Widescreen vs Fullscreen
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Widescreen vs Fullscreen
Is it a good rule of thumb to assume that seeing a movie in widescreen format is always better than fullscreen? I've spent the last half hour reading about the advantages of the widescreen format and how it preserves the original image and it's the way the director intended the movie to be viewed. I saw some examples on widescreen proponents webpages of how much of the image you loose by "panning and scanning", especially when the original aspect ratio is 2.35:1. If one were to watch a 2.35:1 movie such as Scarface in fullscreen and then watch the widescreen version at the same time or immediately afterwards, could you tell the difference? Would it be a much better movie watching experience in widescreen and make you appreciate or understand the movie more? Is there a big difference seeing a 1.85:1 aspect ratio movie such as the Godfather in fullscreen vs widescreen? After seeing sample images of how things get cut off with "pan and scan" it makes you want to repurchase all 2.35:1 aspect ratio movies in their proper widscreen format and think about doing the same with 1.85:1 ones. What do you all think for a casual/average movie watcher with a 36" television
that just seemed so random to me.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 21,463
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte, NC
Widescreen > Foolscreen
That's all you need to know.
My father like Foolscreen at first, too...because the bars got on his nerves.
Then I play A Fistful of Dollars for him in both widescreen and foolscreen (the DVD has both), and when he saw the difference, he immediately changed his mind. There's a scene where Clint Eastwood's character walks up to some guys sitting on a fence, a shootout ensues, and he shoots 4 times. In the foolscreen version, you only see 3 guys on the fence, in widescreen, you see all 4, so it doesn't look like he missed a shot and had to hit one of them twice.
That's all you need to know.
My father like Foolscreen at first, too...because the bars got on his nerves.
Then I play A Fistful of Dollars for him in both widescreen and foolscreen (the DVD has both), and when he saw the difference, he immediately changed his mind. There's a scene where Clint Eastwood's character walks up to some guys sitting on a fence, a shootout ensues, and he shoots 4 times. In the foolscreen version, you only see 3 guys on the fence, in widescreen, you see all 4, so it doesn't look like he missed a shot and had to hit one of them twice.
Allergic to vitamin D
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,032
Likes: 0
From: Earth
I gave up on attempting to explain WS vs. FS to my older family members, they just don't understand. They think they are getting screwed by the "black bars". I even provided a visual aid in the form of two rented DVDs. They just looked at me like :eh:
Cake or Death?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 20,749
Likes: 0
From: NJ
I just had this conversation at work. Weird...
The only girl there I don't like (There's always one that rubs you the wrong way) said she liked Fullscreen...
I said fullscreen is liked by people who don't fully get movies.
h:
The only girl there I don't like (There's always one that rubs you the wrong way) said she liked Fullscreen...
I said fullscreen is liked by people who don't fully get movies.
h:
R.I.P. Kato-san
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,053
Likes: 0
From: Stockton, Cali
Originally Posted by HAN Frodo
don't you hate it when you accidentally buy full-screen? thats happened to me a few times.
i just want to smack em. :happysad:
Wannabe yuppie
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
2.35:1 format sometimes pisses me off exquisitely. The problem is that directors decide they want to fill up the screen with something, but the format is horrible for closeups. You want a closeup of someone's face and you either use a long enough lens to fill the whole width of the screen and chop off most of the actor's head, or accept that you can't get a close up shot without including some of the background in the scene as well. The reason to use a 2.35:1 format is so that you can use a wiiiide lens when trying to make scenes of really big scope look really big. The problem is that most directors end up using the wide format for a couple of action sequences, and then all of the more "normal" shots end up being done with not quite wide enough of a lens. Argh!
[/rant]
[/rant]
