PCA Forums

OK, I'm going to do my rant on the widescreen/fullScreen debate (again)!

Every forum I've been on where this is debated seems to skip over the issues I have with this whole thing.

It's always about the people who like widescreen vs the people who like fullscreen. The widescreen advocates seem to think that anyone who watches anything on fullscreen should be shot! Heh heh.
The widescreen debate (from the widescreen advocate point of view) seems to focus on how much more of a movie can be seen on widescreen, therefore fullscreen cheats the viewer.

I have a whole different take on this as it affects me.

To start let me clarify. If I had a widescreen TV, of course I would prefer everything be on widescreen. What's more important to me though is this. Whatever TV I have I want to be able to utilize the WHOLE DAM SCREEN!

Right now the industry has got this so screwed up that no matter which TV you have (fullscreen or widescreen) this is not the case.

Because of Hollywood trying to ram widescreen down everyone's throat, you much more likely to HAVE to watch a widescreen movie no matter which TV you have because you're not likely to find a fullscreen movie to rent or buy on DVD. Go to a video rental place and 95% of the DVD's are widescreen only. VHS used to be an alternative to get it fullscreen but this is becoming fewer and far between (fewer movies are even being presented in VHS anymore, at least at the rental places).

Then you have the TV broadcasts. Some are now coming out in widescreen only. Most are still not.

So the problem to me is not which format you like better. The problem is the formats are not being presented to give the viewer a choice. If you have a fullscreen TV you have to compromise to not being able to view your entire TV screen for most DVDs and some TV broadcasts. I have a nice 32" Sony. Best dam picture I've ever had on a TV set. The way it is now (on a set this big) is when I'm being forced to watch widescreen format I lose about 5" on both top and bottom and with the even narrower 2.35, lose about 8" both top and bottom. Yeah I see more side to side but the movie content is much smaller. Instantly I get my 32" TV converted to about a 19" TV without me having anything to say about it.

Again, this is not which format I like better. This is all about being forced to have a big portion of the screen I paid for, taken away from me.

People with widescreen sets have the same problem. Because most TV broadcasts are not currently being shown widescreen format, you are still forced to have some of your screen taken away from you, this time losing inches of viewing on each side. Of course you're not going to see this in a TV display store because what's on the screen is set carefully to not expose this.

I am quite frankly blown away how people settle for this situation. That they can spend all this money on whatever set format is bought and yet do not have access to viewing the complete screen that was paid for.

The arguments on forums always goes back to the widescreen bunch vs the fullscreen bunch (sort of like the Nvidia bunch vs the ATI bunch) but the two sides never come together and say, "this sucks that I don't have control over how much screen I get to view". We should actually be on the same side on this issue. Both want what they like, but both should also (and more importantly as far as I'm concerned) WANT TO HAVE THE CHOICE. Right now neither has this.

I don't know what the solution is to this. The industry has got this thing whacked pretty good. I see no end in site until ABSOLUTLEY EVERYTHING switches to widescreen and all fullscreen sets are at the city dump. And that's not going to happen any time soon (I doubt in my lifetime). Even if that would happen, the industry still doesn't even have a unified widescreen format. You got the widescreen (16x9) and then the ribbon 2.35x1. Pretty soon a ticker tape format will pop up about 5 inches high going across the whole screen for super super super widescreen format. Some people will probably go "yay, look at how much side to side viewing I have now" even though the characters are only 5 inches high (and having all that black screen there for your viewing pleasure).

This transition that the movie industry is trying to do could sure be done a whole lot better that the way it's being done now. Until the whole thing is switched over (and no telling how that's going to happen being probably 5-10% of the population actually has a widescreen TV), there needs to be both formats available for everything. Of course this could be expensive for the movie industry and they can't have that, can they?

i have the awnser to everyones problems... STRECH it and there you go. whole screen every time!

It used to be the reverse. I have always prefered to watch a movie in widescreen - even when all I had was a 4:3 TV (and I watch widescreen on my bedroom 20" 4:3 all the time). I want to watch a film the way the director intended it to be seen. Pan & Scan ruins a movie that makes good use of the entire panoramic presentation. Take for example a movie like "Gone With The Wind". The panorama of Atlanta burning in widescreen just can't compare to fullscreen. One of my all-time favorite movies "The Andromeda Strain" is totally ruined and unwatchable in fullscreen.

Black bars on the top or bottom of the screen have never bothered me.

Before DVDs I used to buy and rent those widescreen VHS videos but they were hard to find.

I'm overjoyed that most films are Widescreen now. Frankly it's a matter of economics. Are you aware how much it costs to convert a widescreen film to 4:3 format? It's an entirely new production with a large crew: Pan & Scan technicians, director, editors, writers. You've radically altering the movie. It's not just filming the center of the original film. It's always been a burden for Hollywood to convert their films to 4:3 format. Now with HDTV widescreen becoming the standard, they don't have to, and I doubt you'll see them making fullscreen versions for very long when it's cheaper to just convert the film as-is to DVD.

Your rant falls apart on the paid for a fullscreen should see fullscreen. When buying a TV now as aposed* to before is that you choose the TV for your needs. Movie fan and want to black bars on your screen get the widescreen TV. BIg sitcom fan get a square TV.

I just want to see programs in there origanol format the bars are just voids not bars. There is a huge difference between a 19" tv and a 19" widscreen.

what the hell is with your 5" ticker tape. Any seriousness you had with your rant is lost.

AND i had to just take it when WS VHS cost almost as much as 2 tapes. I would be more than happy with everythinig in widescreen and watching all my old favorite tv shows with 2 bars on the side so that lucy and desie* dont look like thier pulling 10 G's on another planet.

you could always get a decent projector and then the black bars would just be...darkness

to me wide-screen sucks unless you own a wide-screen TV. and i don't .hell i don't even own big screen TV . 27 inch is the largest in my home . way its lay-ed out 27 "is as big as i need . even a 32 " TV would be pushing it . and I'm sure I'm not alone . if you own a older home you don't get a lot of space in a living room . and such . so for us a monster TV set may seem great . but were the hell are we going to put it and us ?

and those big 52 inch floor monsters i have seen at friends places seem to be more affected by sun or outside light glare .so you have to keep the room closed off from outside light .way more so then the picture tube type TV to ?

About the replies I thought I would get. Most miss the point as usual. Comments like

I'm overjoyed that most films are Widescreen now.

That's fine and dandy for you isn't it? You got what you want and don't seem to care that others don't get a choice. If it was the other way around, I don't imagine you would like that too much. You got your choice on this one. What about everyone elses choice?

That was my point to begin with, not which one is best. I thought I made that clear.

And the wise comment about losing credibility on the ticker tape comment. That was saying that if hollywood did something like that, some would like it. It was meant to stress the stupidness of this whole thing (the choice thing, not the widescreen thing). Now the ones who want widescreen only love this. The very ones who would bi_tch if it was reversed. How about everyone being happy and let the viewer decide instead of Hollywood?

Some don't seem to mind about losing a big portion of the screen. Can't figure that one out. I mind it. And the comment about people making choices getting widescreen or fullscreen depending on what they watch. That argument falls apart because it doesn't matter which format TV you buy. The way it is now, neither one can call the shots on having the choice of viewing the entire screen. That was my point again. I buy a widescreen, then I still have to watch most TV broadcasts in 4:3.

Seems like when a thread like this runs, hardly anyone comes to common ground about the choices issue. It always seems to end up the widescreen faction fighting the fullscreen faction. That was not even where I wanted to go cause I already know the results. Anyone been to a thread on the ATI vs Nvidia deal? Case in point. I don't think anyone is going to choose fullscreen over widescreen. It's about choosing if the screen is wanted to be fully viewed or not. But that's not the way it seems to get interpreted. Most widescreen guys want everyone to just shut up and deal with it. Easy to say when you get what you want. I already stated I would prefer widescreen, as long I don't have to lose a portion of my TV to get it. Well only going to a movie is going to do that for me. For home viewing, give me the choice of how much of my screen I want to view. That's it. No more complicated than that.

why cant they just make a tv that has both viewing options ? just click a button on the unit or remote and presto best of both worlds !
or the dvd player as that matters

I thought most dvd players would do a crapy fake pan and scan. Or like pugsley said just hit the streatch button. its what I do to make 4:3 content fill my widescreen. Hell I only do that so it doesn't burn in the center.

I like the argument about choice but I think your looking at it from the wrong direction. Sure its about choice but not about our choice but about the directors choice. They choose an aspect ratio because they think that will work best and allow them to convey their artistic message more clearly. Lately pretty much anything can be broadcast in 16:9 I know most stations didn't allow it back in the day. So now all the directors have a choice 4:3 16:9 maybe if they wanted something different from that. I don't care as long as I'm seeing what they invisioned, not what some hack has came in to do just so picture fills my screen.

There was a whole lawsuit over this. I think it was MGM that took their movies and to make them 4:3 added stuff the top and the bottom of the screen that normally wouldn't have been viewed so you could see things like stage hands, the boom mic, and where the sets cut off on different movies. If you want that choice your an idiot. Like FP said its like a whole mini production just to redo a movie in a different format. MGM took the easy way out and got sued for it.

One last thing until I got my widescreen 2 months ago I had a 27 inch sony. Watching widescreen stuff on it never bothered me. In fact the only thing I made sure of with my new tv was that it was equal to the 16:9 letterbox on my old 27 inch. It is slightly bigger but not by much so now I lose space on 4:3 stuff compared to my old tv.

ok taking what I like is not the point here of this reply....

The 5" ticker tape comment was friggin hilarious, love that part of the rant... I can see the truth in it though. You are paying for dead space... yet again, when you buy a CPU, you don't overload the chip 24/7, so you are buying some dead cycles... Wow come to think about it, you buy more dead cycles as a precentage, than what you lose of viewing space from ticker tapes.

My solution... build a TiVO, with a video card that does the best of both world thingamagiggy that bellringer proposed, with a super fast dual opteron... that way we can complain about clock rates again, but back to the idea... build a tivo like device, and maybe you can do some kind of smart software programming to auto convert your 16:9 nightmare to your sweet 4:3 world.... I dunno it's 10:00 am, I work midnights and i'm frigging late for bed.... g'nite gentlemen

Mike you didn't read MY post. It DID used to be the other way around. For years I spent a lot of extra money buying widescreen VHS tapes.

I also expained the economical reasons why you're not going to see many fullscreen movies anymore.

And as far as grumbling about current broadcasts, most prime time TV shows are widescreen now. More and more TV shows are going widscreen because the camera technology is all widescreen. We're in a transition now.

If you take every thing you read seriously without LOL by them then dont READ THIS
and also if you cant follow rough thoughts as i tend to forget to type random words as I type.
By reading any or in part of this you here-by agree to not quote or discuss any furtor what you have read.


About the replies I thought I would get. Most miss the point as usual. Comments like
"
And the wise comment about losing credibility* on the ticker tape comment. That was saying that if hollywood did something like that, some would like it. It was meant to stress the stupidness of this whole thing (the choice thing, not the widescreen thing). Now the ones who want widescreen only love this. The very ones who would bi_tch if it was reversed.{For me it was 20 years the other way around with every movie being pan&scan and nobody seemed to care. } How about everyone being happy and let the viewer decide instead of Hollywood?
"
*credibility(which by I meant crying and ranting,not making a point) that you proved by commenting it

I dont understand the chosing part at all. Also every dvd is in WS and 4:3 I know becuase the private rentel plase down the street every once in awile will save a buck and order all the new movies in PS. Its demand for the format not Hollywood (as you blamed) decieding what format Blockbuster carries.

"
Some don't seem to mind about losing a big portion of the screen. Can't figure that one out. I mind it. And the comment about people making choices getting widescreen or fullscreen depending on what they watch. That argument falls apart because it doesn't matter which format TV you buy. The way it is now, neither one can call the shots on having the choice of viewing the entire screen. That was my point again. I buy a widescreen, then I still have to watch most TV broadcasts in 4:3.
"

It doesnt fall apart, there are no shots. You can not go back and forth from the origanol recording.
I have seen a few shows on my tv where the strecthed the widescreen so there were no bars and it looked like **** so i called the shot and used the widescreen option in my tv to return the image to its origanol ratio with the bars top and bottom. You wouldnt cut up or stretch the mono lisa just because the picture frame you bought was to big or too small. Thats how I mind.

And when Im at my friends house not watching a movie on his widescreen I switch it to fullscreen so people dont look like mario before his daily mushroom.

Now sure on a small 13" tv I would prefer to watch a pan&scan. But aside from that I want to see the material in its origanol format just like i saw it in the theater.

SO i do call the shots on how i view my matieral. If people bought more pan&scan they would still make them. For me it was 20 years the other way around with every movie being pan&scan and nobody seemed to care.

IF you have a widescreen you have 4 choices wide,pan,zoom,zoom2 for 4:3 so you have all the choices you claim otherwise to.

Try to keep your posts under 300 pages no one ever got their point across by draging on and on and on and boring the reader to death. We get your point we just disagree about how your trying to make it. You manged to miss my counter point to the point you were making you just "ass"umed i didnt get your point because i disagreed with your ideas.

Now if you take me too seriously again I'll have to come to your house and cut up all you cd and dvd case's round so they fit better around the disc's <- just in case you didnt realise that was a joke.

I too have what's now a 32" very nice but older TV (NOT widescreen) and so I also prefer to watch everything in fullscreen whenever I'm able to as to me, the widescreen "extra" side views don't match what's then missing on the top/bottm on my older set.
When I bought that TV, new HDTVs were very costly, like over $7K and my wife also wanted a TV that fits, dissappears inside an intertainment center with doors, had to look like a piece of furniture. Even today, widescreen TVs don't fit (hide) into much of anything, they're just out there in plain site.

I have no doubt that newer widescreen only movies look fanatastic on a modern widescreen TV but until I need to purchase one, I'll just have to put up with the loss of the upper/lower picture on my old TV and I also know that the industry won't change to cater to those of us with older TVs. There's no point in ranting here or anywhere because those of us with the older sets have only two choices and that's that, deal with it or buy a new widescreen TV. The older (non-widescreen) type TVs are simply "antiques" in the eyes of the industry.

One more thing, if it wasn't for my wife (who doesn't want to see a large retangular TV just sitting there in plain site when not used), I would have had a nice widescreen TV years ago. So as it is then for me, until our TV fails requiring a new TV, I'm stuck with it. It still has a very good screen for an older TV but it's got sound issues with Direct TVs TIVO DDR receivers (now on #2) relating to how it acts up with these and it's driving my wife crazy as she watches TV more than I. The TV does fine with the normal Direct TV receiver but I wanted TIVO. It's been a hassle, still not completely resolved but I'm sidetracking.

you people with $1000+ to drop on a wide screen tv must be rich. all i can afford is a 19" square tv. ive also heard that those things dont last as long as a crt. so to me it wouldnt be a good value even if i could afford it.

Originally posted by Shadow250
you people with $1000+ to drop on a wide screen tv must be rich. all i can afford is a 19' square tv. ive also heard that those things dont last as long as a crt. so to me it wouldnt be a good value even if i could afford it.

And where the hell are you getting a 19 foot TV for under 1K? jk!