November 20, 2006

Curious George: Articles on Widescreen Vs Fullscreen I need to write a speech on why widescreen is better than fullscreen and need help!

Haven't been here in awhile, but thought the fellow monkeys might be able to help me out, as my google-fu has failed me. I am needing some articles on the subject of widescreen vs fullscreen and why widescreen is better than fullscreen. Thanks in advance!

posted by art vandal 17 years ago
  • well, the obvious answer is that there is more "stuff" for the viewer to see with widescreen; it's more 'cinematic'. pan-and-scan on "full"screen looks weird and unnatural. it's obnoxious and distracting, and a part of the artists original vision is lost. imagine if picasso's guernica were cropped to fit a 4:3 aspect... otoh, if you dont have a widescreen tv and you try watching a widescreen film, you will get those black bars on the top and bottom, and thus all the 'action' is a bit smaller. this is a trade-off i'm personally willing to make, but it does bother some people. also, your google-fu is weak and pathetic.
  • I know, that's why I'm asking help. I know the difference, I need sources for this speech, thus the post.
  • I'll throw a couple at you: http://www.ryanwright.com/ht/oar.shtml http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/index.htm http://www.widescreen.org/examples/starwars/index.shtml http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/release/video/f20020925/index.html or http://www.epl.ca/EPLMaster.cfm?id=LETTERBOXWID0001 The Widescreen Museum has a number of interesting links and examples.
  • It's only now with the availability of wide format screens that the format is being appreciated by more than the video buffs, because now everyone can see all those pixels on their screens being used, no matter than pan & scan was a terrible compromise.
  • Pan & Scan isn't the only full-frame mode (though it was dominant for a while). Matted full-frame, or open matte movies actually show you more above and below in 1.33:1 than the cinematic aspect ratio (usually 1.66:1, sometimes as wide as 2.35:1). I believe that Kubrick used a matted full frame technique on his last couple movies -- rent Eyes Wide Shut in widescreen and fullscreen and you'll see more "stuff" on the latter format that is above or below the widescreen frame. However, it doesn't change the fact that to me the widescreen format is more aesthetically pleasing and encourages some very interesting composition. See a movie done in 2.8:1 at some point (like a 70mm print of Ben Hur) and you may see some really wild stuff.
  • Neither format is inherently better than the other; the only question is the type of imagery you want to frame and how you intend to present it.
  • You sir are a relativist heathan.....and probably a librul tree hugger as well as a commie!
  • Jeremy Clarkson used to have a chatshow where he demonstrated the advantage of widescreen as follows: on each side of the screen there were two women doing a striptease. At least, that's what he told us - all we saw were clothes being thrown in from the side...
  • There is a third way: tall and skinny anamorphic video. Very flattering.
  • Before 1950, all movies were (approx) 4:3. But then along came TV. Hollywood wanted a gimmick to keep people coming to threaters, so they invented the wide screen. To say one is better is like saying landscape photography is better than portrait photography.
  • Because when you have your pimp 16:9 setup, your 4:3 content (still most TV) will make all the actors look 50-100lbs overweight -- you'll look quite svelte by comparison.
  • Matted full-frame, or open matte movies actually show you more above and below in 1.33:1 than the cinematic aspect ratio. True, but isn't some of that stuff what you're not supposed to see anyway (boom mikes and such)? One of the sites Balthazar referenced explains this.
  • I guess it depends on the director, sly_polyglot. The widescreen.org site says a lot of directors physically put mattes on their monitors, so of course they'd miss a boom mic or somesuch, but others don't matte their monitors and just have a white border to show them approximately where the matte would be for a cinematic presentation, and they keep an eye on the full screen for this. Kubrick rings a bell again, but then I don't think anyone would deny that he was a particularly meticulous film director who probably also kept an eye toward having a good 4:3 presentation during filming.
  • Hello, I'm new, and I thought I would chime in with some additional info. When buying DVD's and the like, Widescreen is not always better. In fact, neither Widescreen or Fullscreen are "better" in any sense, what's important is that you view the film in the format it was intended to be viewed. This DVD is a good example of a film that shouldn't be presented Widescreen on DVD. If you scroll down to the Product Information, you'll see that the Aspect Ratio is 1.85:1. Ok, now look here and you'll see that this movie was shot in a fullscreen aspect ration, intended to be matted to 1.66:1. In order to give you a Widescreen DVD, the manufacturer has, in fact, matted over parts of the image.
  • Both good points/examples. Thanks chimaera and ArchStanton.
  • It just is. I rest my case.
  • An argument that most movies shouldn't be shot in widescreen in the first place: The Widescreen Scam Cropping a movie that has been shot in a wide ratio can be incredibly annoying, and can even ruin some scenes outright. Letterboxing avoids cropping but sacrifices resolution, damaging the entire movie. You're just screwed, either way, which is exactly how Hollywood likes you.
  • This seems like a Strawman argument to me. Does anyone really think Widescreen is inherently better? How could any particular aspect ratio be inherently better?
  • I would think that the "inherently better" would be to present the film in the aspect ratio the director intended.
  • I think the theory is that widescreen is better since it fills more of our vision. Of course, just a plain *bigger* picture does that too. The real reason is that Hollywood wanted to have a gimmick to compete with the new medium of TV, so they started widescreen formats (among other gimmicks). On the commentary track for Saw, there is a part where the creators talk about the fact that they needed to do a pickup shot and the original actor wasn't available, so one of the creators just did it. They shot if full frame and matted it off for the theatrical and widescreen release so you couldn't see the person's head and on one was any wiser that it wasn't the original actor in that scene. Of course when it came time for the stupid full screen dvd release, they just took off the mattes and suddenly in one shot for like 5 seconds you can see the head of the person and can tell it isn't the same actor, which makes it really confusing.
  • Read The Letterbox and Widescreen Advocacy Page, a website for filmmakers to explain why they would rather people saw things in the original aspect ratio. They don't advocate widescreen as inherent better, but that the original aspect ratio is better. Would you recrop an art photograph or a painting to fit better above your couch? (Okay, people totally used to do that, but I think they were philistines too). You are not seeing what the director meant you to see when you watch things in a different aspect ratio. And that includes the films which are filmed square, and then recropped. There is an entire scene in "A Fish Called Wanda" which is ruined if you see it in tv-aspect ratio, becaus you can see that the John Cleese character is not naked. (The director had cropped his shorts out). So yeah, original aspect ratio is always superior. Directors and cinematographers think a great deal about how the shot is composed, and you really aren't getting that if you don't watch in the original aspect ratio.
  • jb, Balthazar first referenced that site, and I linked to the very page you're talking about.
  • Of course, I've also seen movies in the theater presented in the wrong aspect ratio. You can always tell when this is happening because you spot lots of boom mikes and other stuff you're not supposed to see.
  • It's not the wrong aspect ratio, the projectionist has just not applied the matte correctly. It's too low if you can see boom mikes and such.
  • Is that what it is? I've seen that too and often wondered myself what the deal was. I thought it was a pre-"official release" print or something like that. It's too low if you can see boom mikes and such. Too low? What's too low? Don't you mean too high?
  • sorry - I didn't have time to look through all the links presented. But I would definitely third that page then, and call special attention to it, because it doesn't just advocate for original aspect ratio, it shows you what distortions can enter the picture when the aspect ratio is changed, even through uncropping.
  • Looking at the "Sidebar" application being proposed in Vista (a blatant rip-off of Mac dashboard widgets), I think one advantage of 16:9 will be that you can have some clutter off to one side, while maintaining a nice 4:3 aspect for your application software.
  • Yeah, but Mac widgets are a blatant ripoff of Konfabulator.
  • True. But was Konfabulator a rip-off of Apple desktop accessories?
  • I'm not sure, but I'm fairly certain that calculator one was a ripoff of a calculator. And now I am thinking about that godawful font tool they had in System 6. Ugh.
  • Thanks a bunch, you all have been very helpful!