, though.. so on average you\'re going to see a lot more movies released in the WS format.. thus I voted widescreen.
-
If you go by on getting the most picture. You would probably want to pick up the fullscreen versions of T3 and Finding Nemo.
I would love to have a widescreen Full metal Jacket since that is how it appeared in the theatre to begin with.
As a side note Once Upon a Time in America has a similar issue. They cut some of the bottom and top off to make it 2.35 I do believe. It is being released in 1.78 on dvd. So technically you will be getting more picture, but it may not be the best option.
-
Originally posted by Blade
Cyrus: Did you view the links, dude? :)
Anywho, yes.. Kubrick\'s movies are an example of full-screen at work. When movies are filmed in that format, those films should be viewed in full-screen mode. The thing about that is, it\'s comparatively rare.
All in all, I\'d vote for "Original Aspect Ratio". Widescreen nowadays is practically standard, though.. so on average you\'re going to see a lot more movies released in the WS format.. thus I voted widescreen.
No I didnt view the links and it took me 10 minutes to find them again until I realized that maybe your the one who put up "the links" and yes there is a big difference I knew that allready did it at a home theater store once, but no matter I still dont like the blackline makes me feal like they are saying " so if you made al ittle more money you cheap bastard you wouldnt be seeing these"
-
Originally posted by Cyrus
No I didnt view the links and it took me 10 minutes to find them again until I realized that maybe your the one who put up "the links" and yes there is a big difference I knew that allready did it at a home theater store once, but no matter I still dont like the blackline makes me feal like they are saying " so if you made al ittle more money you cheap bastard you wouldnt be seeing these"
If you are renting. Why worry? If you are buying. Keep in mind when you do go widescreen tv. Then you are going to have even bigger bars. Only they will be on the sides.
-
Meh, black bars are no excuse.
The only valid excuse to not like widescreen is the one Capcom listed: movies that are shot in full-screen.
\'Course, people can like what they like. I just don\'t understand this fascination with ugly pan-n-scan.
-
Originally posted by Green Meanie
I can only find it in 4:3, I don\'t think it was ever made in 16:9 or 2.35:1.
Bugger. :rolleyes:
I guess your right. They really should put it in widescreen, unless it was like that in theaters.
-
Well why cant they just make the damn disk two sided like some of the cheesier movies do and over both widescreen and fullscreen and let me choose
-
because they want you to go out and buy the widescreen edition when you upgrade from full screen.
-
cheekie bastards! Just like the cellphone people FREE CELL PHONE FREE CELL PHONE!!! you hear it everywhere yet the suck so you spend the 100 bucks to get a good one and next week its the free one and they just came out with one thats twice as good as yours.
-
its the nature of the beast.
don\'t know if it happend States side but over here we kept on geting the Original Star Wars being released with a new feature for a limited time (with the tag line "better get it now be cause one they are gone they are gone for ever)
The trilogy was first released on widescreen (limited and withdrawn within a timelimit)
then a few years later ...
The trilogy was released on remastered (limited and withdrawn within a timelimit)
and then
The trilogy was released with the directors cut (limited and withdrawn within a timelimit)
its the oldest trick in the book.... and it works
-
Every since I purchased my widescreen Sony, I hate watching movies on a regular TV. It doesn\'t look right to me.
-
Originally posted by Cyrus
Well why cant they just make the damn disk two sided like some of the cheesier movies do and over both widescreen and fullscreen and let me choose
Freddy versus Jason has Pan and scan plus widescreen on one side of the disk. Thus why there is probably no DTS option. Only DD 5.1EX.:mad: