Widescreen vs Full Screen

Don_S · « **on:** 11 Dec 2007, 07:10 am »

The new Harry Potter film is being released in both Widescreen and Full Screen editions. What the heck is the difference? I have always purchased Widescreen but some older movies still have a bar on the top and bottom. Never heard of Full Screen.

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #1 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 07:12 am »

I assume by full screen they mean 4:3, which actually means they chopped the sides off or did some pan and scanning. No?

mjosef · « **Reply #2 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 07:19 am »

Yes.

Don_S · « **Reply #3 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 07:25 am »

OK, so full screen actually means NOT-FULL screen. I get it.

Truth in advertising at its finest.

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #4 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 07:54 am »

There is a kernel of truth. Very few films, if any, are shot in 16:9. Most are wider than that, so you still get the slivers or bars on the top and bottom of the screen. 4:3 is in fact practically the only time you will get the picture to fill your screen.

mjosef · « **Reply #5 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 07:55 am »

Well yes, it will fill the screen of a standard 4:3 monitor/tv, but you lose some of the picture from both sides. So yes...Full screen or FS.
Some people don't like black bars on the top and bottom of their screens, even some owners of 16:9 wide screen TVs.

fredgarvin · « **Reply #6 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 04:23 pm »

The two bugaboos of "full screen", are the cutting of what can be as much as a third of the original shot as framed and, just as bad, the
'pan and scan" which is the editing of the film to cut back and forth to various close ups to try and capture the footage lost by framing it to full screen. For instance, a scene has three people in a tense situation sharing dialogue. behind them is a cinematically lit landscape metaphorically hinting at the insignifisance of man and his trounles in a vast uncaring universe. Except! By cutting it fullscreen you can't see all thre characters or the panaramic view, so you have to cut back and forth to close-ups as each person speaks and the cinematic metaphor is lost. It may not matter in most chick flicks.

Don_S · « **Reply #7 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 08:54 pm »

I just picked up copies of the new Bourne and Potter DVDs at Circuit City. They had piles of widescreen and full screen in the same racks. I wonder how many people don't check or don't understand what full screen means and end up with a surprise.

I thought letter box versions were extinct. I guess they just gave them a "better" name.

low.pfile · « **Reply #8 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 09:54 pm »

don_s
no, letterboxing did not go away. nearly all studio produce movies at screen ratios for theater projection see: http://www.cinematographers.nl/FORMATS1.htm and wikipedia.org of course (Cinemascope, cinerama, panavision, etc.)
while 16:9 ratio is HDTV standard ratio. The black bands at the top or sides or both in some cases are there to preserve the original content. TVs can be adjusted to change the ratio in many ways, usually with some compromise.

see the last section titled: Undesired letterboxing
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5140690-3.html

and "Full Screen" mean full if the screen is a 4:3 ratio display!

I still have to explain this to my parents every time I visit during the holidays.

jermmd · « **Reply #9 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 09:55 pm »

Quote from: Don_S on 11 Dec 2007, 08:54 pm

I just picked up copies of the new Bourne and Potter DVDs at Circuit City. They had piles of widescreen and full screen in the same racks. I wonder how many people don't check or don't understand what full screen means and end up with a surprise.

I thought letter box versions were extinct. I guess they just gave them a "better" name.

That's funny because I thought just the opposite. I never see full screen anymore. I don't think the Costco by me carries full screen DVDs. As far as I know, they don't make TV's with a 4:3 ratio (fullscreen ratio) anymore. It dives me crazy watching films that have the sides cut off. Who would choose fullscreen nowadays? Black bars on the top and bottom of the screen are only a problem with very small TV sets.

95bcwh · « **Reply #10 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 10:25 pm »

Most DVD with widescreen format has 2.35:1 aspect ratio, and I just hate it!!!! I have a 16:9 plasma and hate the top and bottom bar on my TV every time when I'm watching these DVD.

I wonder why don't they standardize everything make HDTV with 2.35:1 ratio???

nathanm · « **Reply #11 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 10:26 pm »

The whole aspect ratio mess is something that we can be grateful does not exist in audio. There's no albums released where they chop out a minute from the beginning and end of each song, but on video some folks gladly accept the same kind of treatment!

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #12 on:** 11 Dec 2007, 11:52 pm »

Quote from: 95bcwh on 11 Dec 2007, 10:25 pm

Most DVD with widescreen format has 2.35:1 aspect ratio, and I just hate it!!!! I have a 16:9 plasma and hate the top and bottom bar on my TV every time when I'm watching these DVD.

I wonder why don't they standardize everything make HDTV with 2.35:1 ratio???

Because I think broadcast hdtv is 16:9.
Believe it or not, full screen is around because not everyone has a 4:3 tv even though they no longer manufacture any more of them. People keep their tvs for decades, and the vast majority of people still own 4:3 tvs.

John151 · « **Reply #13 on:** 12 Dec 2007, 12:48 am »

Quote from: nathanm on 11 Dec 2007, 10:26 pm

The whole aspect ratio mess is something that we can be grateful does not exist in audio. There's no albums released where they chop out a minute from the beginning and end of each song, but on video some folks gladly accept the same kind of treatment!

Er, uh, doesn't MP3 "chop" plenty of the content?

Don_S · « **Reply #14 on:** 12 Dec 2007, 12:50 am »

ooheadsoo, Good points and widescreen DVDs sure suck on a 4:3 TV (especially a small one). By comparison a full screen DVD on a large wide screen TV is much better.

But even before I purchased my widescreen TV I was buying widescreen DVDs (for the inevitable) for the future. And now I am glad I did.

Bill Baker · « **Reply #15 on:** 12 Dec 2007, 12:59 am »

Quote

But even before I purchased my widescreen TV I was buying widescreen DVDs (for the inevitable) for the future. And now I am glad I did.

I was doing the same thing before I purchased any widescreen TV's. Now I have a widescreen Hitatchi TV and projector at my store. Still all 4:3 TV's at home

My wife just picked up a few DVD's for me including "Live Free, Die Hard" (excellent movie by the way if you like the Die Hard series) and they are all widescreen. When she handed them to me I just looked at her and without hesitation she says to me "I figured we would watch these at your store on the projector and with your system". Smart girl.

Don_S · « **Reply #16 on:** 12 Dec 2007, 01:11 am »

Bill, DUH

I think she is trying to tell you Santa should bring a new widescreen TV for your home.

Bill Baker · « **Reply #17 on:** 12 Dec 2007, 01:15 am »

Quote

Bill, DUH

I think she is trying to tell you Santa should bring a new widescreen TV for your home.

Funny thing youmention that as the justification for my buying a projector was to be able to bring the widescreen TV home. Now, my excuse is that I don't want to burn out the bulb watching the news on the projector while I work.

Maybe a bigger TV at work and bring the 52" home

zybar · « **Reply #18 on:** 12 Dec 2007, 01:53 am »

Quote from: 95bcwh on 11 Dec 2007, 10:25 pm

Most DVD with widescreen format has 2.35:1 aspect ratio, and I just hate it!!!! I have a 16:9 plasma and hate the top and bottom bar on my TV every time when I'm watching these DVD.

I wonder why don't they standardize everything make HDTV with 2.35:1 ratio???

Most dvd's aren't 2:35:1.

George

JeffB · « **Reply #19 on:** 12 Dec 2007, 02:00 am »

I found this thread about why we are stuck with 16:9.
It is interesting.
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2004/08/msg00250.html