Entirely Correct!!!I own a 16x9 TV and I hate watching DVD that are eithier stretched, zoomed, letterboxed or whatever. I want to see a picture that fills my screen without distorting it.Also it is worth noting that most Films/TV shows etc that are show 16x9 are what is called 4x3 safe so they can easily convert the picture to fit a 4x3 because there is the demand for that format and the director does want his picture to look bad on 4x3 screen
You'd be surprised how many people don't realize this. I'm so tired of trying to explain to people why letterboxed is better than pan & scan. Now I'll just direct them to this website.
While the Super-35 format was adopted by movie studios for this use (so that they wouldn't have to pan-and-scan the movies), there are many directors who simply ignored the 4:3 framing. There are quite a few VHS movies from the '80s where boom-mikes and the like are visible because the director didn't bother to control the information outside their intended widescreen, theatrical viewing area.There's also the issue that, when SFX were used, they were usually hard-matted into the widescreen, theatrical area -- meaning that anything with special effects still requires pan-and-scan whenever an effects shot is being used. (<a class="user" href="http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml)">http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml)</a>
@SoftwareYou're not seeing that the normal human field of vision is larger horizontally than it is vertically. That's why it's called a "field" of vision, and not a "tower" of vision, and why "tunnel" vision is considered a bad thing. In your dream cineplex, where you seen nothing but a talking head on a square screen, I find myself distracted by the walls next to the head. I can't help it, because they're in my field of vision.
Widescreen is not 'better'. The fact is human vision is round, we see through a round pupil which projects lightthrough a ROUND lens onto two concentric (ROUND) areas of high visual sensitivity (fovea and macular) therest of the retina is much less sensitive especially to colour and detail, although it is sensitive to movement.We do have two eyes but they focus on the same point so they nothing to the detailed image we see althoughwe do see a *little* more peripheral vision at the sides.If you take the ratio of the angles of our fields of horizontal and vertical vision (about 180 & 135 degrees respectively)it works out at about 4:3 which is probably why 4:3 was chosen for TV and early cinema.There is NOTHING in the human visual system close to widescreen, not 16:9 and most certainly 2.35:1.If you want a 'wide' field of vision go and sit in a cinema and look at the space available above the heads of the peoplesitting in front of you!! Yep it's not very high but is quite wide in comparison.If you think there is anything inherently 'good' or 'artistic' or ''as the director intended' about widescreen you are wrong!!There is no evidence for it, We DO NOT see in widescreen so why try and mimic it on TV?Some of the reasons put forward for widescreen are pathetic biased and flawed. Those who hate pan and scan should beaware they CANNOT see the whole of a widescreen image WITHOUT PANNING AND SCANNING it with you own eyesand that doesn't make you feel sick does it?In summary widescreen is a poor format thrust upon us by the ill-informed or ignorant, however it seems we are stuck withit thanks to the 'bully boys' of the industry.Still you have many years of black bars, cropped images and grainy pictures to look forward to thanks to their pig headed attitudes!!Gotta love folks like that ain't ya!!
Actually he was right. Unless you are talking about watching a wide-screen movie on a normal-screen. Obviously that is bad. Just like watching a normal-screen movie on a wide-screen is.
seano2101Dec 26, 2006
Entirely Correct!!!I own a 16x9 TV and I hate watching DVD that are eithier stretched, zoomed, letterboxed or whatever. I want to see a picture that fills my screen without distorting it.Also it is worth noting that most Films/TV shows etc that are show 16x9 are what is called 4x3 safe so they can easily convert the picture to fit a 4x3 because there is the demand for that format and the director does want his picture to look bad on 4x3 screen
Closed AccountDec 26, 2006
Buried as inaccurate.
carbonetcDec 26, 2006
A League of Their Own gets my vote for worst P&S. You just have to see it to believe it. They shift the picture every 5 seconds.
theringmasterDec 27, 2006
What movies are vertically cropped to appear in 16:9 format?
groberts1980Dec 27, 2006
You'd be surprised how many people don't realize this. I'm so tired of trying to explain to people why letterboxed is better than pan & scan. Now I'll just direct them to this website.
hamlet9000Dec 27, 2006
While the Super-35 format was adopted by movie studios for this use (so that they wouldn't have to pan-and-scan the movies), there are many directors who simply ignored the 4:3 framing. There are quite a few VHS movies from the '80s where boom-mikes and the like are visible because the director didn't bother to control the information outside their intended widescreen, theatrical viewing area.There's also the issue that, when SFX were used, they were usually hard-matted into the widescreen, theatrical area -- meaning that anything with special effects still requires pan-and-scan whenever an effects shot is being used. (<a class="user" href="http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml)">http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml)</a>
mikecermDec 29, 2006
@SoftwareYou're not seeing that the normal human field of vision is larger horizontally than it is vertically. That's why it's called a "field" of vision, and not a "tower" of vision, and why "tunnel" vision is considered a bad thing. In your dream cineplex, where you seen nothing but a talking head on a square screen, I find myself distracted by the walls next to the head. I can't help it, because they're in my field of vision.
Closed AccountDec 30, 2006
something wrong with digg if this story has so many hits. It's totally lame and warrants to be buried 6 feet under!
esboJan 1, 2007
Widescreen is not 'better'. The fact is human vision is round, we see through a round pupil which projects lightthrough a ROUND lens onto two concentric (ROUND) areas of high visual sensitivity (fovea and macular) therest of the retina is much less sensitive especially to colour and detail, although it is sensitive to movement.We do have two eyes but they focus on the same point so they nothing to the detailed image we see althoughwe do see a *little* more peripheral vision at the sides.If you take the ratio of the angles of our fields of horizontal and vertical vision (about 180 & 135 degrees respectively)it works out at about 4:3 which is probably why 4:3 was chosen for TV and early cinema.There is NOTHING in the human visual system close to widescreen, not 16:9 and most certainly 2.35:1.If you want a 'wide' field of vision go and sit in a cinema and look at the space available above the heads of the peoplesitting in front of you!! Yep it's not very high but is quite wide in comparison.If you think there is anything inherently 'good' or 'artistic' or ''as the director intended' about widescreen you are wrong!!There is no evidence for it, We DO NOT see in widescreen so why try and mimic it on TV?Some of the reasons put forward for widescreen are pathetic biased and flawed. Those who hate pan and scan should beaware they CANNOT see the whole of a widescreen image WITHOUT PANNING AND SCANNING it with you own eyesand that doesn't make you feel sick does it?In summary widescreen is a poor format thrust upon us by the ill-informed or ignorant, however it seems we are stuck withit thanks to the 'bully boys' of the industry.Still you have many years of black bars, cropped images and grainy pictures to look forward to thanks to their pig headed attitudes!!Gotta love folks like that ain't ya!!
azulyaDec 1, 2008
Yes.I'm just responding to you to answer your question though.
azulyaDec 1, 2008
Actually he was right. Unless you are talking about watching a wide-screen movie on a normal-screen. Obviously that is bad. Just like watching a normal-screen movie on a wide-screen is.
azulyaDec 1, 2008
No. Pan and scan only happens with wide screen movies.
azulyaDec 1, 2008
Or they could film it in normal aspect ratio to begin with. Then nothing is cut off and half the screen doesn't need to be wasted by letter boxing..