Widescreen or Full Screen?

[Grant]

When we buy or rent DVDs, we always try to find the widescreen version. We prefer it because we don't think in terms of a picture being "cut off" at the top and bottom, or there being "black bars". We think in terms of the sides of the picture being cropped on full screen versions, and not getting the full picture.

From my observation, full screen DVDs sell about three-to-one over the widescreen countrparts, probably because most people still have CRT screens. We also have one, but we plan for the future when we will eventually own some form of widescreen television, probably an LCD. Why buy a pan and scan version now, when you may get something else later, and be stuck with a third of the picture.

But, what about you? what do you buy and prefer?

[Doug Sclar]

Widescreen for me. I want to see what the movie actually looks like.

[davenav]

A no-brainer! Widescreen, everytime!!!!

[Lownotes]

A no-brainer! Widescreen, everytime!!!!

Agreed!

[peterC]

Even on my old CRT 4:3 set widescreen simply looks better to me. The black bars don't worry me.

[Michael]

Widescreen, when appropriate...Bad WS example...Kung Fu:The Complete First Season DVD...chopped for Widescreen enthusiasts.

[Pinknik]

As Michael points out, it obviously depends on the (intended) aspect ratio of the original content. I don't want wide screen television shows from the 60's any more than I want a full screen version of Tora!Tora!Tora! With CERTAIN material, this can get a little tricky. Did the cinematographer of A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, specifically state that the film was composed for 1.66:1 projection ratio? I dunno, it seems likely that they did, but Criterion released them full screen, and they tend to be nit-picky about those things. So what's the truth? Also, some TV shows are shown full-screen on standard television, shot for widescreen HDTV, so which to use when DVD time comes? I'd say widescreen if it was actually composed for it . . .

[JorgeGvb]

Widescreen for me. I want to see what the movie actually looks like.

:agree: I want to see the whole movie, the way the director intended it to be seen.

[eelkiller]

Even on my old CRT 4:3 set widescreen simply looks better to me. The black bars don't worry me.


I agree and guaranteed they will be better when I finally go to the 16:9 TV

[davenav]

I never knew there were tv shows altered into WS. I'm against that. I guess I'm saying that I always want the version that was intended by the filmmakers.

[Drifter]

Did the cinematographer of A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, specifically state that the film was composed for 1.66:1 projection ratio? I dunno, it seems likely that they did, but Criterion released them full screen, and they tend to be nit-picky about those things. So what's the truth?
Check out my screencaps and you may find yourself less likely to believe that 1.66:1 is the correct ratio for AHDN:
A Hard Day's Night 1.66:1 vs 1.33:1 Screencaps Post (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=826583&postcount=14)

[GP]

I think I've always liked widescreen better, only because the pan & scan thing always made me think I was missing something. Now that I've got a Sammy DLP, I can't help but be biased towards a widescreen presentation.

It was interesting to find out that Stanley Kubrick prefered a 4:3 aspect ratio. His broad, sweeping sense of frame composition was too much to fit into that little box--at least that's what I think.

[Drifter]

I think I've always liked widescreen better, only because the pan & scan thing always made me think I was missing something. Now that I've got a Sammy DLP, I can't help but be biased towards a widescreen presentation.

It was interesting to find out that Stanley Kubrick prefered a 4:3 aspect ratio. His broad, sweeping sense of frame composition was too much to fit into that little box--at least that's what I think.
I heard that he was horrified by the pan & scan version of 2001:A Space Odyssey and from then on filmed in 4:3.

[GP]

I may be wrong, but I don't think it was the pan & scan version, and I think he didn't like the horizontal black bars filling the screen (practically). That might be enough to turn some people off.

[Drifter]

You might be right, I'm not positive what I heard was fact. However, I doubt that movies on TV would have been shown in widescreen much in the 70s, but I could be wrong. I'm too young to really remember.

[jeendicott]

I like the format in which the movie was shot. That almost always means widescreen, but there are exceptions. My wife recently got the four-disc special edition of "Gone With the Wind" (great set, BTW) and was bummed that it was fullscreen, until we looked more closely at the box and learned that was the aspect ratio they originally intended.

And our CRT TV is big enough (35") that I don't mind the "black bars" at all.

[christopher]

I like the format in which the movie was shot. That almost always means widescreen, but not always. My wife recently got the four-disc special edition of "Gone With the Wind" (great set BTW) and was bummed that it was fullscreen, until we looked more closely at the box and learned that was the aspect ratio they originally intended.

1955's "The Robe" was the first film shot and released in what we know and love today as 'wide screen'. any film from before '55 was issued in the box-like 4:3 aspect ratio; that means "Gone with the Wind", "Citizen Kane", "Casablanca", etc., are NOT going to be wide screen.

here's a great website that might clear up any confusion:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm

in the meantime, support wide screen on DVD in the US. if you see a petition urging blockbuster to rent more films wide screen, sign it!

later, chris

[JonUrban]

No contest, WS all the way.

[Uncle Al]

Re: Stanley Kubrick (and others):

You must understand that the actual film in the camera that was shooting 2001 was preserving a 1:33 aspect ratio (this is true of many wide screen films. AHDN was shot in 1:33 for projection in 1:66). The image was FRAMED for wide screen projection. When broadcast TV received a wide screen video tape, and panned and scanned the image, Kubrick decided it was better to just show the entire "full frame" image. Neither one was "correct", but he thought the full frame was the lesser of two evils.

This cannot be dome with EVERY wide screen film - some are shot anamorphically which does preserve the wide screen image on the original film (in a sense). Other films shot in full frame have images that were supposed to be cropped out - like "boom mikes" that are visible in the "full screen" 9 to 5, or mechanical apparatus that rotated "road signs" in "Pee Wees Big Adventure". Both of these "mistakes' were released in full screen VHS versions of these movies.

[macready]

1955's "The Robe" was the first film shot and released in what we know and love today as 'wide screen'. "The Robe" was '53

My wife recently got the four-disc special edition of "Gone With the Wind" (great set BTW) and was bummed that it was fullscreen, until we looked more closely at the box and learned that was the aspect ratio they originally intended.
Pretty much everything before '53 was 1.33:1.

You must understand that the actual film in the camera that was shooting 2001 was preserving a 1:33 aspect ratio (this is true of many wide screen films.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" was shot Super Panavision 70, 65mm negative 2.21:1 aspect ratio. A 1.33:1 presentation would be missing 40% side image. His other films were shot "flat" on 1.33:1 negative with mostly 1.66:1(Clockwork Orange) and 1.85:1 (The Shining) theatrical aspect ratios.

[Captain Groovy]

Whatever the original film aspect ratio was. Usually what we call "widescreen," but some very old movies (and a few Kubrick ones) were shot 1.33:1, what we call full screen.

JEFF!

[Corey]

As others have mentioned I want to see "OAR" - Original Aspect Ratio.

I have to admit though, that when I get concert DVDs and they are full screen I HATE it, since I have a widescreen set. So if you are asking if I have a composition preference it would definitely be widescreen.

[Michael]

Check out my screencaps and you may find yourself less likely to believe that 1.66:1 is the correct ratio for AHDN:
A Hard Day's Night 1.66:1 vs 1.33:1 Screencaps Post (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=826583&postcount=14)

Indeed, That was a butcher job! We still don't have a definitive AHDN in print!..maybe Criterion will again revisit this and do it justice...GREAT screen-shot comparisons!

[michael w]

"The Robe" was '53


Pretty much everything before '53 was 1.33:1.


"2001: A Space Odyssey" was shot Super Panavision 70, 65mm negative 2.21:1 aspect ratio. A 1.33:1 presentation would be missing 40% side image. His other films were shot "flat" on 1.33:1 negative with mostly 1.66:1(Clockwork Orange) and 1.85:1 (The Shining) theatrical aspect ratios.

Methinks Uncle Al was probably thinking of Super 35 or one of the pseudo widescreen modes where a film is shot flat on 35mm and soft or hard masked to create a widescreen-look.

Masked (fake WS) for theatrical presentation, unmasked (FS) for TV or old style home video.

The original Kubrick DVD box showed everything (except 2001) fullframe.
IIRC the second issue of the box had WS versions ?

[SamS]

As others have mentioned I want to see "OAR" - Original Aspect Ratio.

I have to admit though, that when I get concert DVDs and they are full screen I HATE it, since I have a widescreen set. So if you are asking if I have a composition preference it would definitely be widescreen.

:agree:

I consider myself a die-hard WS fan. I got my first 16x9 TV in 1997. I ain't going back to square baby!!