# Widescreen or fullscreen?



## SteveB (Oct 20, 2006)

Getting my XA2 in a couple of weeks and buying hd dvds to get ready. I like watching fullscreen movies better but it seems that most of the hd dvds that I'm finding are widescreen. Is there any real advantage to WS over FS? If I stretch the picture on a 
WS would I distort the picture too much? NEC 42" plasma tv.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

WS definitely has the advantage over FS. FS or Pan & Scan, cuts off quite a portion of the original image. I don't imagine you'll find many FS HD-DVDs if any... most all should be WS.

Check out widescreen.org for examples of widescreen vs fullscreen.

1.78 or 1.85.1 widescreens will fill your plasma screen just right... while you'll get minor top and bottom bars on 2.20, 2.35 and 2.40:1 aspect ratios. This should be more preferable than bars on the side.


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

Sonnie is right. You definitely want widescreen. When I first got my widescreen TV, I used to stretch regular SD TV and fullscreen movies to fit. But now I just watch them with bars on the side, the stretching does distort too much for me. "Widescreen" movies on a widescreen TV should generally fill up the screen fully (with perhaps some minor bars at the top/bottom depending on final ratio). Even any such potential bars like that, you will be getting more picture on the screen than stretching a fullscreen image, because they have cut things off with the fullscreen films. 

Good luck.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

You know I've gotten to where I no longer use stretch on 4:3 material. I've gotten use to the side bars.


----------



## Vader (Jul 8, 2006)

I actually still use the stretch mode for academy material (1.33:1), but not because "I want my screen filled", or even the dreaded "black bars". In my case, the bars are an annoying grey (thanks, Mitsubishi), which I find much more distracting than the stretch distortion. On animated material, I don't even notice anymore. On my next display (or upconverting DVD player), one of my criteria will be "no grey bars!" Beyond that, I am an OAR advocate (I will *not* buy pan & scan)...


----------



## gbgarrett (May 14, 2007)

I prefer FS simply because I hate the bars. I wish movies would be formatted such that they would be wide but still fill up my screen without the bars. Maybe the pic would be smaller to accomplish this, but then again it might be sharper. Why are widescreen movies done with bars anyway? I thought when I bought a WS TV, I could view WS movies wide without bars. Is that not possible?


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Unfortunately display manufacturers are not making displays that will accommodate every possible aspect ratio. Originally, aspect ratios were 1.33:1 or 4:3, what we call "fullscreen" because it fills the full screen of 4:3 displays. Widescreen is wider than 4:3... instead of being 1.33:1 ratio, it is either 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 or 2.40:1, and there are some even wider. Do you see the dilemma of trying to build a display to make everyone happy?

16 x 9, or 16:9, which is equal to 1.78:1 is the happy medium that display manufacturers have decided to use for there widescreen displays. As long as the studios produce movies with the 16 x 9 ratio, all those owning widescreen displays will be happy. Of course we know that just isn't going to happen.

Keep in mind that it's not the movies that make the bars, it's the display that makes the bars.

At least with the widescreen displays you have less of a bar on top and bottom when viewing a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 movie than you will have with a 4:3 display.


----------



## gbgarrett (May 14, 2007)

[MOUSE]"all those owning widescreen displays will be happy. Of course we know that just isn't going to happen."[/MOUSE]

Kinda figured that - I've just gotten used to the smaller picture


----------



## Bob_99 (May 8, 2006)

My concerm with sidebars is that they would eventually burn into the screen. I try to minimize watching 4:3 and most of the DVDs that I buy are widescreen. This is probably a needless concern but I'm not totally sure that flat screens are fool proof yet. 


Bob


----------



## gbgarrett (May 14, 2007)

[BANANA]My concerm with sidebars is that they would eventually burn into the screen[/BANANA]
According to my Samsung repair man and the owners manual that is correct. I needed some warranty repair work on my first Samsung and something was on that had bars. He warned me not to do this too much for that very reason. The owner's manual for both TVs says the same thing - which is another reason I don't like the bars!!


----------



## Vader (Jul 8, 2006)

Assuming that the display is calibrated correctly (no "Torch Mode"), burn-in is rarely a concern - just don't keep the same pattern up for days on end with no variation). The last 15 years has seen 90% widescreen stuff (from letterbox LD to DVD to HD-DVD), and I have yet to burn anything in. The main contributors are generally brightness (mine is about 51%), contrast (25%), and sharpness (should be turned off, anyway). Typically, these are pumped up to insane levels by factory default to make their displays stand out on the showroom floor. If these are reset to correct levels, phosphor burn is generally not a worry...


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Sonnie said:


> As long as the studios produce movies with the 16 x 9 ratio, all those owning widescreen displays will be happy. Of course we know that just isn't going to happen


What burns me up is when an animated film is in 2:35 as opposed to 1:78. The animators have the ability to make their film any aspect ratio they choose, and there are no 2:35 monitors that I know of, so why wouldn't they go 1:78? :dontknow: The HD standard is 16x9, so all material should be created in 16x9 me thinks. 

Then sometimes you get those really oddballs like Clockwork Orange, currently a non anamorphic 1.66 :doh:


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

The non-anamorphic DVDs are what burn me up. I was watching House, the TV Series, and it's non-anamorphic. The label says 1.85:1, so I was somewhat pleased that it was going to be just right for filling the screen, then was disappointed. Fortunately I didn't buy it, just borrowing it from some friends.

I do agree though... I see no reason why every movie made should not be 16 x 9.


----------



## Woochifer (Oct 19, 2006)

Oh geez. Fullscreen is one of the biggest misnomers ever. Unless we're talking about Academy ratio movies, "fullscreen" is not full of anything. It cuts off significant portions of the original image and distorts the original intent of the filmmaker. Just because those "black bars" aren't around doesn't mean that a so-called "fullscreen" movie is showing the "full" movie.



SteveCallas said:


> What burns me up is when an animated film is in 2:35 as opposed to 1:78. The animators have the ability to make their film any aspect ratio they choose, and there are no 2:35 monitors that I know of, so why wouldn't they go 1:78? :dontknow: The HD standard is 16x9, so all material should be created in 16x9 me thinks.
> 
> Then sometimes you get those really oddballs like Clockwork Orange, currently a non anamorphic 1.66 :doh:


I would guess this is more an artistic choice for theatrical showings where the anamorphic scope image opens up more of the big screen (i.e., a theater with a large 60' screen only reveals 47' of the screen width when showing something in the flat 1.85:1 aspect ratio), and fills up more of the peripheral vision when watching in a theater.

Even though widescreen TVs have standardized around the 1.78:1 ratio, movie theater installations still use 2.35:1 screens, and any other aspect ratios are accommodated by simply narrowing the screen using curtains.

I recall that Coppola also used an oddball aspect ratio for _Apocalypse Now_.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Woochifer said:


> I would guess this is more an artistic choice for theatrical showings where the anamorphic scope image opens up more of the big screen (i.e., a theater with a large 60' screen only reveals 47' of the screen width when showing something in the flat 1.85:1 aspect ratio), and fills up more of the peripheral vision when watching in a theater.
> 
> Even though widescreen TVs have standardized around the 1.78:1 ratio, movie theater installations still use 2.35:1 screens, and any other aspect ratios are accommodated by simply narrowing the screen using curtains.


I guess, but if I'm not mistaken, movie studios make tons more money from dvd sales than they do from actual theaterical releases. It would be nice if they worried less about theater screens and more about HT screens :bigsmile:


----------



## Vader (Jul 8, 2006)

> I do agree though... I see no reason why every movie made should not be 16 x 9.


There are many valid reasons for other ARs. For example, Spielberg felt that a flat AR (1.85:1) would be more visually appropiate to better emphasize the size of the dinos in "Jurassic Park". OTOH, I cannot imagine "The Sound of Music" at anything less than the 2.35:1 (scope) or 2.20:1 (70mm) that Bob Wise chose (the cinematography alone would be butchered at anything less). And, the chariot race in "Ben Hur" at nearly 3:1 goes without saying...

I think its more of an artistic choice among directors. Often the chosen aspect ratio serves the director's vision, and the shape of consumer displays is of secondary concern. If I were to buy a reproduction of the Mona Lisa, I can not expect that the painting would fit in a standard frame, nor would I be so stupid as to request that it be cut down to size. I realize there are those that prefer the 1.78:1 apsect ratio, and that's as much their right as it is for the director to prefer another, for whatever reason (filling their screen, artistic composition, whatever). However, it should be OAR - if it "fills the screen", fine. But when the image is modified (ie. cropped, panned, open matte, etc) in any way is where I draw the line. I agree entirely with Roger Ebert, when he said that "anyone who would voluntarily crop half the move just so their screen is filled should not be licenced to operate a video player" (paraphrased)....

My HT obsession started in 1989, when my HT (as it were) consisted of a 27" Mitsu, an NEC prologic amp, and a LaserDisc player. I have always preferred letterbox films even then, because I am more concerned with seeing the film correctly (as opposed to obsessing whther every inch of video real estate is used). So, if a film happens to be in an aspect ratio that corresponds to my display, great. If not, I know I will be seeing the director's vision as it was in the theater...


----------



## JRace (Aug 24, 2006)

I still remember when my good friend sold all of his widescreen DVD's and replaced them with full screen. Only to replace his 4:3 27" tv with a 65" 16:9 a year later!


----------



## Bob_99 (May 8, 2006)

> Only to replace his 4:3 27" tv with a 65" 16:9 a year later!


.... and he'll probably get to do it again when he decides on HD. 

This is a bit off topic, but with all the video formats and all the sound formats, how is the average person who can't even program a VHS player, going to adapt to HD when it becomes the 'standard' in 2009? Try explaining top and side bars to the average consumer.

Bob


----------



## Vader (Jul 8, 2006)

> Try explaining top and side bars to the average consumer.


...Been there, tried that, have the t-shirt...


----------



## John Simpson (May 10, 2007)

Heheh, I still have enough trouble working out why I need an anamorphic lens for my projector to get cinemascope!

It's a very transitional time we're in at the moment... but I suppose the good thing is that people are excited about it, and are willing to play test subjects!


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

SteveB said:


> I like watching fullscreen movies better but it seems that most of the hd dvds that I'm finding are widescreen. Is there any real advantage to WS over FS?


The HD format is 1.78:1 hence why HD-DVDs are widescreen. It's not like you would really want to plug a HD-DVD player, especially not the elite XA2, to a standard def 4:3 (Fullscreen) TV. How could you like stretching or viewing black side bars better???

Do you really mean 1.78:1 vs 1.85:1 (HD vs Widescreen).


----------



## gbgarrett (May 14, 2007)

Actually,
After watching FS on a HD DVD player for a while, I've changed my mind. Now I buy only WS, and I'm teasing the idea of replacing all my favorite FS movies with the WS version, especially Star Wars and animated movies. The HD DVD player displays FS with gray or black side bars. Ugh! And I won't do the stretch thing with movies - maybe with broadcasts,,,,,maybe


----------

