Talk:Fullscreen (cinema)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

[edit] Fullscreen DVDs and Widescreen TVs

With the advent of 1.78:1 television sets, as opposed to 1.33:1 ones, full-screen DVD versions of widescreen films are arguably obsolete, but some retailers (such as Wal-Mart) insists that full-screen (or 1.33:1) versions of films originally in widescreen be made available. If a full-screen DVD is played on a 1.78:1 television set, the image would be pillarboxed (thus having vertical black bars). If Blu-Ray becomes the standards, then full screen would definitely be obsolete. There will probably be no 1.33:1 Blu-Ray discs of films originally presented in widescreen. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would Blu-Ray preclude studios from releasing full screen versions? It would seem that widescreen TVs are the factor that will change things. Girolamo Savonarola 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What is called "full screen version" in DVD format would be called "(pan and scan) 4:3 version" or "(pan and scan) 1.33:1 version" in Blu-Ray, because Blu-Ray discs are designed for widescreen TVs. 1.33:1 Blu-ray discs would feature pillarboxing. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 03:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point - the storage technology is ratio agnostic. It's the televisions which force the point. In any case, a 1.33 disc can be shown at full-width on a widescreen TV, which should (roughly) restore the original aspect ratio, assuming that the full screen process is open matte and not pan and scan. Girolamo Savonarola 06:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's safely said that

(1) Widescreen televisions with a 16:9 screen ratio have become the norm for LCD, plasma, and projection screens. Creating 1.33:1 (fullscreen) versions of feature films screened in widescreen formats is a travesty for such televisions. (Open matte, in which the image is framed in fullscreen and then cut to fit a widescreen image for cinema, might be tolerable for viewing in full frame). That might appropriately be offered in dual versions, as both formats exist in reality. Pan-and-scan chopping of sides from a film leads to cinematic travesties -- and is rightly avoided, especially by those who own widescreen televisions.

(2) In 2007, the 1.33:1 screen ratio for televisions is now in use only for the least-expensive televisions. This ordinarily suggests obsolescence. The trend is toward widescreen televisions, and I would not be surprised that by 2009 widescreen becomes the norm even on the smallest TVs in the United States. Anyone who buys chopped versions of widescreen films cheats himself. Someone who tries to fill a 16:9 screen with an already-chopped (full frame) movie either distorts the image or loses visible area twice -- 25% from the first chopping and 25% from the second chopping, getting a bloated version of a film cut 43.375% by both the sides and the top and bottom. That is a huge loss of image.

(3) Blue-ray or HD DVD players, as technological novelties, are now high-end purchases. People who buy these aren't buying them to play back movies on obsolescent televisions, including anything with a standard screen ratio.

(4) Wal-Mart tends to have more of a low-end clientele than do specialty retailers. It kept selling VHS tapes (talk about obsolescence!) after many retailers quit selling them. Wal-Mart has a significant late-adapter (poor or penny-pinching) clintele, but once that clientele quits buying something, Wal-Mart removes the unsalable stuff from stock. Full-frame versions of widescreen video are clearly for late-adapters, people who do not yet buy HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs or players. Wal-Mart still sells standard-ratio televisions up to 27" in August 2007... but I would not be surprised if it closed them out as it recently did with 32" standard-ratio sets.

It is more likely that purchasers of Blu-Ray or HD DVD already own widescreen LCD, plasma, or projection televisions, and are not going to connect them to anything other than first-rate televisions.

(5) The proper presentation for any movie is ordinarily the original screen ratio. It is conceivable that films that in their cinematic releases had 4:3 ratios might be cut laterally to accommodate widescreen televisions. That is a mistake by someone who owns a copy of the film, and a travesty by some entity that distributes film disks.--Paul from Michigan 18:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question

I saw a movie on an ancient VHS cassette once (I forget what the movie was) in which a widescreen image was actually stretched vertically in a video release, giving a distorted image throughout the entire movie. Obviously, this was a horrible idea, and was abandoned long ago, but I'm curious: Does anybody know the name for this method of displaying a 16:9 movie on a 4:3 screen? (Other than "mangling"?) Does anyone know where there's even the least bit of info about it? Thanks.  :) 63.229.18.239 (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)