AOTC Widescreen or Fullscreen?

Anyone interested in which one to get best look here.
http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/feature/20020925/index.html

It gives an indepth review of both versions with screen shots so you can compare them for yourself.

For those of you (probably the majority) with widescreen displays this is a no brainer, but it is nice to see a full resolution DVD image now and again.
The pics are both framed as 4:3 so the widescreen image is actually letterboxed. Its a bit unfair as the widescreen DVD will be Anamorphic so the difference on a 16:9 display wont be as much.

Seeing the full frame full res image really make you want to cry out for HDTV, unless youve just bought a DVD player or have thousands of DVDs.

 

From the example screen shots shown in the link it doesn't do any favours for the fullscreen version. The cropping in some shots is appalling.

I only have widescreen displays in my house so for me the choice is obvious, but even if I had 4:3 I would still be choosing the widescreen version. Look at the shot with Amidala and Anakin, he isn't even in the shot on the 4:3 version!

 

No bad thing if you ask me. the guy "acts" like a dead haddock.

I can't actually understand what kind of philistine would buy anything P+S, regardless of what type of TV they have. Why buy a movie only to see half of it?
Lets hope they reign in that edge enhancement this time.

 

"No-brainer" is right. Nobody in their right mind would deliberately buy the full-screen version.

And if you currently have a 4:3 TV you'd be short-sighted to buy anything but the OAR version. What are you going to do when you buy, inevitably, your 16:9 set - throw your collection out and start again!!?

And the size of the picture is not related in any way to whether the DVD is anamorphic or not. That site is showing a widescreen picture on a 4:3 set. A proper comparison would be to show it on a 16:9 set.

A non-anamorphic widescreen DVD would still give a picture in OAR with no information missing - just a lower quality picture.

 

Hopefully this thread will serve to make anyone even thinking of buying the fullscreen version to think again.

 

Ripco, I dont understand why you read a thread named AOTC Widescreen or Fullscreen if for one your not interested in StarWars and two youve allready made up your mind about watching a film in widescreen?
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, I think youve watched Brave Heart on your 4:3 one too many times and arent getting the full picture.
The black bars are a compromise brought on because of the technical difficulties of manufacturing a 2:35:1 tube. Very expensive. Also the publics reaction to watching a 4:3 transmition with even bigger black bars on the sides. It would look a bit stupid if we went to the cinema and watched a movie in 4:3 wouldnt it? As you cant have it both ways we ended up with 16:9 the go between 4:3 and 2:35:1.

 

er that was 20 years ago - things have kind of moved on, like colour TV and now they even talk in films!

Filmakers do not make films for TV they make it for the cinema in a WIDESCREEN format.

Dependent on ratio you do not always get black bars either way you see the film as the director intended. As for bars down the side on TV 4:3 broadcasts - I only watch SKY and bars only appear on a small number of chanels such as ITV2 when watching Champions league

As for cramming it up my arse, its too wide!

 

I totally agree. It's the same with DVD players, I mean, did any of this digital **** matter in the 80s? I'm brought up watching 4th generation videos to now being told I should be watching a clear, crisp, surround sound film, WTF?







It's called 'progress'.

 

The only one that is being heated is you Ripco.

Everybody else is being rather patient really.

Your argument seems to be that you have spent the last umpteen years watching films (which have generally been made in a widescreen format since the 1950s) on TV with the sides cut off because the TV technology was not up to showing the whole picture, and that you want to carry on doing this.

That is fine with me. I am just grateful that technological progress now means that we can watch films at home in their original aspect ratio and with a reasonably large size and high quality picture.

If you truly believe that only by watching a 4:3 screen can you see the whole of the picture then you are sadly misled.

 

Ripco Im sorry to rain on your parade but the Cinema also has these black bars but masked in a unique way. At my local cinema the screen size will start with the usual TV adverts in 4:3 with OH MY GOD! BLACK BARS at the side. Then the movie adverts start and THATS MORE LIKE IT black bars are gone and WAYHAY full screen action appears(16x9). BUT THEN when the main feature is about to start as if by magic the whole screen peals away to the walls untill it reaches the STUPENDOUS size of 2:35:1. No black bars here for the simple fact that the width was increased. BUT in an older cinema I use to goto the hight of the screen was actually REDUCED! OH LORDY WHAT WAS THE WORLD COMING TOO. The visable screen size was smaller as happens on a WIDESCREEN tv only the cinema masked it in a more subtle way. Now you dont want to see black bars so choose not to watch WS films while the rest of us invest in a larger screen so the effect of reducing the hight of the picture is zero and the gain in width allows the extra detail you seem to think holds no extra benifit to the cinema experience.

 

Hi,

Just to add to what ripco is saying, etc, not that I agree/or disagree with him.
But if you have never seen a film first at the cinema, but you watch it for the first time in 4:3 mode, you would never know what the framming should be, but you would watch the film and enjoy it, depends on what it is.

Just to throw things a bit, what if they introduced huge black bars top and bottom at the cinema on most new films for some reason. You would'nt really want that would you?. Most people would not.

Me personally am 1:85:1 anamorphic guy, no bars, just widescreen (on a widescreen tv of course). They are me favs. Bring on spidey!.


ta

rai

 

QUOTE]All I said was that what you can see of the picture must be all you need to see otherwise the movie makers would not release a 4:3 version and have done so since as you say the 1950s.[/QUOTE]

By the same argument, of course, if what they released for TV originally was all you needed we would all still be watching films of the 50s and sixties in black and white.

They were colour widescreen in the cinema and 4:3 black and white on TV.

They only released B & W versions because the TV technology could not cope with what they wanted to release.

Similarly, since colour TV was introduced in 1968, they have only transmitted films in 4:3 on TV because widescreen was not available to them because of the technology.

Well, ahem, they did know that when transmitted on TV some information would be lost. Did they care? No. They were making films for the cinema.

Is some information at the sides of the films important? Yes. You only have to compare screen shots that have been published on many websites to see how important the framing is.

Of course we are not at the cinema. What we (but obviously not you) are trying to do is see the same picture (apart from size) that we would see at the cinema ie. as close as possible to the original film.

 

Although I'll always champion uncropped widescreen presentations, I can understand why some (probably "most") people outside of serious moviehounds don't like it.
Personally I hate seeing films panned and scanned, (I've nothing against unmatted fullscreen presentations) directors like David Lynch, Ridley Scott, Tarantino, David Fincher, David Lean all use the full width of the scope frame to compose their shots meaning that in order to get in the picture info that's essential to the scene there's no option in a 4:3 transfer except to use more cuts (between characters/objects etc), lose characters altogether off either end of the frame, or pan from one to another during the course of the action. I don't like that so for me and many others a correct aspect ratio works the best visually. Watch a film like Alien fullscreen and then watch it again wide and the differences are striking. You actually get an appreciation for the scale of the art departmnents work in 2.35:1 that you just can't get when it's cropped and panned and scanned.
I understand that there's people that don't like widescreen and although I'm not one of them I do know what it's like to be presented with something you don't like. That's one reason why I've always supported discs having the choice of wide or 4:3 on the same disc on either side of a flipper. The format can cope with it so I see no reason not to do it.

 

Ripco your right were not talking about the cinema were talking about aspect ratios which as my post details are present in the same way where ever you watch the film. At hame you see black bars because at the cinema a cutain comes down and masks/iliminates them. You could do the same at home if it bothers you that much. Most of us except them and forget about them and enjoy the film.

 

Thanks for your reply its not about right and wrong but I merely stated that I prefer a bigger screen and what it shows in the fullscreen versions must be the most important parts ie the action and anything outwith should not really matter that much. The main idea is big size of screen isnt it? I mean compare a 42" WS with a 43" 4:3. Although it is supposed to be only one inch bigger accross it is actually alot bigger as it is square and also on TV 4:3 isnt cutting off heads

I just think ppl are over reacting with WS and it is a rubbish format. Cant they make a 4:3 large screen big enough to support the full WS picture but still keep the Square shape of the TV? Also what size would the TV have to be?

 

My widescreen RPTV switched to 4:3 gives a picture 37" across the diagnal. Using cable TV most channels give an anamorphic 16:9 picture so no need to watch in 4:3.

 

Ripco, is it me or have you deleted most of your posts?

 

Edit: Sorry guys, this response was aimed at Ripco but he seems to have removed most of his messages from the thread:

I think the argument is getting a bit muddied here. You compare a 42" WS TV with a 43" 4:3 TV - sure the 4:3 TV seems bigger, even though the diagonal measurement is within 1".

However, if I were to play an anamorphic 16:9 DVD on my 42" WS screen it would display a larger image than if you were to play the same disc on your 43" 4:3 screen. Conversely, your full frame disc would produce a much larger image on your 4:3 TV than it would on my widescreen set. You are not comparing like with like. A widescreen disc played on a widescreen set is the optimum method to display that disc. A fullframe disc played on a 4:3 set is the optimum method to display that disc. That is why the manufacturers often produce different versions of the same disc, to suit all tastes.

On this board there are many Home Cinema enthusiasts. Note the wording - Home Cinema. We are trying to replicate the experience of the cinema as best we can at home, and that includes optimum widescreen presentations for many of us. If you don't agree that this is the best way to view movies at home then fine, you probably side with a vast number of people currently in the UK, but I seriously think this is changing. Even my parents have a widescreen TV these days...

 

It isn't you. They've almost all gone.

 

Your moderators found me to be offensive. Hmm they must have WS tvs. Sorry guys

Cant have a heated discussion without heat and most heat is provided by fire.

 

I never watch DVDs on widescreen TVs.

 

There we go HUMOUR! A mod who can have a laugh. ))

These are the mods Im looking for.

<--- John Wayne Gacey!

Ok How bigs yer screen????

 

haha...

Actually its only 72", the projector is larger than the screen and if it drops on my head I'm might become widescreen myself.