|
||||||||
Why widescreen? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Wrexham
Posts: 6,782
|
Why widescreen?
Why are all DVD movies in widescreen? What if people 4:3 movies...
All chart DVD's seem to be widescreen... |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 6,151
|
Quite simply because that's the way they were originally shot and the way the directior intended them to be viewed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 0.3 units from doom
Posts: 17,447
|
yep..and if you want it to be 4:3 just set your dvd player to 4:3..although it wont be pan and scan and you'll be missing out on most of the picture...
They sell fullscreen movies in the USA on R1 however as widescreen is a lot less popular over there.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 3,302
|
Would be a good touch if more DVD's were like the copy of The Shawshank Redemption that I have.
Double sided DVD with the anamorphic widescreen version on one side and the 4:3 version on the other. I know it would be higher production costs but they might sell more cause of people who don't have widescreen TV's and don't like letter box. Personally I always watch a film in letterbox if available - well I did til last weekend when I got a widescreen telly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 6,151
|
I meant to say in my previous post, my sister recently got Shrek Second Edition, which is a two disk affair. Half the extras are on one disk, the other half on the other but more importantly each disk also has the film on - disk one in anamorphic widescreen and disk two in 4:3
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 550
|
Quote:
Would be a good touch if more DVD's were like the copy of The Shawshank Redemption that I have.
No it wouldn't because then us film fans have to suffer lower bitrates because the studios want to cram two copies of a film onto a single disk (if you don't believe me get a hold of big lebowski - 2 versions, no extras, and the picture quality is awful). There is a reason why films usually spill over two layers of a DVD. Extras are great, but am I the only one who views pan-and-scan versions (oh, and dubbed audio tracks while we're at it) as extras?Whether you want a widescreen or a pan-and-scan version should never be about the shape of your telly this week, it's about whether you want the whole film or a badly re-framed version which may fill the screen better - a widescreen TV is simply a better bet if you're watching a range of material in different ratios from squareish 4:3 to very wide 2.35:1. Learn to love watching films properly - it's much better than the bad old days of pan-and-scan. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 404
|
I know full screen DVDs are avalible on play
you get a choice and normally if the widescreen is out of stock then the full screen will be in stock. I always prefer to buy them in widescreen because im feeling everything will be widescreen soon
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester
Posts: 925
|
Totally agree with Monkeysoup.
It's about time people realised they were being short changed with 4:3 Pan & Scan versions and they are now getting the complete picture with WS DVDs, regardless of whether it 'fills the TV screen' or not |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 3,302
|
Quote:
Originally posted by monkeysoup Firstly I do watch films in widescreen, first as letter box and now on a widescreen tv but I was acknowledging that many people don't have widescreen TV's and prefer their 4:3 screen to be full and don't mind pan and scan. I have a friend like this who can't understand why I wanted widescreen - we just don't discuss it cause we are both entrenched in our views.No it wouldn't because then us film fans have to suffer lower bitrates because the studios want to cram two copies of a film onto a single disk (if you don't believe me get a hold of big lebowski - 2 versions, no extras, and the picture quality is awful). There is a reason why films usually spill over two layers of a DVD. Extras are great, but am I the only one who views pan-and-scan versions (oh, and dubbed audio tracks while we're at it) as extras? Whether you want a widescreen or a pan-and-scan version should never be about the shape of your telly this week, it's about whether you want the whole film or a badly re-framed version which may fill the screen better - a widescreen TV is simply a better bet if you're watching a range of material in different ratios from squareish 4:3 to very wide 2.35:1. Learn to love watching films properly - it's much better than the bad old days of pan-and-scan. As to 2 versions on 1 DVD - I take your point about cramming 2 versions on to 1 DVD in the case of The Big Lebowski, however I was refering to how they did it with The Shawshank Redemption which is a double sided DVD (sort of like an old vinyl LP) rather than 2 versions crammed on 1 side. I've not seen any other double sided DVD's or CD's. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 550
|
Hmm, my copy of Shawshank is also double sided, but a single layer on each side, which is the important thing - the 'bit budget'. Squeezing two hours of movie onto a single DVD layer means the quality is going to suffer, which explains why many three-hour-plus movies (LOTR, Lawrence of Arabia etc) come on two discs (ie. 4 layers) these days. To do both versions of a movie on a single disk really requires a big DVD18 double-sided, double layer disc (only ever seen these on R1).
And anyway, DVD sales seem to be doing fine as widescreen only - is there really this great untapped market for pan-and-scan? Everyone has an opinion, and you'll never change the views of a widescreen fan like me - I live in hope that pan-and-scan fans will one day realise what they're missing (I am aware that many just don't notice). |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Its simple, if you want 4:3 you have your format, its called VHS...
leave DVD for people who actually want to see the film exactly as it was intended to be seen. |
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 3,302
|
Quote:
Originally posted by monkey75 I find it amazing how many people seem incapable of seeing another persons point of view!Its simple, if you want 4:3 you have your format, its called VHS... leave DVD for people who actually want to see the film exactly as it was intended to be seen. As I stated I watch widescreen, I prefer widescreen but at least I realise that some people prefer 4:3 on their 4:3 TV's but your view is they shouldn't have the quality that DVD offers cause they don't want widescreen so they should stick to VHS. Correct me if I'm wrong but its Digital VERSATILE Disc - now havving both 4:3 and widescreen availble would strike me as being VERSATILE! |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14
|
Put your handbags away boys
We have ascertained that one of you likes 4:3 and the other 16:9 Now settle down and both of you and put your toys back in your respective prams No wonder there are so many wars............... |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RichardS I realise some people prefer it, and its a sad fact that they are allowed to get away with such comments. I had a 4:3 TV a year or so with my DVD, I was happy knowing I was seeing the picture as it was meant to be. Im not arrogant enough to suggest that a film be modified just so I can have every pixel of my screen filled up. It dumbs down DVD, VHS is a fine format for people who are more concerned with such matters.I find it amazing how many people seem incapable of seeing another persons point of view! As I stated I watch widescreen, I prefer widescreen but at least I realise that some people prefer 4:3 on their 4:3 TV's but your view is they shouldn't have the quality that DVD offers cause they don't want widescreen so they should stick to VHS. Correct me if I'm wrong but its Digital VERSATILE Disc - now havving both 4:3 and widescreen availble would strike me as being VERSATILE! Snob? you damn well right Im a snob, DVD is the best thing to happen to true film fans and I dont want a thing to change it. and keep your hair on, dont take everything so personal. |
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Originally posted by gjc26 I think its you who need to get a grip mate, hows about you dont blow things out of proportion...Put your handbags away boys We have ascertained that one of you likes 4:3 and the other 16:9 Now settle down and both of you and put your toys back in your respective prams No wonder there are so many wars............... think someone wants to be a mod.... |
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14
|
What's a mod?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Originally posted by gjc26 turn your private messages on and I will tell you...
What's a mod? |
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester
Posts: 925
|
Quote:
Originally posted by gjc26 Sort of a youth pop cult from the 1960s.What's a mod? Followers wore silly green parkas with a taget on the back and rode lambretta mopeds heavily customised with extra mirrors and lights. Literally 1000s could be seen in Brighton on any Bank Holiday fighting on the beaches with their arch rivals 'The Rockers' Made a brief comback in the late 70s, early 80s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Wrexham
Posts: 6,782
|
Quote:
Originally posted by monkey75 I only asked:Its simple, if you want 4:3 you have your format, its called VHS... leave DVD for people who actually want to see the film exactly as it was intended to be seen. Phew!... Some people......... "My Telly's better than your Telly........... Nah...nah.......: |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Glasgow, Black Hill TX
Posts: 1,000
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Exulus Thats because very few people have widescreen TV's in the US
They sell fullscreen movies in the USA on R1 however as widescreen is a lot less popular over there.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NE England
Posts: 3,096
|
People should be able to choose what they want and to some extent the market caters for that.
I personally prefer watching films the way they were originally shot but some people don't and want to have their tv filled, that's their choice. It is just a shame that they miss part of the picture all of the time. I know we bought a VHS version of Star Wars Episode 1 and it was virtually unwatchable because of the way the actors were always on the very edge of the shot, so you ended up only seeing half of them. When we later graduated to a dvd player and bought the widescreen version what a difference it made. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1,642
|
Some films have been brought out in both versions P&S and Widescreen, the Harry Potter films, Shrek Special Edition et.c but not many. The Film companies are bound to have done their research and if they found that releasing P&S DVDs would pay off, then I am sure that they would do it.
In the end, if comes down to money, are they going to get a large enough return on the extra cost of producing a P&S version, stamping the disks, printing the different packaging etc. obviously there are going to be people who want P&S, but there must not be enough for them to warant the extra cost. I prefer Widescreen and was very pissed off when they started to release Widescreen versions on DVD only, I then had to buy VHS in P&S for a while, until I bought my glorious DVD player. Eventually, when I move house, I might have enough room for a Wide Screen Telly or better yet a projector
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Originally posted by wicket I disagree. People dont know what they want, they just see unused space and have a hissy fit. They should only make OAR films and explain why its better. People should be able to choose what they want and to some extent the market caters for that. I used to be against WS, I was lucky enough that I one day stumbled across a web page explaining why it was better, and thank god I did. the mass market is the US, most people over there dont get WS and prefer 4:3. thank god though that they have been forced to accept WS, but I dont like how things are going, producing two versions of the film doesnt help, it just lets people carry on thinking 4:3 is okay. |
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 4,665
|
I could be wrong here (Somebody please correct me if i am)
Are programs not filmed in 16:9, and have been for many years? TV Companys spend ages changing it from 16:9 to 4:3 ? So it costs more to make it 4:3 ? The whole advantge of DVD is, Superiour Picture Widescreen Dolby Digital If non of that interests you, then why get a DVD Player? If you like 4:3, stick to VHS, a good player will more than meet your needs, DVD can offer you nothing. You cannot want the extras, such as deleted parts, as you watch the entire film with part of the film deleted when in 4:3 , the bits @ the edges .
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:49.


