Widescreen or fullscreen?

[jomar]

I just saw a movie on dvd and had a thought (dangeous). Writers can labor over the the perfect word and wording. Directors shoot their films in a specific way.

So when watching a dvd do you want to see what the director intended or is the fullscreen version satisfying (which centers people and cuts people/images out of the frame)? Somewhere along the line I became a movie snob and have insisted on widescreen for along time now. (With tv's moving to that format more people will see ws by default rather than on purpose.)

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I just saw a movie on dvd and had a thought (dangeous). Writers can labor over the the perfect word and wording. Directors shoot their films in a specific way.

So when watching a dvd do you want to see what the director intended or is the fullscreen version satisfying (which centers people and cuts people/images out of the frame)? Somewhere along the line I became a movie snob and have insisted on widescreen for along time now. (With tv's moving to that format more people will see ws by default rather than on purpose.)

I have Windows XP Media Edition. If you click for full screen you get fullscreen in wide with the top and bottom cropped so it shows a larger version of widescreen.

 

[jomar]

Glad to see your av back!

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I watch the widescreen version. I watch most DVDs on my PC, and not in fullscreen, so having it a little wider, and seeing everything that is supposed to be on the screen is the way to go.

 

[Belegon]

I'm a widescreen snob...

totally.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Glad to see your av back!

The other one was actually a pic of the real me

 

[Guest]

I think it depends on the movie for the viewing format. I don't see how widescreen and seeing the director's vision would benefit viewing Napoleon Dynamite, however, it definitely would in Cold Mountain (the scenes in the mountains w/Nicole Kidman and Jude Law are amazing).

 

[CharleyH]

I just saw a movie on dvd and had a thought (dangeous). Writers can labor over the the perfect word and wording. Directors shoot their films in a specific way.

So when watching a dvd do you want to see what the director intended or is the fullscreen version satisfying (which centers people and cuts people/images out of the frame)? Somewhere along the line I became a movie snob and have insisted on widescreen for along time now. (With tv's moving to that format more people will see ws by default rather than on purpose.)

As a fellow snob? Wide Screen. Although I must admit? Film makers intend their movies be seen 60 feet by 40 feet

 

[Belegon]

As a fellow snob? Wide Screen. Although I must admit? Film makers intend their movies be seen 60 feet by 40 feet

yes indeed...and I for one will go to certain movies with that in mind. I am far more likely to make that determination by director and/or cinematographer than by storyline, writer or cast though...

Example of the importance of the venue that immediately comes to mind is Lawrence of Arabia.

 

[jomar]

The other one was actually a pic of the real me

Well in that case let's see it again! (Is it just me or is it hot in here?)

I think it depends on the movie for the viewing format. I don't see how widescreen and seeing the director's vision would benefit viewing Napoleon Dynamite, however, it definitely would in Cold Mountain (the scenes in the mountains w/Nicole Kidman and Jude Law are amazing).

I know you're joshing - Clerks II would be a totally different movie in fullscreen.

 

[Belegon]

I know you're joshing - Clerks II would be a totally different movie in fullscreen.

for the most part, the value of seeing a comedy in a theatre is the contagious quality of laughter, not cinematography...

 

[CharleyH]

yes indeed...and I for one will go to certain movies with that in mind. I am far more likely to make that determination by director and/or cinematographer than by storyline, writer or cast though...

Example of the importance of the venue that immediately comes to mind is Lawrence of Arabia.

Epics are made to be seen on the Big Screen, yet I would add also sci-fi and action. Although? I have noted that Hollywood directors these days (but for a handful like Tarantino) are not auteurs and pump things out with nor here or there attitudes. There was a time when the narrative was as important as the visual/ filmic story. The last movie I saw with those elements was called 'Birth' by Kubrick. Everything else was simply entertaining.

 

[CharleyH]

Actually a modern take: BABEL

It is said to be the most important movie of the year - but it sucked AND IT SUCKED MISERABLY. It failed on many levels and how that could be could be considered an "important film" is beyond my comprehension. Did you see it? I don't want to go on if you have not seen it.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

yes indeed...and I for one will go to certain movies with that in mind. I am far more likely to make that determination by director and/or cinematographer than by storyline, writer or cast though...

Example of the importance of the venue that immediately comes to mind is Lawrence of Arabia.

What brought that home to me was, way back when, seeing the original Star Wars on a conventional, small-town movie screen with standard sound. Later, I saw it on a big-mother screen with Dolby and all the other whistles and bells. It made a big difference.

The first time through, I thought the movie was a well-done space western but couldn't understand all the fuss. After my second viewing, this time on a bigger screen with better sound, I understood the fuss.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[S-Des]

Example of the importance of the venue that immediately comes to mind is Lawrence of Arabia.

Yes, Fantastic Four was the same way.

 

[CharleyH]

Epics are made to be seen on the Big Screen, yet I would add also sci-fi and action. Although? I have noted that Hollywood directors these days (but for a handful like Tarantino) are not auteurs and pump things out with nor here or there attitudes. There was a time when the narrative was as important as the visual/ filmic story. The last movie I saw with those elements was called 'Birth' by Kubrick. Everything else has simply been entertaining.

Quoting for topic.

 

[Weird Harold]

So when watching a dvd do you want to see what the director intended or is the fullscreen version satisfying (which centers people and cuts people/images out of the frame)? Somewhere along the line I became a movie snob and have insisted on widescreen for along time now. (With tv's moving to that format more people will see ws by default rather than on purpose.)

It depends on what the original format was for me. A made-for-TV movie is seldom enhanced by viewing in widescreen, but a "theatrical release" is almost never enhanced by the cropping required to fit a full screen.

If a wide-screen version is available, that's usually the version I'll choose.

 

[jomar]

It depends on what the original format was for me. A made-for-TV movie is seldom enhanced by viewing in widescreen, but a "theatrical release" is almost never enhanced by the cropping required to fit a full screen.

If a wide-screen version is available, that's usually the version I'll choose.

Good point. I go for widescreen when I can too. I'm also loving hi def tv in the ws format.

 

[S-Des]

Good point. I go for widescreen when I can too. I'm also loving hi def tv in the ws format.

I buy all my DVDs in widescreen (although I don't have my widescreen TV yet). Even in smaller movies, things are enhanced by seeing it in that format. When I do get my High Def TV, it will make it that much better.

 

[Weird Harold]

Good point. I go for widescreen when I can too. I'm also loving hi def tv in the ws format.

A thread on the GB (about 2001: A Space Odessey on TMC) reminded me that there are just some movies that aren't worth a damn without the theater size screen and full Dolby/THX sound system. There's just no way to duplicate the intended effect even with the best "home theater" setup.

Of course a bit of "medical assistance" to jump-start the "suspension of disbelief" helps 2001 as much as the full theater experience does; that is one movie that should never be watched straight or sober.

IMAX movies are especially prone to be less than intended when scaled down to a smaller scale than the original format.

 

[vampiredust]

I'm a widescreen whore

you can't beat it

 

[CharleyH]

It depends on what the original format was for me. A made-for-TV movie is seldom enhanced by viewing in widescreen, but a "theatrical release" is almost never enhanced by the cropping required to fit a full screen.

Disagree - comedy and romance work fine on the small screen where they belong. Cropped or not it makes little difference. Still, I have watched some BBC productions that should be viewed on a big screen.

 

[Trombonus]

I'd definitely take Widescreen over Fullscreen.

 

[only_more_so]

I just saw a movie on dvd and had a thought (dangeous). Writers can labor over the the perfect word and wording. Directors shoot their films in a specific way.

So when watching a dvd do you want to see what the director intended or is the fullscreen version satisfying (which centers people and cuts people/images out of the frame)? Somewhere along the line I became a movie snob and have insisted on widescreen for along time now. (With tv's moving to that format more people will see ws by default rather than on purpose.)

Having an HD TV, widescreen is definately the way to go, although movie theater screens have even greater aspect ratios than HD.

Although I have heard that some movies that got transitioned to full screen had some interesting issues. Apparently some movies are shot in what is essentially fullscreen and then cropped in the editing process. So going to fullscreen they apparently merely uncrop some of the scenes. This means you get to see boom mikes and sometimes some naughty bits that were just off the edge of the screen.

 

[jomar]

Having an HD TV, widescreen is definately the way to go, although movie theater screens have even greater aspect ratios than HD.

Although I have heard that some movies that got transitioned to full screen had some interesting issues. Apparently some movies are shot in what is essentially fullscreen and then cropped in the editing process. So going to fullscreen they apparently merely uncrop some of the scenes. This means you get to see boom mikes and sometimes some naughty bits that were just off the edge of the screen.

I hadn't heard that about shooting and cropping. I did read somewhere that some directors shoot their movie in widescreen for theaters, but position the actors/scenes knowing it will be seen on fullscreen tv's.

Actually, my tv is about 5 years old, purchased after my old one "died." I considered a ws tv but they were just coming out and I think 32 inches was the largest 16:9, and expensive. Plus, very limited hd tv then. So I got a 36" sony xbr fullscreen that turns out to be able to do hd with a cable box. I am fortunate to have a home theater setup so I watch a lot of dvd's and save the theater experience for epic movies that demand a monster size screen.