What is Digg?309 Comments
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -8/+266I find it funny there is a widescreen advocacy group.. and even funnier that they put together a website to "inform" people about the benefits...
- kajoob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+144This summed up visually in 10 seconds that which I could not explain to my mom since the inception of the DVD
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+137It's also nice how games are being done in Widescreen now...
so nice to have 16 x 9 in FPS to give you that true wide field of vision - rynTAU, on 10/12/2007, -9/+118Umm.. duhh..?
- rynTAU, on 11/08/2007, -9/+110why is everybody responding to @jfpwr comment of "Agreed" ? Is it just to get your comment posted higher in the list?
/curious - jb978, on 10/12/2007, -5/+105those who still watch/listen to Full Screen think and feel they get robbed watching Wide Screen because it misses some image parts. o0 Yes someone actually said that to me once.
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -5/+93If your eyes were stacked vertically you'd be in the circus. Either that or they already are stacked vertically and you're the guy that keeps denying my rebates.
- xymor, on 10/12/2007, -9/+73@rynTAU
You must be new here. Welcome to digg.com! - VeryAngryJim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+64Isn't it just because our eyes are next to each other, resulting in a wide field of vision, so widescreen is more natural? I guess if our eyes were stacked vertically, we'd be watching tallscreens.
- neladua, on 10/12/2007, -6/+60@devindotcom
And isn't it? It's just a TV - not a health supplement or an exercise regime. If they're happy with it, isn't that all that matters? - JoWiGo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37Ironic, if you watch the flash presentation on a wide screen monitor you get the remnants of the cursive word 'Widescreen' leftover on the sides of the screen.
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Well I know it sure has taken my porn viewing to a whole new level....
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29Why should it be? It's aimed at people with 4:3 displays...
- codyman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30I also completely agree. Being a film maker myself (ok, low budget student film maker for right now), I even shoot in 16:9 because it gives you more of a cinematic appeal. Personally I love shooting 16:9 with wide angle lenses since you get that really "big" feel, hard to explalin but it just overall is better. :-)
Now I can't wait for my Canon SD600 still camera to come in because it too shoots 16:9 stills :-) - IVIrMP3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20My grandparents still don't understand it. He'd rather not see the black bars. So I explained to him that if you took Leonardo Da Vinci's painting The Last Supper and made it full screen you'd only have 8 disciples instead of 12. To which he responded "Jesus only really needed 8"
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Done already: Imax = widescreen + tallscreen.
- cvrefugee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Wider is Better - that's what she said.
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29They should have also compared 16:9 to movie theater widescreen instead of just insulting legacy tv.
- Archonis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Sadly, I could use this video to explain widescreen to my idiot friend, who "Wants to be a movie director"
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28How did this get dugg?
Its pretty much 'well, duh', especially for digg users.
However if you have a small 4:3 set or a long viewing distance you might get a better viewing experience from the fullscreen version, because letterboxing, while including more content, is removing a tremendous amount of display size. - jfpwr, on 10/12/2007, -42/+59Agreed.
- themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19I always have an argument with people that wide screen is better. They think that the top of the movie is cut off on wide screen movies when really it's the sides that are cut off on full screen. People sure are dumb -_-;
- LordofChaosIori, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15No but this is good for convincing older people... my mom still thinks you see more with fullscreen dvds. This is great for finally getting it through her head that widescreen actually shows you more of the movie...
- mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15They present some fashion shows in tallscreen. I'm not kidding.
- kiantech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Every time I hear a dumb ass say wide screen dvd's are bad you see black bars and lose picture I want to punch them, but I guess now I can just show them this.
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I've always wanted to do a vertically oriented movie. Be hell to make, but can you imagine like a Cliffhanger-like movie, climbing or diving or whatever, in tallscreen?
- SlashNot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Oh Oh OOO Please Make one trying to justify a color screen!!
Its quite obvious widescreen is better, you shouldnt need that flash animation to convince you. - DiamondIce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It does that on my 4:3 monitor. You're not getting special treatment for having a widescreen, they're just crappy flash designers.
- wisam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Actually, you're completely wrong. It's the other way around. Our eyes have more horizontal span than vertical span. Simply because your eyebrows prevents you from seeing up too high and you're cheeks and nose prevents you from seeing down to low. That's why widescreen is better and cinemascope uses it.
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13They both suck IMO. Surroundscreen is where it's at. Peripheral vision and all.
One day we'll look back at widescreen and laugh. - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19I generally refuse to watch a movie if it is fullscreen. Why do they even allow that stuff anymore? It butchers the cinematography, and doesnt make your viewing experience any better in any way
- tracydanger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Well, I'll say it's a great website to show people (like mom) if you don't feel like explaining that to them or if they are visually oriented.
- INHUMANITY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9For the film nerds, check out Super 35. The filming of videos is made for both widescreen and 4:3 folks. You "loose" and "gain" picture with both widescreen and full screen versions.
http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml (scroll down to Super 35 and see the T2 example)
When films are shot in Super 35 and released in P&S they simply unmatte the top and bottom and your end result is no actual pan & scanning.
James Cameron is real big in shooting Super 35.
Almost all of the movies Steven Spielberg has filmed have been in 1.85:1 to make the home P&S conversion easier on the eyes. - TNHitokiri, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14^^ your first two points are wrong... 4:3 doesn't add more picture than widescreen.. 4:3 is is basically widescreen with sides cut off so that the picture would take up the entire tv screen. 16:9 or widescreen has more on the sides, forcing the picture to be shrunken so that all of it can fit without an aspect ratio error.
So basically
4:3 has parts of the image missing
16:9 has a smaller image..
But the last paragraph makes complete sense.. - INHUMANITY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7That was cool, but I wish it focused and shown more accurate cuts.
Good examples would have been people cut entirely off the screen and having the powers that be manually P&S over the video.
From the same site and exactly what I'm talking about:
http://www.widescreen.org/examples/starwars/index.shtml (this is old content, but still works in explaining what P&S does) - krazytom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I stopped dating a girl because she asked me, "Why do some DVDs have black bars at the top and bottom? is there a way to get rid of them."
She was hot... but she had to go. - jb978, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17LMAO
- lazyguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Anyone think "No *****, shirlock" while watching this?
- Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This is correct. Some movies are filmed in Super 35 or in Open Matte (Such as Robocop II, Titanic, or Eyes Wide Shut). When shown in 4:3 you see more of the top and bottom as the left and right is cut off. When shown in 16:9, you see more of the left and right with the top and bottom cut off. MGM was sued over how they released some DVDs. They released some that were cropped top and bottom from 4:3 prints to make a pseudo-wide-screen version. The dude sued because he tried to tell his dad that widescreen was better and it showed more picture, but when he took one of MGMs releases that had the full-screen version on one side and the wide-screen version on the other and compared to two, he found that they simply matted out the top and bottom of many of their already pan-and-scanned films to make the wide-screen version for the DVD. He won the lawsuit and MGM lost for falsely advertising their wide-screen DVDs as showing more of the picture. This is different from the Super 35 and Open Matte films that are shot to show more than can be shown in either format. Those are shot to show more at the top and bottom in 4:3 and more on the sides in 16:9.
16:9 does not always show more of the image than 4:3. Which one is correct depends on what the director wanted to portray. Stanley Kubrick preferred the 4:3 matted version from the Open Matte print. Other directors intend for the 16:9 version to be the definitive one. - pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Also known as the reason small TVs suck.
- tokkio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Where's Captain Obvious when you need him?
- Xinareiaz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Well, you don't lose picture, but you do lose a lot of your screen...it just seems so sad to have a huge TV and then waste it with a bunch of black on it. lol
- SlashNot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes i did, but sadly as it always happens on the digg system I am being dugg down.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Neither is better. The point is how movies are edited to make it fit to 4:3. Some movies are shot in 4:3 and they get the tops and bottoms edited to fit widescreen.
- JoWiGo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@Software2
Agreed that the overall image is shrunk. but it is needed to fit in the images on the side. A great example is if you are watching LOTR2, the battle at helms deep. There is a great wide screen shot which shows the wall of the fortress with the good guys, a big open field centered, and the meanies on the right. However in full screen both armies get cut off, resulting in just a field. Personally I would rather be able to take everything in and just shrink it a bit. - offthewagon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Editors also digitally pan across important shots when formatting for full screen. For some examples, watch the TV version of "Ghostbusters." Without the pans, many scenes would have only featured a pair of actors and some faceless, off-camera dialogue.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7a little innaccurate, they don't just cut off the side of the screen in the same place throughout the entire movie, they generally arrange it so that it cuts off as little as possible, however, you're still losing picture however
- IVIrMP3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That and the volume jumps up 10dB
- kuribo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think it's also because things in nature that people and animals have to see are generally arranged in a panoramic view. Other animals across the horizon, a crowd of faces in a room, etc. You don't often have to look directly up, or down at your own feet, but stuff is constantly going on on the sides.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You couldn't be more wrong. The "extra space" that the director sees behind the lens is there to help him frame the shot he wants. That portion doesn't make it to the final print. Fullscreen versions are always widescreen versions with the left and right sides cropped off.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 302 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is