Fullscreen or Widescreen?

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 2 3 4 5.. heck, nevermind. I don\'t need to go on after you\'ve seen those links.

[videoholic]

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.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

education does wonders huh.



and for the last f@#ken time, you don\'t need a widescreen tv to view widescreen format.

[videoholic]

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......

[clips]

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.

[Living-In-Clip]

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 2 3 4 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.

[Paul2]

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