Widescreen vs Fullscreen

If I had a 32inch TV/Monitor, I would opt for wide screen. But, with a 17&quot; Moniter and 13&quot;tv, I need full creen to see it better. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - Finalday on 4/21/2004 9:13:05 AM

I´d tend to agree, if I had a bigger TV, I´d watch more widescreen. But now, I don´t really care, I´ll watch both, it´s the movie I care about, not the lines. Life: No one gets out alive. <img src=´http://www.planetgromit.co.uk/tlr/rilms.gif ´> <img src=´http://www.planetgromit.co.uk/tlr/ss.gif ´>

RILMS, that´s my point. It kind of confuses me when people say they don´t care, they just want to see the movie. Don´t you realize that you are actually MISSING parts of the movie? In some cases, a large percentage of the screen has actually been cut out. Maybe I´m just too much of a cinephile/movie snob. Especially for epic movies that are being made nowadays, like Lord of the Rings, Matrix, even the original Star Wars movies (and the upcoming DVD release), I want to see EVERYTHING. Battle scenes especially suffer from a Full Screen edit. You could literally NOT see up to 33% of what is going on. I guess I can understand the mentality when it comes to smaller screen sizes, but I would STILL opt for widescreen, even if I had a measly 13&quot;. I guess I would rather see everything there is to see, even if it´s a little smaller, than see 66% of what there is to see a little bigger. I think Steven Spielberg tried to do a petition or public awareness campaign or something to show audiences that Full Screen edits are NOT the director´s vision of the movies. From what I can remember, Spielberg is not a fan of Full Screen at all. I´ll try to find the web sources. At any rate, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would just hate for a Full Screen watcher to not fully realize what they are missing. I think most people would end up choosing Widescreen if they really knew what was being cut out. It´s more than you think... Wap

For those who want a little more info about the differences, check out this short comparison of widescreen vs fullscreen. You might be surprised. This indicates that many aspect ratios mean you are missing up to 46% of the original frame. http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen.shtml Wap

Widescreen every time, unless it was originally shot in 4:3. Why does it matter, you should be able to alter the format anyway?

The crusade continues... Here´s another site featuring information on widescreen vs fullscreen. Only this site has actual Audio and Video clips of directors discussing how much Full Screen takes away from the original intent of the movie. Leonard Nimoy, John Carpenter and Martin Scorsese each discuss how Full Screen (or Pan and Scan) detracts from the original film. http://www.widescreen.org/multimedia.shtml I should say that this is just my little rant. For those of you who still choose to watch in Full Screen, I´m not trying to flame or bash or anything like that. Really. I was surprised when I learned all this stuff myself, so maybe you will find it interesting. Ultimately all that matters is that we enjoy watching movies. <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> And although many DVDs now offer the option of either Widescreen or Fullscreen, many still do not. You cannot always make that choice from the menu or whatever, you actually have to either buy the Widescreen version, or the Full Screen version. Usually this is because many movies are encoded with Dolby Digital or DTS soundtracks, or enhanced special features, and so there isn´t enough room on the disk to include both aspect ratio formats. Wap Edited by - WapCaplet on 4/21/2004 10:09:58 AM

@Wap, Apart from the &quot;ignorance&quot; quotient of which I think you have demonstrated amply the broad spectrum of viewers which may fall into that category, you ought to consider those who have visual impairments AND limited budgets. Full scree

Indy, good point. You also illustrate the main problem with the whole Widescreen vs Fullscreen debate. TV manufacturers are the ones deciding what &quot;size&quot; is sufficient. Because we got used to a certain size TV screen, we naturally assume that anything smaller (or fills less than the whole screen) is too small to watch. We´ve been tricked. What if a famous art museum only had a certain size frame for paintings. If a Van Gogh is going to be displayed but it´s too wide to fit in the frame, should the museum cut the painting down to fit? The reason movies were formated to fit TV screens is because TV manufacturers thought people would be mad if the entire screen weren´t filled with something. And because TVs are generally square, but movies are filmed in a panoramic widescreen, they had to cut the edges off (actually more than just the edges, they cut off a good 33-46%) to get it to &quot;fit&quot; on a TV screen. And then when directors insisted that the original format of their film be made available, the only way to do it was to make it so the width fit the TV, which meant a portion of the top and bottom of the TV screen is not used (hence the &quot;black bars&quot;.) Many people instantly equated those black bars to &quot;smaller screen! harder to see!&quot;. Unfortunately, &quot;harder to see&quot; is not really a valid arguement since movies and TV are filmed in infinitely different &quot;zoom&quot; distances. Sometimes an actor´s face fills the whole screen, sometimes you see a vista covering the area of an entire city, or galaxy. One of the websites I included prior includes information about the Artist´s Rights Foundation. Film makers are trying to get their movies released ONLY in widescreen. Many feel that their films are being unfairly edited when they´re cropped into Pan and Scan format. And rightly so. If an artist creates a statue to display in a lobby somewhere, but the ceiling is too low, should the lobby-owner have the right to cut the statue in half? Anyway, greater minds than mine have argued both sides. Guess I´m just trying to get the information out there for people who have let TV manufacturers tell them what they should &quot;see&quot;. Wap Edited by - WapCaplet on 4/21/2004 10:39:50 AM Edited by - WapCaplet on 4/21/2004 10:40:48 AM

Well that´s a little bit one sided. It is not as if the movie makers have taken television into account either. Let´s face it, until the last 20 years or so, Movie types would have nothing to do with TV types and they were not about to make a product that actually would &quot;fit&quot; a TV screen. Going back to the wide screen does not mean smaller argument, I beg to differ. I don´t know which movies are there in which the actual visual size of the actors faces or bodies is unaffected between wide screen and full screen but I have yet to see it. In actual measurement of inches shown to the viewer, I believe that wide-screen movies on tv show characters and figures in smaller size than full screen. The wide screen may show the whole picture and therefore may be &quot;larger&quot; but what is shown, in detail, is smaller and that´s a problem for people with weakened eyesight - regardless of corrective lenses or surgery. In wide screen format movies, my Dad, for example, always complains that he cannot see the characters faces quite as well as in full-screen and he is not the type of person who is going to plant himself on the floor 2 feet from the TV just to accommodate a wide screen view. He likes to sit a good 6 to 8 feet away from the tube in his barcalounger. He also does not believe in plunking down enough money to buy a used car just to get a HD TV set so he´ll just have to complain some more I guess. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

For you younger folk, with relly good eye sight, ok. But for us old Git, I think Taw uses, 13&quot; with wide screen makes the area even smaller and then I have to sit with the screen about 18&quot; from my eyes to see it, and then it takes reading glasses. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> On the other hand, you give me a plasma 45&quot; or bigger, wid screen all the way. Just let me know when its on the way <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

Indy, fair enough. I think we understand each other. To be honest, I wish I could afford a larger TV so that my widescreen movies looked better, but I certainly know what it´s like to need money for more important things like food, clothing, shelter, wife...etc. I should have clarified my original question, now that I think about it, and now that I have read your arguments. My point was to discuss Widescreen vs Fullscreen with those people who don´t realize what those &quot;black bars&quot; are. IE, someone who still insists on watching Full Screen, even though they have a 27&quot; or larger TV. Maybe it´s just me, but it your TV is at least 27&quot;, then you should be able to see any Widescreen image clearly at up to 10 feet away or more.If someone´s eyesight is so bad that they still can´t see the image clearly, then they have bigger problems than Wide vs Full. So, that being said, does anyone out there still insist on Full Screen DESPITE TV screen size? Especially those using 27&quot; or larger, do you still insist on Full Screen? If so, why? Wap

I can see the benefits of both the 4:3 and 16:9 ratios however it is, as previously stated, due to a lack of understanding and/or legal tender that causes the misconceptions within the public domain. Personally, I have never seen a widescreen movie (except at the cinema), as the family TVs are 4:3 CRTs. When I pick up nice Rear Projection or LCD windescreen TV, I´ll let you know <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>. Thanks for those links; I checked out Nimoy´s presentation; it´s very convincing. Thanks a lot, Wap; now I know what <i>exactly </i> I´m missing <img src=smilies/icon_smile_sad.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>.

16:9 all the way, I wan´t to see the film as it was originally intended not some hack job that makes it bigger on my screen. Although I am somewhat fortunate in owning a Sony Wega, where the 16:9 format shows up suprisingly well. Though, I´m still hanging out to get my hands on a plasma screen. I´m just waiting for the price to level out before I make a purchase.

Plasma screens look great but, as I understand it, they cannot be repaired. I mean, it may be difficult, but you can pick up a replacement tube for a CRT, but with plasma screens don´t you have to replace the whole panel once it goes? That´s my concern; you pay five grand for a great plasma TV, and someone trashes it, or it dies on you, and you have to get another one.

Esqy said: <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade> but you can pick up a replacement tube for a CRT <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> This is very true. BUT it also is almost a meaningless advantage. CRT´s are so cheap today, why bother with the labor/replacement? Just chuck the whole thing out and get a new one unless it´s one of those Sony 20&quot; beauties. But even those are getting so cheap that a new one probably costs only marginally more than a replacement job. &lt;Edit&gt; My Dad´s got a 24&quot; TV. He´s not going blind and his sight was very much improved after cataract surgery but it is still annoying to him. Edited by - Indy11 on 4/21/2004 7:38:11 PM Edited by - Indy11 on 4/21/2004 7:39:33 PM

Classic big screen - vs - small screen debate! There never was intent for a widescreen movie to be shown on the small screen until the last couple of decades. Movie makers didn´t have VCR´s and TV to consider for quite a long time in our history. You wanted to see a movie, you´re only real choice was to go to a theater. Hell TV´s weren´t part of the mainstream until what maybe the late 40´s early 50´s at best? It was introduced in the worlds fair in the late 30´s. And many of those early sets has tinnie tiny screens. Sure TV´s were around before that but not in the general public. Radio rules the early years of the 1900´s. <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> They´d been making movies successfully much earlier than that. Gone with the Wind was made in 1939...color wasn´t even introduced to TV until the mid 50´s! Wide screen does let you see the whole picture (as the movie makers intended) but you have to admit seeing a full screen movie offers a bigger &quot;view&quot; of this cut-off picture. See smaller picture but more panoramic view on wide screen or see larger view of the center of the shot losing what´s on the sides. Guess we´ll never get into the discussion of seeing a movie made for TV (in full screen) in the format of being in a theater huh? Now that would provide a wrinkle in this debate.

I prefer widescreen myself, because there´s more to see. I watch movies on my computer which has surround sound. I´ve got a few movies that are fullscreen, but widescreen is where it´s at in my opinion. &quot;Evil will always triumph because good is dumb!&quot;

I preffer Widescreen myself &quot;A TopGun through and through&quot;

@Stinger. LOL - That would be interesting. Everyone would complain about the big black stripes along the sides of the screen! <img src=smilies/icon_smile_clown.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>