AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
One reason we may lose the "widescreen" format

debate is that we keep using our enemies'

propaganda terms. In particular, we must stop

using the term "fullscreen" to say "cut down"

(or "mutilated?").


A proper "full screen" DVD would be one that

shows all (or nearly all) of what you would see

on a full movie screen. The term "fullscreen"

was adopted by videotape vendors to soft-pedal

the way they mutilated films by "formatting them

to fit your screen" (itself a euphemism for

"cutting off 1/3 or more to fit your screen,"

which is all they really do).


This is killing us. The proverbial gum-chewing

rental clerk keeps asking us, "what's your beef?

This is the fullscreen version!" Phooey! It's

the "mutilated version" and we have to talk

about it that way.


I propose that we adopt this approach:


"widescreen" shall mean (in DVD terms) "close to

original aspect ratio for theatrical presentation,

enhanced for 16x9 display." For people with

cheap TV's, their players will reduce this to...


"letterbox," which shall mean "resembles

widescreen on 4x3 displays, but loses 25% of the

vertical resolution to black bars." Note that a

"letterbox" DVD will be one that is *not*

"enhanced for 16x9 display," therefore not

"widescreen." Very wide movies (more than 1.8:1)

may technically get letterboxed before encoding

in 16x9 mode, but if they use all the vertical

resolution they can we'll call them "widescreen."


"Cut down" shall mean "panned & scanned to show

a narrow slice of the movie." The phrase

"mutilated to fit old TV screens" may also be

used where space permits.


We shall NOT USE the term "fullscreen" because

it confuses people (will they see the full

image? or will they see part of the image

filling a little screen?). When other people use

the term, we shall ask them which sense they

intend, then rephrase their comment using proper

terms.


(For example, your mother in law says: "I rented

The Great Waldo Pepper. I love Robert Redford,

but I can't understand this movie. He keeps

talking to people I can't see!"


(You say, "Sorry, Mom, that's the cutdown version,

they cut off half the picture when they made the

disc."


(She says "What's wrong? The box says "fullscreen"

on it!"


(You reply, "Oh, Mom. They're just trying to

fool you. "Fullscreen" is their code word for

"mutilated to fit old TV screens. It's like when

they put "silky soft" on polyester sheets!")
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,441 Posts
I agree for the most part. However fullscreen is any film with an OAR of 1.37 to 1.33 Academy ratio. P&S should be called Chop & Crop!:mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Well, I partly agree with William--we may need a

term for Academy-ratio (or close) movie and/or

video material. (We don't need it badly, 'cause

that's the "default" AR; widescreen is the

special case.) But "fullscreen" already carries

too much baggage. How about "full frame"? That

would cover open-matte's as well as "real" 4x3

material. We would accept "original aspect

ratio" too--studios already put that on labels

for older movies when they fear viewers might

react against perceived P&S! (Yes, I have a

number of examples on point.)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,403 Posts
Hob here what's the concern about screen ratios? Mine is 2:35:1 oh I would be some what satisfied at 1:85:1, but no Pan & Scan for me thanks. I am a wide screen lover both DVD and Vhs. BTW I just got over a 'bout' with Pneumonia, I have been away from AVS since my sickness I'm glad to be back.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
I agree, we need a new word for P&S, but it should be perceived as an informative word, not as brutal or offensive. What I'm trying to say is "fullscreen" sounds so nice, we need something that informs, isn't derogatory and rolls of the tongue easily. Unfortunately I don't have an idea :D I will continue to think about it though. These aren't very good, but just to give you an idea of what I'm thinking, something like "half screen" or "sides removed" (woah, that's really bad, but you get the idea).


Oh, and I'm in on the "Full Frame" too, that sounds good.


Glad you're feeling better Hob!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
"What I'm trying to say is "fullscreen" sounds so nice, we need something that informs, isn't derogatory and rolls of the tongue easily."


Why? Derogatory is a mild word for the way pan and scammed presentations should be characterized. "Edited to remove one-third of the picture content" would be an appropriate label for these discs, and an accurate description at that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,011 Posts
I like the chop & crop! But, how about PARTIAL-SCREEN? Partial-screen would mean the material was not intended to be 1.33 to 1. Here it is, the partial-screen presentation of BEN HUR REDUX 44%....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
Quote:
Why? Derogatory is a mild word for the way pan and scammed presentations should be characterized. "Edited to remove one-third of the picture content" would be an appropriate label for these discs, and an accurate description at that.
I agree with you, but think about it this way, if someone came up to you with an attitude would you listen to them? We need to be nice unless they start an argument. The vast majority of people will listen to what you have to say if you explain rather than attack. Let's face it though, we're all pretty passionate about this subject and sometimes get pretty upset about it when confronted by people who say "I don't care" or who don't like widescreen. Just look at this post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...threadid=86608


I like "partial screen", and I like "edited to remove one-third of the picture content". Those don't sound like attacking statements. Normally I'm all for a good offense, but I just think we need to educate and not sound like we're looking down on people. My point is we need to sound intelligent in arguing this, not like people who attach silly-sounding labels to something we don't like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,293 Posts
I never use the word "fullscreen". Haven't for years. I use P/S and when somebody asks what that means, I explain it. I have a lot of widescreen convert acquaintances. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,441 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by BuGsArEtAsTy
I never use the word "fullscreen". Haven't for years. I use P/S and when somebody asks what that means, I explain it. I have a lot of widescreen convert acquaintances. ;)
What word do you use to describe Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane? :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,293 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by William


What word do you use to describe Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane? :confused:
OK, I'll correct that. In the few times I do talk about 4:3 movies (which none of my friends watch anyway) I have mentioned "fullscreen". (So I lied a bit on this forum... ;)) However, I never use the word "fullscreen" when talking about hacked widescreen movies. I also will admit a couple of times complaining about P/S when in fact the movie was open matte.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
Quote:
I also will admit a couple of times complaining about P/S when in fact the movie was open matte.
I don't see a need to distinguish between Open Matte and P&S, I want it the way it was in the theater (including Kubrick's movies). If it was good enough for the theater it's good enough for my home theater. I saw "The Shining" at a local theater 2 months ago and it looked fantastic in 1.85:1.


Talking about Open Matte just confuses people and makes them think watching a movie in 4x3 is better than a letterboxed movie because you see more (that may or may not have been intended).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,293 Posts
Well, to be honest I like open matte more than P&S in that at least in open matte I get a glimpse into the film-making process. P/S just hacks that up so you're always seeing less than the director intended, in contrast to more than the director intended with open matte. Ideally I'd be able to see OAR and open matte movies side by side (OAR watched first of course). Watching open matte makes me think more actively about the difficulties in composing a scene. But in truth, this is just an academic exercise.


OTOH, one can always put some cardboard cutouts over the top and bottom of your TV to compensate for the opened matte. ;)


BTW, I wonder if shortcuts taken in older TV shots now so obvious on DVD could be considered "not the director's original intent". I remember seeing Star Trek as a kid and everything looked great with OTA transmission and crappy TVs. Now with my Star Trek DVDs on my widescreen HDTV everything looks odd. eg. Watching Spock with his heavy duty makeup. Man, I can even see all his pores and streaks of makeup. I suspect this is not what the director intended. But like open matte in a sense, this is preferable to seeing less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
"We need to be nice unless they start an argument. The vast majority of people will listen to what you have to say if you explain rather than attack."


Agreed - that's why I like the idea of "edited to remove 1/3 of the picture content". It sounds sufficiently technical that most people won't immediately see it for what it is - "chop and crop", but it gets the message across in a fairly non-confrontational way that the viewer is indeed missing something instead of gaining a "fullscreen".
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top