# DVD sales figures: WIDE SCREEN vs FULL



## stevelabny (Mar 6, 2003)

does anyone know where I can find sales figures that compare how many copies of a DVD sold were widescreen as opposed to full screen?

I'm pretty positive that Widescreen way outsells Fullscreen but I want to see the numbers to be sure.

I dont know if anyone else has noticed, but if a DVD comes in two seperate versions, Blockbuster is only stocking the Full Screen.
Which is completely ridiculous. 

steve


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 6, 2003)

I don't rent many movies, but I've certainly noticed a change in at least two rental places: Blockbuster and Movie Gallery. Maybe it's just here, but do they not bother catagorizing movies anymore at all? Both chains here just have 'Drama' and 'Comedy', which is kinda useless to me.


----------



## stevelabny (Mar 6, 2003)

id rather they DONT try to categorize movies.
they NEVER get them right

any cross-genre movie gives them nightmares.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 6, 2003)

Personally I prefer full screen, and I am so sick of only having access to wide screen editions for purchase at places like CostCo and Target.


----------



## stevelabny (Mar 6, 2003)

ok, i have to ask...

WHY oh why do you prefer FULL SCREEN?

do you prefer having 1/2 the movie chopped off?

do you not plan on buying a HDTV in the next few years to take advantage of all the TV shows that are already or soon going to be broadcast in widescreen HD? 

the only way i can see someone preferring FULL SCREEN is if they have a TV smaller than 25 inches. and if thats the case, they should be buying a new TV before they buy a DVD player.

steve


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 6, 2003)

I have a 20-inch, and all of my movie DVD collection are widescreen version.

I still have my collection of VHS that are all fullscreen, and to be honest, it doesn't compare to the widescreen DVD. The reason why I went with widescreen DVD is the movie experience, and the despite the fact that I use a 20-inch TV with S-Video input but no Hi-Definition, with a DVD player with no Progressive Scan ... it's pretty clear.


----------



## Argus Decimus Mokira (Mar 6, 2003)

Whoah - easy Steve ... the man likes pan 'n scan, 'nuff said.  

Personally I hate it more than anything.  I remember the first time I saw a movie with "the black bars" - on The Empire Strikes Back, one of my fav movies ever.  That prolly has some kind of weird subconscious effect on me, forcing me to love widescreen.

Oh, something useful in regards to the actual thread? No, not a clue where you'd find that.

-Matt


----------



## Ristamar (Mar 6, 2003)

'Fullscreen' is an evil misnomer that should be eradicated from existence.  The people I know that prefer fullscreen don't even realize that half the movie is being chopped off, and generally convert to the Widescreen faithful once the truth is made clear to them.  

I have to say, though, it's a good marketing gimmick for selling an inferior product...


----------



## Welverin (Mar 6, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *Personally I prefer full screen, and I am so sick of only having access to wide screen editions for purchase at places like CostCo and Target. *




You sir are an evil, evil man.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Mar 6, 2003)

Ristamar said:
			
		

> *'Fullscreen' is an evil misnomer that should be eradicated from existence.  The people I know that prefer fullscreen don't even realize that half the movie is being chopped off, and generally convert to the Widescreen faithful once the truth is made clear to them.
> 
> I have to say, though, it's a good marketing gimmick for selling an inferior product... *




This is very true.  I had some friends who couldn't understand why all the movies I have (on VHS and DVD) had black bars at the top and bottom of the sceen.  Then we watched some of the director's commentary of Star Trek IV where Nimoy shows exactly what happens to a Pan n' Scan movie to format it to a square TV.

They have never bought a PnS movie since and actually became angry when we would go to rent something and could only find PnS versions.

Fixed that by going to Roger's Video (a huge cable supplier here in Ontario) - I have never not been able to get the widescreen version of any recent movie there.

The term 'full screen' is a wonderful marketing gimmick - my friends thought they were getting a bigger picture with it!


edit - there's a link to show what happens to PnS movies - warning this may shock and upset you 

http://kdfalin.topcities.com/fullscreen_vs_widescreen.html


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 6, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> ok, i have to ask...
> 
> WHY oh why do you prefer FULL SCREEN?
> 
> do you prefer having 1/2 the movie chopped off?




It isn't half. It isn't even a quarter.



> do you not plan on buying a HDTV in the next few years to take advantage of all the TV shows that are already or soon going to be broadcast in widescreen HD?




Do I not plan on it? Yes I not plan on it.  My current TV is just fine.



> the only way i can see someone preferring FULL SCREEN is if they have a TV smaller than 25 inches. and if thats the case, they should be buying a new TV before they buy a DVD player.
> 
> steve




While not as small as 25 inches, it is small enough, based on the distance my furniture has to be from the TV.  Nor would a bigger TV even fit in my entertainment center - which would cause a massive cascade of new furniture at this point.  I prefer the look of a full screen, rather than losing about 25% of my viewable area.  It is better to be able to SEE details in the larger viewing area (even if there are fewer of those details to see) than NOT see details in the widescreen version (even if there are more details to be seen, except I cannot see them because they are too small).

I'm not the only person I know with this opinion.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 6, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *It isn't half. It isn't even a quarter.
> 
> .....
> 
> I'm not the only person I know with this opinion. *





Well, the actual ratio depends on the individual shot being 'panned-and-scanned'.  Sometimes it really IS half of the image.  More commonly, though, it's about a quarter to a third.  It depends on the aspect ratio of the original movie, and the compositions of the shots.  Some old movies have ratios that almost match a normal TV.  

That said, while I hate Hate HATE P&S movies, there's nothing wrong with them, inherently.  I personally wouldn't want to watch a film like "The Seven Samurai" or "Ran" in a full-screen presentation, but I can understand why it would not be the preference for some folks.  At least, I don't mind now that I can actually *get* widescreen presentations at home.  Choice, for both of us, is a good thing.


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Mar 6, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> *do you prefer having 1/2 the movie chopped off?
> *




Nonsense. Do you think such hyperbole serves you in any way?

I prefer full screen. I have compared the two enough times to realize what is "chopped off" is rarely of much value to my entertainment of the movie.

SD


----------



## Ristamar (Mar 6, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *That said, while I hate Hate HATE P&S movies, there's nothing wrong with them, inherently.*




I think filmmaker's who have their work butchered by P&S may disagree.   

But seriously, I just wish Fullscreen would always be referred to as Pan 'n' Scan, even on the packaging.  I have a feeling fewer consumers would be duped, or at they least they may become less ignorant of what they are purchasing.  Of course, Fullscreen sounds beneficial and cool, which is easy to market, so us Widescreen folk will simply have to keep fighting the good fight.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 6, 2003)

Ristamar said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think filmmaker's who have their work butchered by P&S may disagree.   *




One might make a case that the Hollywood system probably did that before they *MADE* the movie, but that's just me. 

Make no mistake, I get downright uppity if I find I can't get a widescreen version of a film.  I just think that a person can enjoy the film with P&S....but they're not getting the whole film, certainly.  Watching a visually powerful film like, say, "Blade Runner" is a different experience in widescreen than fullscreen.  Of course, with the proliferation of the new TVs, fullscreen is no longer an appropriate descriptor.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 6, 2003)

Ristamar said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think filmmaker's who have their work butchered by P&S may disagree.
> 
> But seriously, I just wish Fullscreen would always be referred to as Pan 'n' Scan, even on the packaging. *




Yes, there's a reason its nicknamed FOOLSCREEN.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 6, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It isn't half. It isn't even a quarter.*




More evidence that many who enjoy Pan and Scan are just ignorant.  A 2.35:1 aspect ratio film (like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Crouching Tiger, etc.) cropped and displayed on a 4:3 television is losing almost exactly half the picture.

But I do understand that some people just don't care about what was actually shot and intended to show up on screen.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Mar 6, 2003)

I prefer widescreen, but fully understand why others like the Fullscreen.  What is chopped off is usually not missed, well unless it is some nudity in the background, but that is besides the point.

Some movies are a pain in widescreen, the black lines take up too much of the screen and really as mentioned above you use more of your TV, but get less of the background of the film.  It seems a fair trade.  After all, I bought a 35" TV and rarely see movies that use the whole thing.  Did I waste money on a big TV?

No I also don't plan on buying a HD or widescreen TV for several years.  The price, while dropping, is still way too expensive for my budget.  Anyway some French company is designing a TV that you can roll up like a mat and store in your cabinet when you are not using it.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 6, 2003)

I don't understand why movies that have a fullscreen version don't have both versions on the same DVD. Ought to be plenty of space -- heck, it might be able to use the same track, and just show part of the shot. You'd just have to encode data so it could pan & scan appropriately.

I have a DVD player that can be set to show a DVD in fullscreen, even if the DVD is widescreen. I don't use the feature, so I don't know if it distorts the screen, pans & scans, or what. But it's there. 

Me, I'm glad CostCo sales widescreen; they're not likely to sell two versions of one product, and I'm not going to buy fullscreen DVDs, and I like buying DVDs at CostCo. Good prices.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 6, 2003)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> *I don't understand why movies that have a fullscreen version don't have both versions on the same DVD. Ought to be plenty of space -- heck, it might be able to use the same track, and just show part of the shot. You'd just have to encode data so it could pan & scan appropriately.*




Some DVDs do just that.  But some, like Fellowship, are packed with so many extras, there really isn't room.  Some put them on the flip side of the disc, but I really hate that solution.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 7, 2003)

Well, let's all agree that Fullscreen are useful for small TVs (screens less than 20 inches) such as a dorm room standard 13-inch, unless your floor is blessed with a common room-slash-den with a 27-inch TV.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Mar 7, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *It isn't half. It isn't even a quarter.*




Depends on the movie.  With many films, it is indeed a fraction under 50% of the image.

Now, if you're watching, say, _Terms of Endearment_... well, you're crazy, first off, but it won't much matter which format it's in.

The most famous illustration of this is _Blade Runner_.  Watch it in Pan-n-Scan, then watch it in widescreen.  It's like a completely different movie.  Did you miss the bit in the bacground where a motorcyclist was jucking into his bike?  If you saw the movie in Pan-n-Scan, you did.

To take a more recent example, FotR.  During the fight at Amon Hen there's all kinds of stuff going on in the background, including Aragorn grappling with an Orc while Legolas picks several more off.



> *I'm not the only person I know with this opinion. *




No, you're not.  _Most_ people who have this opinion, however do so because they don't realize that they're missing about 48% of the movie, just like you didn't.

As for not missing the part of the film cut off by Pan-n-Scan... well, how would you know?


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Mar 7, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> Did you miss the bit in the bacground where a motorcyclist was jucking into his bike?   *




Oh my go..why that makes the movie so much...err.. wait.. no.. that does not change the movie one bit. It is still boring.



> No, you're not. Most people who have this opinion, however do so because they don't realize that they're missing about 48% of the movie, just like you didn't.




"Missing" unimportant background is not missing the movie.

SD


----------



## jasper (Mar 7, 2003)

watch the old black and white Bringing up baby in pan and scan.
Or ben hur widescreen.
pan and scan is okay but think of this way. Two lovers sitting in two chairs talking and slowly leading over to kiss. To widescreen two lovers sitting  on opposide of couch then slowly leaning and kiss and you still see both ends of the couch.
yeah in wide screen you do loss detail for more detail.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 7, 2003)

A good example is the original Star Wars Trilogy.  There is so much going on in the stuff that is cut that it really does feel like a different movie.  It's not for everyone and many movies (most comedies, for example) don't need the widescreen treatment but I do think it makes movies that were made to be seen that way all the better.

Right now, I am saving up for a 16x9 widescreen capacity TV (not a big screen).  They are not cheap but I want to watch movies and play games on it, so it's worth the wait.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 7, 2003)

*Are you serious?*



			
				Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *"Missing" unimportant background is not missing the movie.
> SD *




Are you really saying that cinematography amounts to nothing more than "unimportant background". That the way a scene is framed, composed and shot has no impact on the drama, on what is being conveyed by the scene?

To me that's the equivalent of saying that acting isn't important. Have the actors deliver every line completely flat. You'd still get the gist of the story. Or to switch media, its like saying the colors an artist chooses for a painting are unimportant beacuse either way you'd still see the basic shape...

Sure, to what degree pan-and-scan affects a film varies greatly. I don't really need to see the widescreen version of "My Dinner with Andre". But for the works of directors from Kurasawa to Lucas you're missing something vital if you don't see the flim as shot.

I'm all for consumers having choices, but to relegate the visual component of film to background seems way off base...


----------



## Sagan Darkside (Mar 7, 2003)

*Re: Are you serious?*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Are you really saying that cinematography amounts to nothing more than "unimportant background". *




I am saying that people have enjoyed these movies long before wide screen was an option- and are perfectly capable of enjoying them now without it. 

Regardless of what these apparently wide screen snobs think. 

Sheeshus, what a stupid thing to be an arrogant jerk about. (Not you in particular- just about this thread in general.)

SD


----------



## Mallus (Mar 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Are you serious?*



			
				Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I am saying that people have enjoyed these movies long before wide screen was an option- and are perfectly capable of enjoying them now without it.
> 
> ...




No offense taken. 

Really my only point was that the way a scene looks on the screen carries dramatic weight. Its not --or at least it shouldn't-- merely be decoration.

And not to try to speak for anyone else, but the arrogant jerkiness isn't over the quality of ones AV gear, it has to do with film as an artistic medium. I watched plenty of great old films on a 20' black and white set as kid growing up and loved them. But that's not the same thing as saying that the cinematograhic artistry employed demonstrated in them was unimportant...


----------



## Ristamar (Mar 7, 2003)

Sagan Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I am saying that people have enjoyed these movies long before wide screen was an option- and are perfectly capable of enjoying them now without it.
> 
> ...




Well, of course you can enjoy Fullscreen movies.  I don't think anyone argued that you couldn't (at least I hope not).  I still enjoy them, too, but I prefer Widescreen by far.

To tell you the truth, before I started watching a lot of DVD's, I didn't care about it all that much because there wasn't much of a choice.  Most movies released on VHS didn't offer widescreen versions.

Now that DVD is the medium of the moment, I've realized how much I've been missing all these years (though, as others have already said, the actual screen percentage and the importance of the 'chopped' content varies depending on the movie and somewhat on the viewer).  

I'll never buy another Fullscreen movie again if there's a Widescreen version available because I believe Fullscreen is an inferior product, technically and aesthetically, and I know many others that have adopted a similar mindset...   unfortunately, sometimes people become a little too passionate about their beliefs, myself included.

Anyway, getting to the point...   I believe one reason you'll find some Widescreen folk are touchy is due to certain stupid movie rental chains *cough*Blockbuster*cough* that won't always stock Widescreen editions.  And then there's also the misnomer that is 'Fullscreen', causing many people to avoid Widescreen because of misinformation, which then cause the afomentioned movie rental chains stores to continue neglecting Widescreen editions in favor Fullscreen, when applicable.  Hence, the Widescreen lovers feel cheated by this viscious circle.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 7, 2003)

I really think the widescreen folks are missing the point.  And since I was repeatedly quoted out of context, I suspect at least a little intent behind it.

Look, the position for fullscreen is pretty clear I think for those who like it, but I will repeat it once again in an exagerated form so nobody misses the point.

Which would be better: 1) To look on a small painting from 100 feet away, or 2) to look on half of that painting from 1 foot away.

The answer is obvious to me: you cannot see any details of the painting from 100 feet away, and it would be better to see details from one foot away, even if you only see half the painting.

It is the same for us fullscreen folks, though less exagerated.  We feel the loss of details inherant in widescreen, because everything on the screen gets smaller, is not worth it.  At some point smaller details become unclear details, and eventually unseeable details for everyone.  We have drawn that point with all movies (or at least most) because of the size of our TV, the distance we have to sit from the TV, our vision, or just the asthetics of a full screen.

And yes, I have compared the two systems, using the same movie, a few times.  You really do lose less than 50% - far less - for every movie I tried.  Perhaps there is some kind of compresion going on with fullscreen editions (like movie theatres use), and perhaps I just got a bad random sample (all I had was widescreen editions from friends to compare to the same fullscreen ones I had).

However, I took the case of star wars in particular - and y'all are not correct.  I have an old VHS copy of A New Hope, and a DVD widescreen version - and it is NOT a 50% loss.  FAR FAR from that.  I don't know what you guys are talking about with that example. 

In conclusion, we can both agree to disagree on this one - but please stop saying fullscreen people are all ignorant about what they are getting.  It is a perfectly reasonable choice to use fullscreen versions rather than widescreen.   It's just a matter of preference.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2003)

How the heck did you get a DVD copy of A New Hope?  I thought the original SW trilogy hadn't been released on DVD yet, and wouldn't be until the new trilogy was completed!!


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 7, 2003)

mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *How the heck did you get a DVD copy of A New Hope?  I thought the original SW trilogy hadn't been released on DVD yet, and wouldn't be until the new trilogy was completed!!  *




It's just the VHS widescreen copy burned to DVD...


----------



## Ristamar (Mar 7, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's just the VHS widescreen copy burned to DVD... *




Damn.  You had my hopes up for a very brief second.  

Anyway, I just looked at my last post and realized I was ridiculously unclear about the point I was trying to make...  (I have to stop posting in a rush from work).  Even though it's my opinion that Fullscreen is 'teh suX0r', I'm cool with people preferring Fullscreen, and I think it's great you guys did actual comparisons to find your preference.  My apologies if I came off as snobbish or condescending.

All in all, I simply wish stores would try to educate consumers with their purchases and rentals.  Since Fullscreen was the unchallenged standard during the VHS era, the average guy that walks into a video store doesn't understand the difference between Full and Wide.  The end result is people who are left unsatisfied, either because the format they want isn't available (as in stevelabny's case), or they find there are 'strange black bars' stealing screen space when they watch a movie.

Now, to get on-topic for once...  try www.411mania.com to check DVD sales charts.  It seems the site is down at the moment, but I looked at a cached page on google which listed DVD sales rankings when the Scorpion King debuted on DVD.  The Fullscreen version came in at #1 while the Widescreen version was at #2.  Unfortunately, they didn't list the sales numbers for each title on the chart.  You might be able to garner some basic comparisons, though, once the site is up and running again.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 7, 2003)

From that site you mentioned:

TOP DVD SALES 
For week of March 8th, 2003 

1. My Big Fat Greek Wedding (1st week out)
2. Sweet Home Alabama (2nd week out)
3. Brown Sugar (1st week out)
4. Dinner with Friends (1st week out)
5. X-Men 1.5 (1st week out)
6. The Bourne Identity - Widescreen (4th week out)
7. Signs - Widescreen (7th week out)
8. The Bourne Identity - Pan & Scan (4th week out)
9. 101 Dalmations II: Patch's London Adventure (4th week out)
10. Angel - Season 1 (1st week out)


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 7, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *And yes, I have compared the two systems, using the same movie, a few times.  You really do lose less than 50% - far less - for every movie I tried.  Perhaps there is some kind of compresion going on with fullscreen editions (like movie theatres use), and perhaps I just got a bad random sample (all I had was widescreen editions from friends to compare to the same fullscreen ones I had).*




Perhaps some of your incorrect information stems from watching VHS movies that were originally shot in Super 35, or "open matte".  The Matrix, Jurassic Park and Titanic are a few examples.  Its a "TV friendly" format where the filmmakers shoot a film with a 4:3 television aspect ratio with the intent to crop it to for display in movie theatres.  The "intended vision" and true shot composition is what's shown in the wider format, and sometimes things such as sound booms and such can be seen in the open matte format when its shown on TV, but its a choice some directors make to prevent their films from being butchered on TV and video.

It should be noted that special effect sequences too expense to create only to be cropped for theatrical release are created for the widescreen format then Pan and Scanned for TV like a film normally would.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *However, I took the case of star wars in particular - and y'all are not correct.  I have an old VHS copy of A New Hope, and a DVD widescreen version - and it is NOT a 50% loss.  FAR FAR from that.  I don't know what you guys are talking about with that example.
> 
> In conclusion, we can both agree to disagree on this one - but please stop saying fullscreen people are all ignorant about what they are getting.  It is a perfectly reasonable choice to use fullscreen versions rather than widescreen.   It's just a matter of preference. *




You make it hard to claim you aren't ignorant when you believe that Star Wars shown in 4:3 ratio is FAR, FAR from being a 50% loss of a 2.35:1 ratio.  Sorry.  Do the math.  Its about half.  Maybe you shouldn't base your conclusions on half-ass DVD bootlegs.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 7, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> You make it hard to claim you aren't ignorant when you believe that Star Wars shown in 4:3 ratio is FAR, FAR from being a 50% loss of a 2.35:1 ratio.  Sorry.  Do the math.  Its about half.  Maybe you shouldn't base your conclusions on half-ass DVD bootlegs. *




I don't know why you are being so aggressive, but calling me ignorant when your beliefs are theory only, while mine are based on doing the actual experiment, is pretty rude.

It isn't a "bootleg", it's my own copy from my own VHS tape, and it isn't a half-assed job.  I just wanted it in DVD (which is much easier to store) rather than VHS.

But just to satisfy my own curiosity, I pulled out the original VHS tapes, and right now I have two identical size TVs set up in my den, with two VCRs.  On one is the Silver VHS version (widescreen), and on the other is the gold version (fullscreen).  They came out at the same time, and are the same exact versions with the exeception of the formatting. They are playing, right now, right in front of me, virtually perfectly synced up (there is about a third of a second difference in their playing...so the sound is echoing from one TV to the next - it's a bit odd).

I wish my digital camera had a battery right now...I could post a picture of it (though pictures of Tv screens never look good).

The loss is not 50%. It's not even 40%.  It's not just obvious to the eye, but I can actually measure with a tape measure on the screen the loss on each side, and divide that into the total distance across the screen.  It is about a 36% loss.

In addition, it is easy to also spot the loss of detail you get by going to widescreen.  In the scene I am watching right now, little detail on R2D2's casing is lost on the widescreen, because it is so small (unless I move my chair much closer to the screen).  Those details are easily seen on the fullscreen version.

Which would Lucas prefer I see of his movie, the details on R2D2, or the wall he built next to R2D2 right now that I cannot see on the fullscreen version? I don't know.  I suspect he would feel both are important, and would tell me to go see it in the theatre where it belongs, and quit watching two TV sets at the same time.

My conclusions are based on facts. Actual measurements, and actually doing the experiment.  Yours are based on theory, not fact.  Do the experiment yourself, and you will find I am correct.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 7, 2003)

*What really gets me about pan and scan...*

...is the way it shifts the locus of attention in scenes. Consider a shot with two characters talking where you see the speaker fully but can olny see the bridge of the nose on the other. You lose the reactions of the listener. I can't site a specific scene/film but I'm certain I've seen that in some pan and scan jobs. I think in most good films virtually every element of the shot is working to produce an effect. 

What's more important, the original aspect ratio or close-up detail? For me, its aspect ratio. I think losing the whole of the scene is potentially far more damaging to a film. To each his/her own. But I can can always sit closer to my hardly impressive 27' TV.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 7, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't know why you are being so aggressive, but calling me ignorant when your beliefs are theory only, while mine are based on doing the actual experiment, is pretty rude.*




Do you understand what an aspect ratio is?  It isn't a theory, it isn't an expiriment, its a literal figure.

A 2.35:1 film cropped for a 4:3 TV loses *exactly* 43.26% of the picture.  That's a little under half.  Claiming that its nowhere near half is simply being ignorant.  Not a jerk, just _ignorant_.  And that's a fact.  If that seems rude, then I apologize.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 7, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Do you understand what an aspect ratio is?  It isn't a theory, it isn't an expiriment, its a literal figure.
> 
> A 2.35:1 film cropped for a 4:3 TV loses exactly 43.26% of the picture.  That's a little under half.  Claiming that its nowhere near half is simply being ignorant.  Not a jerk, just ignorant.  And that's a fact.  If that seems rude, then I apologize. *




Kai, your theory is that you have the aspect ratio correct, given to you by someone else.  You have faith that what they did and the information you have is accurate. I am looking at it, right here, right now.  How can I be ignorant when I am looking right at the thing you are talking about, and telling you it is not what you think it is.  I am measuring it, in real time.  Perhaps they used some kind of compression while formatting the fullscreen version, perhaps your information is just inaccurate, but I am viewing the ACTUAL FILMS, side by by, and it is not a loss of 50%, nor 43%.  It measures at 36% (which is nowhere near 50%).

I didn't call you a jerk, I just said you are being overly aggressive and rude.  At this point, I'd ask you to view the actual movies to see for yourself.

Can anyone else out there do this experiment and let Kai know how it turns out?


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 7, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Kai, your theory is that you have the aspect ratio correct, given to you by someone else.*




*STAR WARS is presented in its 2.35:1 Theatrical Aspect Ratio.*--printed on the back of the official THX Laserdisc release.

End of discussion.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 7, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> 
> STAR WARS is presented in its 2.35:1 Theatrical Aspect Ratio.--printed on the back of the official THX Laserdisc release.
> 
> End of discussion. *




It isn't end of discussion - I didn't use the laserdisc (you're the first to even mention it), nor is it gospel just because it is in print.

Measuring it directly is more accuarte than trusting the back of a laserdisc.  It is the most accurate you can get...or are you calling me a liar or my measuring tape inaccurate?

WHY are you so worked up over this issue? And why do you ignore all but the small portion of my posts that you feel like arguing about?  At this point you are trying to discuss a difference of 7%, when the real issue is: Can you understand (not agree, just understand) that some people perfer more detail with less visable scene, while others prefer more visable scene with less detail? Or is your position that ONLY widescreen is valid, that everyone's opinion on fullscreen is ignorant, and they must agree with your opinion or else you will conclude they are ignorant (and not just having a valid difference of opinion)?

Isn't it just possible people can prefer fullscreen and yet be educated on the subject?


----------



## Viking Bastard (Mar 7, 2003)

Guys. Chill. Really.

This is a stupid thing to start a flamefest over.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 7, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *Guys. Chill. Really.
> 
> This is a stupid thing to start a flamefest over. *



Too true.  Watch what you like.  Bottom line is that some folks don't mind loosing some of the picture and some do.  No big.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2003)

Y'all are right. I'm embarassed I got in to it.  Sorry for the overly emotional reactions.


----------



## stevelabny (Mar 8, 2003)

heh. i really was just trying to get the sales figures and not start a flame war.
thanks ristamar for the link, but i've nosed around the site for a few minutes and still havent stumbled across the dvd-rankings, just lots of other nonsense

and i am amused the argus whoaed ME way back at the beginning of the thread

maybe this topic should be added to relgiion, politics and 3.5e vs 3e as taboo subjects nobody should talk about

steve


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> *heh. i really was just trying to get the sales figures and not start a flame war.
> thanks ristamar for the link, but i've nosed around the site for a few minutes and still havent stumbled across the dvd-rankings, just lots of other nonsense
> 
> and i am amused the argus whoaed ME way back at the beginning of the thread
> ...




Again, here it is:

TOP DVD SALES 
For week of March 8th, 2003 

1. My Big Fat Greek Wedding (1st week out)
2. Sweet Home Alabama (2nd week out)
3. Brown Sugar (1st week out)
4. Dinner with Friends (1st week out)
5. X-Men 1.5 (1st week out)
6. The Bourne Identity - Widescreen (4th week out)
7. Signs - Widescreen (7th week out)
8. The Bourne Identity - Pan & Scan (4th week out)
9. 101 Dalmations II: Patch's London Adventure (4th week out)
10. Angel - Season 1 (1st week out)


----------



## stevelabny (Mar 8, 2003)

yeah i saw that on the thread. i just wondered if the site had past weeks results archived, or actual numbers anywhere.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Mar 8, 2003)

You picked the perfect movie to prove the difference between wide-screen and full-screen.

The full-screen version of Star Wars ANH comes out very poorly against the wide-screen version.

Just go ahead and watch the lightsaber duel between Obiwan and Vader in FS and tell me what you think. Then go and watch the same saber duel on FS.

Its not just aspect that is changed. There are several points in that duel that are completely removed from the FS version.

Why?

Because Obiwan and Vader were at opposite ends of the screen and thus FS could not in any way be arranged to fit the scene onto the FS screen.

This is where FS loses out. It isnt so much in the lose of the top and bottom of the screen. It is in entire segments of the movie(few seconds here, few seconds there) that have to be entirely cut because no matter how they were played with they just would not fit the FS format.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 8, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My conclusions are based on facts. Actual measurements, and actually doing the experiment.  Yours are based on theory, not fact.  Do the experiment yourself, and you will find I am correct. *





No you are not.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html


----------



## Skade (Mar 8, 2003)

In a good Pan and Scan, there are a number of tricks that can be used by video editors to reduce the changes necessary to crop to the screen.  The editors do the best they can to preserve the film in those cases that cinematography really matters.  You also have to consider that multiple cameras could be used, to provide smaller framed shots for certain scenes.  Obviously some movies are just tossed together and forgotten about, but since Star Wars is one of the big examples being used, you can bet that Lucasfilm did the best they could to preserve the movies integrity.

I am not personally a fan of Pan and Scan, but I must say that Mistwell has a point about the distance, and PnS on a "smaller" television.  Sometimes its just better to get the meat of the pic, and move on.  No point in going blind trying to see a 2 inch aragorn grappling an orc.  

The other side of it is for you Widescreen fanatics, is that a movie in its original ratio is a beautiful thing, which once upon a time we could only fully experience by sitting in a theatre.  Now, we can do it at home with our progressive scan, DTS, THX certified DVD player and sound system, and our 1081i resolution big screens.  It sometimes looks better than the theatre.  Not everyone has that, and not everyone wants it.  Pan and Scan has its place, and I still own, and view both.  I still buy both, partially because I sometimes use the small TV in the office, or the garage.

As to having both versions on a disc, it is more than possible.  Very few movies utilize the full capacity of their discs.  Even those Collectors Series 2 disc sets rarely fill a disc.  The only reason they come in 2 discs so often is for marketting.  The reason that multi versions sets wont come out on 2 discs is to prevent easy piracy.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2003)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> No you are not.
> ...




I saw that site.  It is totally flawed.  Those are not actual screen shots from the movie taken from each version.  It is a shot from the widescreen, reduced by the web page owner to portray what he THINKS the fullscreen version will look like based on the aspect ratio written on the package.   You can tell this, since the top-to-bottom measurement on each screen is identical, which of course it is not (widescreen is substantially smaller in this respect).  By doing it that way and not showing the actual size difference, that site is fundamentally dishonest in what it is portraying in my opinion.

But, again, I want to be clear.  I think both options are perfectly acceptable - some people prefer widescreen, others fullscreen, both are acceptable choices.

Is your position that nobody can reasonably prefer fullscreen? That everyone who prefers fullscreen is ignorant?


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I saw that site.  It is totally flawed.  Those are not actual screen shots from the movie taken from each version.  It is a shot from the widescreen, reduced by the web page owner to portray what he THINKS the fullscreen version will look like based on the aspect ratio written on the package. *




That's correct.  The history of formatting and the entire photographic film industry, and all records thereof, are nothing more than a massive conspiracy to undermine Mistwell and his magic tape measure.

Hey Mistwell, you want debunk another international conspiracy?  Its the lie that the moon is thousands of miles away.  Just walk outside, hold one end of your tape measure against the horizon, and position the opposite end against the moon.  Look, the moon is only inches away from Earth!  Its true!  In fact, anyone can perform this simple expiriment, and anyone who tries to explain otherwise is simply aggressive and rude.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 8, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I saw that site.  It is totally flawed.  Those are not actual screen shots from the movie taken from each version.  It is a shot from the widescreen, reduced by the web page owner to portray what he THINKS the fullscreen version will look like based on the aspect ratio written on the package.   You can tell this, since the top-to-bottom measurement on each screen is identical, which of course it is not (widescreen is substantially smaller in this respect).  By doing it that way and not showing the actual size difference, that site is fundamentally dishonest in what it is portraying in my opinion.
> *




Do you have proof that those are not screen shots of the films in question? Other than your eye I mean? 


_All of the examples shown on this page are freeze frames of actual DVD video, taken from discs which include both full frame and widescreen versions. The widescreen version will always be on the left._ 

Why do you debate this? Simply because it is a point different than youre own? I'll tell you what, when I worked at Tower Video over ten - thriteen years ago, back when I go into LD's, my supervisor and I did the comparison tests on our monitors in the store. We used two films that we knew that were pure 2.35:1, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Yojimbo. We used the Pan and Scan versions of these films to compare against (the P&S version of yojimbo was a VHS copy but it makes no difference, the debate is over the aspect ratio not the resoolution). 

We had each film side by side with it's respective opposite:

Raiders (ws) next to Raiders (P&S)

Yojimbo (WS) next to Yojimbo (P&S)

I'll tell you what I saw not taking the size of the viewing medium (i.e the Monitor) into account, were taking about just the *IMAGE* that is being presented. You are losing a significant amount of information from either side at any given moment. 

There's a scene in Raiders just when things are abou,t to go to hell in Marions bar. There's a standoff between Indy and Toht ( the Nazi with the glasses) and his henchmen. In the P&S version (at least the one that I saw, and I owned a P&S version of Raiders for at least a year until the WS version came out, Indy just turns and fires off to the left for no apparent reason. 

In the WS version you can VISIBLY see that there is a shadow moving along the wall to his left, implying that someone was trying to get the drop on him and that's why he fired. No it's quite possible that in newer version of the P&S they could have fixed this by cutting accross to show the shadow, then cutting back to INDY firing. But then that's the studio re-editing for what they want you to see as opposed to letting you notice for yourself.

Now if you prefer P&S that's your buisness. But as someone who graduated from college with a Major in Media Studies and a minor in film and has had this discussion many a time with collegues and professors I can only say that everyone that I've spoken to would say that you do lose a significant part of the intended viewing image with P&S (at least with films shot in 2.35:1 and greater). I mean in older movies like Ben Hur you are even losing more. 

Stick to your guns if you wish, but I've been having this discussion with people since I got turned on to it in 1989. I find it a little disconcerting that when presented with actual screencaps from DVD's you say that those are fabrications. I've seen this comparison up close and have done it in my own house. I disagree with you. Am I lying?


----------



## danzig138 (Mar 8, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> *do you not plan on buying a HDTV in the next few years to take advantage of all the TV shows that are already or soon going to be broadcast in widescreen HD? *



No, no I don't plan on buying one. I don't plan on buying a new tv until the one I have dies. And when it does, I'll buy one I can afford. Will that be HDTV? Well, I guess that will depend on when my tv finally dies. 



> *the only way i can see someone preferring FULL SCREEN is if they have a TV smaller than 25 inches. and if thats the case, they should be buying a new TV before they buy a DVD player. *



My tv is smaller than 25 inches. Thanks for telling me what I should buy. No...wait....I still prefer full screen most of the time. I'll prefer widescreen when my tv is five times the size it is now. Otherwise, sure, I might get part of the movie chopped off, but that doesn't bother me more than not being able to see the whole thing because half of my screen is taken up by black bars. Man, I can't stand elitist tech people.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> *that doesn't bother me more than not being able to see the whole thing because half of my screen is taken up by black bars. *



The black bars mean you *ARE* seeing "the whole thing."



			
				danzig138 said:
			
		

> *Man, I can't stand elitist tech people. *



I hear ya.  Knowledge is a bitch.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's correct.  The history of formatting and the entire photographic film industry, and all records thereof, are nothing more than a massive conspiracy to undermine Mistwell and his magic tape measure.*



*

That is not what I said.  You saying it is what I was implying is simply outrageous, and I am done with you. Your hostility towards me is uncalled for in this thread.

You, I know, and everyone knows that the fullscreen version is larger than the widescreen, and that it isn't shown that way on that page.  It's not debateable.




			Hey Mistwell, you want debunk another international conspiracy?  Its the lie that the moon is thousands of miles away.  Just walk outside, hold one end of your tape measure against the horizon, and position the opposite end against the moon.  Look, the moon is only inches away from Earth!  Its true!  In fact, anyone can perform this simple expiriment, and anyone who tries to explain otherwise is simply aggressive and rude.
		
Click to expand...


*
We're done.  You turned a simple topic, with simple difference of opinion, into a flamefest for your own personal pleasure.  It was rude, it was totally uncalled for, and I think others will agree with me.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *You, I know, and everyone knows that the fullscreen version is larger than the widescreen, and that it isn't shown that way on that page.  It's not debateable.*




You actually think the fullscreen scans in the comparison should have been taller than the widescreen scans, because they appear that way when blown up on your square TV!  Priceless!

That would be like me saying Widescreen images are much bigger than fullscreen because my local theatre shows all movies in widescreen and those images are HUGE.

LMAO.  Ah, that's too awesome.


----------



## Triumph (Mar 8, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *We're done.  You turned a simple topic, with simple difference of opinion, into a flamefest for your own personal pleasure.  It was rude, it was totally uncalled for, and I think others will agree with me. *



Yeah right.  What Kai Lord is saying is elementary truth for anyone with the slightest degree of film knowledge.  You're the only one who looks foolish, and crying about "flamefests" when people are simply stating the facts only makes you look even sillier.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You actually think the fullscreen scans in the comparison should have been taller than the widescreen scans, because they appear that way when blown up on your square TV!  Priceless!*



*

I meant (and SAID) that it showed that these were not actual screen captures.

And yes, the detail loss of being smaller should have been shown. That is the whole arguement of the fullscreen folks like me, that you see more detail in the picture when it is larger (something you never responded to).




			That would be like me saying Widescreen images are much bigger than fullscreen because my local theatre shows all movies in widescreen and those images are HUGE.

LMAO.  Ah, that's too awesome.
		
Click to expand...


*
No, it would be like if your theatre cut the top and bottom of the large screen to fit the picture, which would piss off the audience I am sure since they go to particular theatres because they have a larger screen than other theatres, and would not be getting the full benefit of that larger screen.

I don't know why I am even continuing.  You have abandoned logic and turned to emotion.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 8, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *....but they're not getting the whole film, certainly.  Watching a visually powerful film like, say, "Blade Runner" is a different experience in widescreen than fullscreen.  *




Yes, however, it's a different experience at home than in the theatre, too.  Just being "widescreen" does not make it just like it was when it was first shown.  The optical characteristics of a screen that emits light are not the same as those of one that reflects light.  Nor does a set of dolbly 5.1 speakers compensate for the acoustic differences between your living room and a theatre many times the size.  This is why actual theatres still exist.

To do home theatre _really_ correctly takes many thousands of dollars of equipment, and probably calls for you to add another room to your home.  Most of us don't have that option.  So, we aren't going to get particularly close to the "real" experience anyway.  After that, why should we worry quite so much about the specifics of aspect ratio?

And, btw, Mistwell, abandoning logic is not necessarily a demon, here.  The value of the experience of film is not set by logic.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2003)

Triumph said:
			
		

> *
> Yeah right.  What Kai Lord is saying is elementary truth for anyone with the slightest degree of film knowledge.  You're the only one who looks foolish, and crying about "flamefests" when people are simply stating the facts only makes you look even sillier. *




23 posts. Right. Kai, we know when you use a second handle  You might want to, next time, leave more of a gap in time between your double posts with multiple handles. Particularly in a forum that most people don't read.

{edit - oh, and of the 17 threads triumph has posted to, fully 7 of those threads were started by Kai, and most responses to any thread he has made are in support of Kai with things like "coolness" and "greatness"}


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *And, btw, Mistwell, abandoning logic is not necessarily a demon, here.  The value of the experience of film is not set by logic. *




I totally agree. That is why I am saying it is perfectly reasonable to like either kind of copy of the film - widescreen or full screen. What I don't understand is the "The only reasonable opinion is mine, and those who disagree with me must be ignorant." That kind of emotional claim is not valuable.  Saying, in an emotional way "this is why I like widescreen" would be fine, however.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *To do home theatre really correctly takes many thousands of dollars of equipment, and probably calls for you to add another room to your home.  Most of us don't have that option.  So, we aren't going to get particularly close to the "real" experience anyway.  After that, why should we worry quite so much about the specifics of aspect ratio?*





There's two parts to experiencing a movie, WHAT you see and hear, and HOW you see and hear it.  Movie theatres present every degree of both.

At home, HOW you see the film will indeed be largely removed from the movie theatre, unless, as you say, you have thousands of dollars to invest and the real estate to accomodate it.  But WHAT you see can still be *fully* represented by a display in the proper ratio, just as WHAT you hear can fully be represented by speakers that simply work.

Perhaps being fully aware of everything put on film isn't entirely important to you, or you're perfectly happy just getting the "gist" of the story or images.  That's fine, some people are more into movies than others.

The debate on this thread came into effect when one person took the position that fullscreen images don't lose much of the picture compared to widescreen, and that its "nowhere near half" with regard to the widest formats.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I totally agree. That is why I am saying it is perfectly reasonable to like either kind of copy of the film - widescreen or full screen. What I don't understand is the "The only reasonable opinion is mine, and those who disagree with me must be ignorant." That kind of emotional claim is not valuable.  Saying, in an emotional way "this is why I like widescreen" would be fine, however. *



Ah yes, you still contend that the aspect ratio of a film is based on opinion and theory.

_snicker_


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *The debate on this thread came into effect when one person took the position that fullscreen images don't lose much of the picture compared to widescreen, and that its "nowhere near half" with regard to the widest formats. *





No. Let's be clear.  The debate started when I said I prefer fullscreen, someone else said "why", and gave my reason, and my *opinion* was disagreed with by quoting back those statistics.  The debate became "which is better: Seeing more of the picture area portrayed on the film at the expense of detail loss for having a smaller screen, or seeing more detail of the film at the expense of having less picture area portrayed on the film." 

For some reason you became focused on the "nowhere near half" statement, when that was always just a tree in the forest of this discussion, since the loss varies from film to film.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> Ah yes, you still contend that the aspect ratio of a film is based on opinion and theory.
> 
> snicker *




If I got you a digital picture of the two movies playing side by side for you to measure the aspect ratio yourself, would you be satisfied then?


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 23 posts. Right. Kai, we know when you use a second handle  You might want to, next time, leave more of a gap in time between your double posts with multiple handles. Particularly in a forum that most people don't read.
> 
> {edit - oh, and of the 17 threads triumph has posted to, fully 7 of those threads were started by Kai, and most responses to any thread he has made are in support of Kai with things like "coolness" and "greatness"} *



Okay, so apparently I'm just a part of all kinds of conspiracies.  Heh, yesterday I just talked to a dude named "Clifford" in the Art Gallery, he only had like six posts and one was directed at me....muahAHAHAHA, I'm everywhere!


----------



## Henry (Mar 8, 2003)

Hi, all! How are we doing?

---Just a quick temperature check.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *No. Let's be clear.  The debate started when I said I prefer fullscreen, someone else said "why", and gave my reason, and my opinion was disagreed with by quoting back those statistics. *




That's all the issue's ever been about as far as my involvement goes on the thread.  I couldn't care less about which format you prefer.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *The debate became "which is better: ---*




WRONG.  Unbelievably wrong.  Read my responses.  Now.  Now read them again.  You stated misinformation about the picture loss of a Fullscreen image (with regard to a 2.35:1 ratio) and I corrected you.  Your laments over me being aggressive and emotional have come from just as far out of left field as your assertions over picture loss.  



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *For some reason you became focused on the "nowhere near half" statement, when that was always just a tree in the forest of this discussion, since the loss varies from film to film. *




Do you understand the concept of isolating and responding to a point in a broader discussion?  I didn't take issue with your opinions on which is better because *I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR OPINIONS ARE.*

It was in the _expressing_ of your opinions that you stated incorrect information, and I corrected you.  There has never been a larger issue to address.  Never.  I recognize you've been trying to steer the debate into an irrelevant discussion about your opinions since you were first taken to task for your "ignorance" about picture ratios, but it never worked.  Sorry.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Hi, all! How are we doing?*




I'm mad, and aggressive, and rude, and suffer from multiple personality disorder.  How are you?


----------



## Viking Bastard (Mar 8, 2003)

I think this is without doubt one of oddest debates I've ever 
encountered on these board. Can't you just agree to disagree?


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *I think this is without doubt one of oddest debates I've ever
> encountered on these board. Can't you just agree to disagree? *



Good suggestion.  So how about it, Mistwell, should we just agree to disagree on whether or not your magic tape measure overrules the truth?


----------



## Viking Bastard (Mar 8, 2003)




----------



## Umbran (Mar 8, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> There's two parts to experiencing a movie, WHAT you see and hear, and HOW you see and hear it.  Movie theatres present every degree of both. [/B]




Yes, but those two things cannot really be separated, especially for the acousitcs.  You can present the same image, you can have the speakers emit the same frequencies.  But in the end what matters is what the person experiences.  Having a "more complete" WHAT does not ensure a more fulfilling experience.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Mar 8, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You actually think the fullscreen scans in the comparison should have been taller than the widescreen scans, because they appear that way when blown up on your square TV!  Priceless!
> 
> ...




I think that a big part of what these guys are missing (especially after Mistwell's last statement) is the whole definition of what an aspect ratio is. Especially the whole RATIO part.

As per Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary:

Aspect Ratio: aspect ratio
Function: noun
Date: 1907
: a ratio of one dimension to another: as a : the ratio of span to mean chord of an airfoil b : the ratio of the width of a television or motion-picture image to its height 

Were concerned with is the definition b. 

Now when they say ratio of width to hieght, theyre talking about that w:h whether it's measured in inches, feet or miles. When Someone says that a full screen image is bigger it's because it's artifically made bigger in relation to what it originally was.  Of course you and I know this but I'm guessing by his statements that Mistwell doesnt. 

When people attend a feature film in the cinema 90% of the time the screen is rectangular. With the exception of the newer 16:9 diplays (which are designed to accomodate HD broadcasts and WS movies) most TV viewing areas are Square. 

How do you make a rectangular image into a square frame? You lop off the edges and blow the remaining image up to fill the screen. 

or 

You leave it in the original format (aspect ratio) and place it on the screen as is. 

This is why on alot of recent broadcasts of feature films on tv over the last few years and even on fullscreen editions of widescreen movies on DVD it says:

This movie has been edited for content and FORMATTED TO FIT YOUR SCREEN. 

Once again, the image in the fullscreen version of most widescreen films have been altered. If that is what they prefer then fine, but to say that there is no significant difference between the two is inaccurate. 

Talk to a movie projectionist they'll tell them the same thing. 

And with this, I'm done.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> * *



It was a joke.  But why recognize that when you can make the issue bigger than it is by classifying your run-of-the-mill messageboard debate as a "flamefest" (just noticed you were the first to bring that to the table) before congratulating yourself on being the noble third-party peacemaker.

Being ignorant of something is a literal truth when you spout incorrect info about it, and I have found Mistwell's assertions that I'm aggressive and rude to be mildly amusing.  So where do you come in again?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 8, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *We're done.  You turned a simple topic, with simple difference of opinion, into a flamefest for your own personal pleasure.  It was rude, it was totally uncalled for, and I think others will agree with me. *




Um, Mistwell... it takes two to tango.  One person cannot turn a whole topic into a flamefest.  He (or you) can rant and rave to heart's content, but it only becomes a flamefest when you rant and rave _at each other_.  

Simply put, if either one of you chose to back down, that would have ended it.  If either one of you cared more for peace than for being right, there'd be no heat to the discussion.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, but those two things cannot really be separated, especially for the acousitcs.  You can present the same image, you can have the speakers emit the same frequencies.  But in the end what matters is what the person experiences.  Having a "more complete" WHAT does not ensure a more fulfilling experience. *



Now this *is* pure opinion...and one that I mostly disagree with, but only because of my own preferences.

Edit:  Fixed the bold brackets.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *If either one of you cared more for peace than for being right, there'd be no heat to the discussion. *




And really, what's wrong with a little heat?  I don't think classifying a position as "ignorant" really qualifies as a scathing personal attack in a discussion over picture ratios.

EDIT:  For the record, Mistwell, enjoy movies however the heck you want to.  Seriously.  I bear no ill will toward you now, or in any other thread.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *EDIT:  For the record, Mistwell, enjoy movies however the heck you want to.  Seriously.  I bear no ill will toward you now, or in any other thread. *




Fair enough. Why don't we end this on that pleasant note. I too bear you no ill will.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2003)

That's a wrap.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 8, 2003)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> * When people attend a feature film in the cinema 90% of the time the screen is rectangular. With the exception of the newer 16:9 diplays (which are designed to accomodate HD broadcasts and WS movies) most TV viewing areas are Square. *



Actually, regular TVs are rectabgular too. They have a smaller aspect ratio (4:3 instead of 16:9), but that's rectangular too.


----------



## Usurper (Mar 8, 2003)

I'm surprised nobody brought up the obvious comparisons to abridged books.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 9, 2003)

Usurper said:
			
		

> *I'm surprised nobody brought up the obvious comparisons to abridged books. *




Well, if the reguliar books wer printed in small font so I have to squint and the abridged books were printed in normal letters, I think you might have a comparison.


----------



## Chauzu (Mar 9, 2003)

They should have full screen and wide screen options in DVDs.


----------



## stevelabny (Mar 9, 2003)

now that the fight is over. 

why was i called an elitist for asking if everyone doesnt plan on buying a widescreen hd tv in the next few years?

did you guys not update to cordless phones either?
do you only buy new music on vinyl?
or maybe you arent on those newfangled computers? (um, wait..)
or still playing BASIC D&D (i'm an elf, thats what i do. )
get with the program people.

theres ALREADY some good stuff broadcast in HD and in the next few years there will already be more?

if your next tv isnt widescreen and hd youre holding back progress. there is nothing elitist about this. its just the way things work.


----------



## Tsyr (Mar 9, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> *now that the fight is over.
> 
> why was i called an elitist for asking if everyone doesnt plan on buying a widescreen hd tv in the next few years?
> 
> ...




How about you stop to think that not everyone really cares to throw around, what, 600+ bucks *minimum* for a new TV that, when for 98% of everything our existing ones will work just fine?

Forgive me for being blunt, but I absolutely do not *care* if I am holding back your progress. I'll buy one when someone gives me the money to do so, otherwise, no, I think I'll be concentrating on more usefull entertainment purchases... For example, the money that would buy me the TV would also buy me *tons* of DVDs, video games, and gaming books, if I shop smart. 

I don't care to throw my money in a hole in the ground, thank you.

When the price drops to a more reasonable level, AND when there is enough content out to justify it, I might purchase one. Not now. I don't feel any need to be an early adopter. And guess what? If my not buying a HD tv causes them to fizzle and not become "standard" in 5 years or 10... won't bother me in the slightest. 

That said, I *still* prefer widescreen, with my tiny 25" TV. And I'll thank you not to tell me what I need to spend my money on, as well... it serves me just fine. I hardly have the space for it and the assorted periphrials for it as it is.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 9, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> [Bwhy was i called an elitist for asking if everyone doesnt plan on buying a widescreen hd tv in the next few years?
> [snip]
> if your next tv isnt widescreen and hd youre holding back progress. there is nothing elitist about this. its just the way things work. [/B]



My *next* TV might very well be HD/widescreen, assuming they're cheap enough by then. That's not the same as saying I'll buy one in the next few years.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 9, 2003)

Staffan said:
			
		

> *
> My *next* TV might very well be HD/widescreen, assuming they're cheap enough by then. That's not the same as saying I'll buy one in the next few years. *




I agree. TVs are not like computers.  They are more akin to furniture in my mind - yes, you replace them when they get worn out, but you don't upgrade them to the newest thing every few years.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 9, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> *get with the program people.*




Well, considering that the computer I normally use is a whopping 233 MHz Pentium running Win 95, and I have never owned a cordless phone....

The only "program" out there is one designed by people who are trying to sell you things.  Despite what they may tell you, fancy features don't necessarily make your life better.   If the old thing still works well, and does the job you want, there is no reason to upgrade.


----------



## stevelabny (Mar 9, 2003)

hmm, my life has definitely improved with my first pentium and then again, quite noticably when i got my DSL, and even though my TV is still an 11 year old 27 inch TV,  it improved lots when i got my surround sound, and being able to watch movies on my friends 56" has also improved my life.
please note i still have a "regular" TV, but i know that when  this TV dies or when there is more support for HD programming (i have DirecTV which only has TWO HD channels so far) I will step up to the next level. 
Buying another regular TV because its cheaper, and then being 15 years behind when i finally switch over is not worth it.
why save a couple of bucks and ruin your enjoyment?
money is made to be spent. 
you dont take it with you when you go.


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (Mar 9, 2003)

I stick with old TV's because I can not afford $1,000+ for a TV.  Considering I am barely able to pay my bills and have a little left over for myself.  The concept of switching to HDTV is not something I am condsidering.  Despite how much I love widescreen.


----------



## Triumph (Mar 9, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 23 posts. Right. Kai, we know when you use a second handle  *




Uh....I hope the smiley means you're joking....



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> *You might want to, next time, leave more of a gap in time between your double posts with multiple handles. Particularly in a forum that most people don't read.
> 
> {edit - oh, and of the 17 threads triumph has posted to, fully 7 of those threads were started by Kai, and most responses to any thread he has made are in support of Kai with things like "coolness" and "greatness"} *




Greatness!  I always wanted my own netstalker!  For the record, I started reading Kai Lord's posts because of his handle, and found a lot of his posts to be damn funny.  And 7 out of 17 is NOWHERE NEAR HALF.  Surely this is something you of all people can agree with....


----------



## Tsyr (Mar 9, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> *why save a couple of bucks and ruin your enjoyment?
> money is made to be spent.
> you dont take it with you when you go. *




1) Because I am *not* "ruining my enjoyment". Honestly. Television is as enjoyable to me on my little non-HD 25 incher as it would be on a 50 inch HD. I get the same basic content, minus, what, 2 channels? Whoopdedoo. I get something like 100 as it is, of which I watch Fox, Fox News, Discovery, History Channel, and occasionaly FX and Sci-Fi if something I really want to see is on. I can still play DVDs, VHS, vcds, divx, etc, which accounts for all of the basic formats I would be expected to play on my TV. I can still hook up all my consoles to my TV just fine. 

Heck, I still listen to AM radio. 

It's still FUN.

2) Spoken like a person who has never been in hard financial times for very long.

3) No, but I do take it with me to the next time I'm in a pinch and need car repairs, or when I'm between jobs, or when the next big college bill comes... And when I'm out of college and have a more stable job, I will take it with me to the age of retirement so that I have something more to live on than a meager little triffle of money, or for medical problems, or for help in starting a family, buying a house, etc.


----------



## stevelabny (Mar 9, 2003)

for the record, im unemployed right now, havent bought my monthly comic books in 6 months and eating lots of hot dogs and mac&cheese but if my tv blew up today, id still drop 2 grand on a credit card to make sure i had a tv.  

priorities in life 1> a roof for me to sleep under 2> food for me to eat 3> a nice home entertainment system, computer and video games

once anyone drops the concept of supporting an entire family, life becomes a LOT less expensive.


----------



## Tsyr (Mar 9, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> *for the record, im unemployed right now, havent bought my monthly comic books in 6 months and eating lots of hot dogs and mac&cheese but if my tv blew up today, id still drop 2 grand on a credit card to make sure i had a tv.  *




Might I suggest that, if you feel this way, you are the last person that should be lecturing others on what they should or should not spend money on.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 9, 2003)

Get a DVD player like mine. You buy widescreen versions, and if you got someone who likes fullscreen, you hit the 'zoom' button. It's the best. Now if I could get my hands on a DVD player that does that, plus handle PAL DVDs...


----------



## ssampier (Mar 15, 2003)

I'll buy a widescreen HDTV when they're ubiquitous as a color tv

Personally my 19" serves just fine (wouldn't want to watch movies on it though)


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 15, 2003)

I suppose I'm the other extreme. I have a HD LCD projector in my basement, hooked up to an AV receiver and DVD player; all of which support component inputs. I have 5:1 surround sound and a 120"x72" screen. It's hooked up to digital cable (with several HDTV selections to choose from) and has a home-made hub for using either my iBook or PS2 on the big screen.

   I HAVE THE POWER!!  

   It's a given that I rarely go out to movies, these days.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 15, 2003)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> *I suppose I'm the other extreme. I have a HD LCD projector in my basement, hooked up to an AV receiver and DVD player; all of which support component inputs. I have 5:1 surround sound and a 120"x72" screen. It's hooked up to digital cable (with several HDTV selections to choose from) and has a home-made hub for using either my iBook or PS2 on the big screen.
> 
> I HAVE THE POWER!!
> 
> It's a given that I rarely go out to movies, these days. *




What, no Tivo? Are you insane man!


----------



## stevelabny (Mar 15, 2003)

WHEN CAN I VISIT???


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 15, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> * What, no Tivo? Are you insane man! *




   Tivo doesn't support component input, yet, so I'm waiting. I do have a Tivo on my bedroom TV, and a ReplayTV (component input) on the AV setup in the basement. Tivo is having talks with Apple, regarding Apple's Rendezvous technology and Bluetooth support. Now THAT might be interesting.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Mar 15, 2003)

I've been seriously thiking about buyin' myself an projector.

With that 'n a VCR, who needs a TV?


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 15, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *I've been seriously thiking about buyin' myself an projector. QUOTE]
> 
> Mine is no longer in production, but I've been more than happy with it:
> http://www.thebigpicturedvd.com/bigequipment3.shtml*


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 15, 2003)

And with projectors, you don't have to worry about the radiation coming from conventional TVs.

Right?


----------



## Viking Bastard (Mar 15, 2003)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> *   Mine is no longer in production, but I've been more than happy with it:
> http://www.thebigpicturedvd.com/bigequipment3.shtml *



Ah, so all that techno mumbo-jumbo you were preachin' earlier was a projector. I'm illiterate on tech-talk. 

It's usually easier to just puch buttons until something happends than readin' the manual I always says.


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Viking Bastard _ *  I'm illiterate on tech-talk. *




I like to go the other route...overboard 

(edit: I was going to post an illustration of a wiring schematic I did for my AV setup, but I can't seem to find it. Maybe tomorrow.)


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 16, 2003)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Tivo doesn't support component input, yet, so I'm waiting. I do have a Tivo on my bedroom TV, and a ReplayTV (component input) on the AV setup in the basement. Tivo is having talks with Apple, regarding Apple's Rendezvous technology and Bluetooth support. Now THAT might be interesting. *




Excuse my ignorance, but why is component input important for a Tivo?


----------



## Brisk-sg (Mar 16, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Excuse my ignorance, but why is component input important for a Tivo? *




Component Input is important only so far as it allows for superior picture in comparison to RCA or S-Video.  Also, Component is one of two standard connections for High Definition Inputs/Outputs.  A Component Cable is actually three cables, one for each primary color, allowing for the best color depth and clarity.

Another consideration is there currently is no (with the exception of some HD-TV ready component cards for computer systems) way to record HD-TV onto DVD or TIVO type devices in HD.

We have a Panasonic DVD Recorder with a built in Hard Drive at home (the built in Hard Drive is our favorite feature by far).  Even though it has Component output (for higher quality DVD pictures), it doesn't have a Component Input (which is necessary for High Definition).

I think most the objection to High Definition TVs due to price will soon be a mute point anyways.  The prices have been falling drastically on High Definition Monitors over the past two years.  If you are the market for a Big Screen, it is the only way to go now adays as the price difference is marginal at best and the picture quality is so much better.  

The same thing is starting to happen in the Mid-Range TVs.  HDTV is starting to become more prominent.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Mar 16, 2003)

That... made no sense to me.

Think you could translate that to five sentances or less?


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 16, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *That... made no sense to me.
> 
> Think you could translate that to five sentances or less? *




Video
   RCA = yellow plug = Good
   S-Video = round plug = Better
   Component = Red/Green/Blue = Best

Audio
   Mono = one RCA plug = Good
   Stereo = Left/Right = Better
   Surround = Left/Right/Center/Rear Left/Rear Right/Subwoofer = Best

   Ideally, your receiver, DVR (Tivo, ReplayTV), DVD player, and monitor (TV, projector) should all support component video and suround sound.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Mar 16, 2003)

Right, got it!

One question more though, people here keep talkin' about something called Tivo. 
I expect it's somekinda US thing, or at least has some other name here.

So... what is it?


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 16, 2003)

Tivo is a brand name for a DVR, it's closes competitor being ReplayTV.  Tivo is, IMHO far superior, but that's a taste and needs issue.

A DVR is short for Digital Video Recorder.  Think of it as a VCR that works using a hard drive and video codecs with intelligent software, instead of a standard VCR.  They are, essentially, very simplified Linux appliances dedicated to replace the VCR (although they can output to VCRs or other devices).  This probably sounds pretty underwhelming, and it would be, if all it did was replicate a VCRs functionality.

Instead, they have advanced software and features over a VCR that make them very attractive to people like me, who have very busy work schedules, children, and a poor history of properly setting VCRs.  If you're really interested, I'll post my review of my Tivo that I'm about to post to my website.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Mar 16, 2003)

So it records your shows when you can't watch it so you can watch it later? Or am I missing something?


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 16, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *So it records your shows when you can't watch it so you can watch it later? *




   Correct. Just like most answering machine no longer use a cassette tape, the Tivo records TV shows onto a hard drive. But, better than a VCR, all you do is tell it what shows you like, and it will record them all for you. I tell Tivo that I want a "Season Pass" to Six Feet Under, and it records it every Sunday for me.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 16, 2003)

Thanks for the explanation of Componant connections.  I never knew any of that.

Tivo not only record things you tell it to record, it also memorizes the things you like (actors, directors, genres, keywords, etc...) and will let you know when one of those things are coming up.  You can also search for things a week in advance and it will pull of whatever you are looking for and give you a full summary.  And it records everything you are watching, just in case you suddenly decide you want to back up a scene or pause, or record and then play back so you can fast forward through commercials.

It will also record some things for you that it thinks you will like, though of course you need no watch it.  It will record tens of hours of stuff without need for erasing anything (mine does 30 hours, others do 60 or more hours).  And just in case you run out of space, it allows you to prioritize what you like most, and what you like least.  

Mine comes with Direct TV, which is a satellite system.  With my version, Tivo can record two programs that are on at the same time.

There are many other things Tivo does that I know I am forgetting (like short films just for Tivo users, variable recording times for things that tend to start early or go late, replay buttons, etc...).

Anyway, Tivo rocks.  It's one of those few items I have bought that made me say "how did I ever get along without this" afterwards.  My friends who had one all told me how great it was and I was very sceptical...until I got one.  It's worth every penny.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Mar 17, 2003)

It sounds great.

I want one.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 17, 2003)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *Anyway, Tivo rocks.  It's one of those few items I have bought that made me say "how did I ever get along without this" afterwards.  My friends who had one all told me how great it was and I was very sceptical...until I got one.  It's worth every penny. *



I couldn't agree more.  TiVo is one of those things that was well worth the money I spent (and spend monthly for the subscription fee).  It has a few little glitches but catches many things that a VCR simply can't.  For example, the first episode of Alias was 71 minutes long.  I just told TiVo to record it and blammo it got the whole show.  Many folks missed the last 10 minutes who taped it.  Sometimes it will even catch last minute broadcast changes (it updates early in the AM via modem) and record them properly.  The only recent thing it didn't catch was the last Thursday when the President gave his State of the Union and I missed almost all of Survivor (no big).

I have been able to catch so many reruns of things I didn't even know were in reruns (Brisco County Jr., 2 Guys and a Girl, Ren and Stimpy, etc).  Plus (and this is HUGE for me) you can pause and rewind live TV (up to 30 minutes).  So if you are watching sports and missed something because a girlfriend, phone call, bathroom break, etc. got in the way you can go back a still catch it.  If I am around to watch something I will usually put it on the channel and pause it.  Then I'll turn it on about 20 minutes later so I can watch the entire show (most of the time) without all the commercials.  Great stuff!!


----------



## stevelabny (Mar 17, 2003)

the record episodes of any show i like feature still has some problems with cable shows...it will record not only the new episodes, but all the repeats too. (examples: baseball tonight and south park) 

the best thing is definitely the fact that if youre watching thru tivo, you can REWIND live tv and watch it again. this is the worlds greatest feature.

i needs to get me a tivo.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 17, 2003)

The moment that sold a Tivo to a friend:  A week after I got my Tivo, Cartoon Network (as part of their Adult Swim midnight run) was restarting InuYasha from the beginning.  Knowing that I'd want to catch it, a friend called up to remind me.  I nodded, said thanks for the heads-up, as I wanted to catch it...and then promptly forgot while watching Buffy.

The next morning, I woke up, realized I'd forgotten to set the program, and cursed the dark lords of TV for making me forget.  Then I saw that Tivo had recorded it for me, based on my preferences, as a show it thought I might like.  I set up a season pass for it right then, and made the Tivo my third child. 

And being able to pause and rewind live TV is a biggie.  Tivo truly does rock on toast.


----------



## TeeSeeJay (Mar 17, 2003)

Brisk-sg said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Component Input is important only so far as it allows for superior picture in comparison to RCA or S-Video.  Also, Component is one of two standard connections for High Definition Inputs/Outputs.  A Component Cable is actually three cables, one for each primary color, allowing for the best color depth and clarity.*



*

Actually, the three Component cables are not "one for each primary color" -- even though they're coded that way. Component is not the same as RGB. Component video separates the signal into three channels - Luminance (black/white) and Chrominance (red/green difference and blue/green difference).

Component IS the highest quality analog video interconnection, though it's likely to be trumped by DVI in the near future.

The reason Tivo doesn't have component outputs is that it likely wouldn't result in a better image. Tivo records off-the-air or off-the-cable/satellite programming, which is either low-quality analog or heavily-compressed digital. With the exception of HD channels, a standard broadcast (regardless of medium) will never have the color resolution necessary to make component connections useful.

The only benefit to component outputs on a Tivo (or similar) would be the inclusion of de-interlacing circuitry to produce a 480p image from the 480i source. Of course, there are plenty of out-board products to do this (they're called "line doublers"). Keep in mind also that only digital sets can produce a 480p image -- and the presence of component inputs does not indicate a digital set.*


----------



## TeeSeeJay (Mar 17, 2003)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> *
> Audio
> Mono = one RCA plug = Good
> Stereo = Left/Right = Better
> ...




Just for the sake of completeness, your DVD and receiver should also support DTS in additon to Dolby Digital, and have 6.1 channels of surround audio, adding the "Rear Center" to the mix, preferably as a discrete channel, but at least as a matrixed channel.

All audio outputs, regardless of # of channels, should be Digital, with Digital Coax being preferred over Optical (for differences in the quality of the interconnects), though Optical is much more common (because it's cheaper, believe it or not).


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 17, 2003)

TeeSeeJay said:
			
		

> *Just for the sake of completeness, your DVD and receiver should also support DTS in additon to Dolby Digital, and have 6.1 channels of surround audio, adding the "Rear Center" to the mix, preferably as a discrete channel, but at least as a matrixed channel. *




   My Kenwood VR-4900 has 5:1. The newer models have 6:1 and 7:1, but I'm holding off on a receiver upgrade, until I see one with Rendezvous support, Firewire inputs, etc.


----------



## TeeSeeJay (Mar 17, 2003)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My Kenwood VR-4900 has 5:1. The newer models have 6:1 and 7:1, but I'm holding off on a receiver upgrade, until I see one with Rendezvous support, Firewire inputs, etc. *




I'm still chugging along with a 5.1 receiver myself -- no money in the AV budget since I blew it all on a 65" HDTV and an aborted HTPC scaling project.

Although I really could use a new receiver, but I want to see front-access component inputs with full HD bandwidth, and at least two component sources round back.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 17, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> *the record episodes of any show i like feature still has some problems with cable shows...it will record not only the new episodes, but all the repeats too. (examples: baseball tonight and south park)  *




There is a setting you need to change in your season pass then. You have three options - record only new episodes, record new and repeat episodes, and record all episodes even if repeated mutiple times.  If you don't want repeats, just change it to new episodes only.


----------



## stevelabny (Mar 18, 2003)

my whole point was that it doenst always catch all the repeats. my friend has everything set to first-run only and still gets the re-showings of certain shows.

its a minor quibble unless you have the smallest of the hard drives.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Mar 19, 2003)

Does TiVo skip EVERY commercial?

I thought I heard someone mention that certain commercials still get recorded.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 19, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Does TiVo skip EVERY commercial?
> 
> I thought I heard someone mention that certain commercials still get recorded. *




It records ALL commercials.  I'm told that an early version of the software cut commercials out (and that competitor ReplayTV still does...although they're being sued for it), but that it was removed.

However, one of the 'hidden' features is the 30 second advance feature.  Commercial break comes, you can skip through them in literally about 2 seconds.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Mar 21, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It records ALL commercials.  I'm told that an early version of the software cut commercials out (and that competitor ReplayTV still does...although they're being sued for it), but that it was removed.
> 
> However, one of the 'hidden' features is the 30 second advance feature.  Commercial break comes, you can skip through them in literally about 2 seconds. *




So what is illegal about skipping commercials?


----------



## Gizzard (Mar 21, 2003)

> So what is illegal about skipping commercials?




He didn't say it was _illegal_, he simply said they were being _sued_.  ;-)

Myself, I cant imagine how you could get such a suit into the courtroom.  On a tangent, doesnt ReplayTV have its hands into the MP3 hardware business?  They were really on the ropes a couple of years ago financially (which would have been a great time to launch a nuisance suit) but now they've merged or been bought out?


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 22, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *So what is illegal about skipping commercials? *




Honestly, I'm not sure, but there is a legal precedent that they're following up on.  Music isn't the only battlefront where things like recording rights are getting weird.  I believe they're being sued on grounds of altering the original material and for it's copying/rebroadcasting.  When you consider that the programs are actually merely there to keep us around to watch commercials, you can understand how they don't want us to automatically cut them out of the process.

When I have time, I'll see if I can dredge up some information about the suit and it's grounds.


----------



## TeeSeeJay (Mar 22, 2003)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> He didn't say it was illegal, he simply said they were being sued.  ;-)
> 
> Myself, I cant imagine how you could get such a suit into the courtroom.  On a tangent, doesnt ReplayTV have its hands into the MP3 hardware business?  They were really on the ropes a couple of years ago financially (which would have been a great time to launch a nuisance suit) but now they've merged or been bought out? *




They've filed Chapter 11. Yes, they also had their Rio line of MP3 players.

The commercial-skipping suit is basically networks saying "watching commercials is how you pay for television, no way are we giving it to you for free" because if time-shifting becomes as popular as, say, the VCR in terms of watching live TV, the ability to skip commercials essentially sends the value of the commerical airtime down the tubes, networks can't charge an arm and a leg for a 30-second spot, so can't pay David Schwimmer $26 million a year to play Ross.



> CW: Why not?
> 
> JK: Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming.
> 
> ...




I can't link to the originating site anymore, since it's now a pay site, but it wasn't when this article was posted. "JK" = Jamie Kellner (Turner CEO), "CW" = Cable World magazine.

here's an excellent thread on the topic from DVDTalk.com: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=204277


----------



## Aeolius (Apr 7, 2003)

For those with Tivo, the new Home Media Option is now available!

   What this means is that you can plug your Tivo into your home network (wired or wireless) and "publish" pictures and music from your computer to your Tivo. If you have two Tivos (both with active service), then you can swap programs between them. You can also program your Tivo via the web, from anywhere.

   Granted, you need the newer Series2 Tivo to take advantage of the Home Media option.

   I'll be testing it on my Macintosh wireless network, in the coming weeks


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 7, 2003)

I guess this means I'll be buying another TiVo soon.  Doh....


----------



## Frostmarrow (Apr 8, 2003)

My girlfriend's TV was on it's last leg. A shadow was beginning to cover the entire screen from left to right. We didn't wait around for it to cover the entire picture and decided to go get a new TV.

I pitched the idea to buy a widescreen TV and a Playstation 2 as we don't have a VCR and we watch DVDs on my computer (17"). Naturally she didn't agree with me at all. She wanted a normal TV and a VCR. (On account of we are expecting a child and have all Disney classics on tape.)

In the end we did compromise. I got to chose the TV and she chose the VCR. We got a Philips 28" Widescreen TV and a Philips DVD/VCR-combi machine. No Playstation for me, sadly. I hope it's a boy so we can decide to get a Playstation with majority vote  In all it cost us some $800 give or take some $100 due to currency rates.

We are quite happy with our purchase and I am especially satisfied with the widescreen property. It allows us to watch movies in a variety of formats. We rented Amelie of Montmartre and Reign of Fire. Both were anamorphic 2.35:1 and looked neat on our widescreen. 

When we watch TV we usually set the picture to "superwide". It's a crazy format that blows up 4:3 to 16:9. I guess people on the screen gets wider at the edges than in the center. Please explain this to me.


----------



## Welverin (Apr 8, 2003)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> *No Playstation for me, sadly. I hope it's a boy so we can decide to get a Playstation with majority vote *




Girls play video games too! If you have a daughter just make sure to train her properly, none of that rading or outdoors crap!


----------



## Aeolius (Aug 1, 2003)

Discovery HD finally made it to my neck of the woods in NC...boo-ya!


----------



## Valavien (Aug 2, 2003)

Most of the dvd's in australia are widescreen.  It used to annoy me but I bought my first tv a few months ago and went with a widescreen tv because I mainly watch movies and most of them are widescreen.  HD got a lot more content over here 1st July this year but there are not many PAL tv's that are HD yet so it's still quite new.  One of our problems is that the HD format is still being sorted out.  

So now I am annoyed when I watch free to air because I get boxes on the sides!!  Digital TV set top boxes have come down to about AUS$299 so that way I will get anything broadcast in widescreen just not HD.  I figure it will still be a few years yet before it will be worthwhile.  I am really happy with my dvd's with component inputs at the moment.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 2, 2003)

I heard a couple of weeks ago that Jos Weadon (who made Bufffy the Vampire Slayer, and some other shows) is quite pissed that they released Buffy on DVD in widescreen version in the UK.  He is upset because, while he is a big fan of widescreen, he filmed it intentionally in full screen, with full screen shots in mind, and feels his artistic integrity is being screwed by them selling it in widescreen (which he feels will look like crap).  Interesting...I've never heard of someone being upset that their stuff was released in widescreen before.


----------



## Welverin (Aug 2, 2003)

Well it makes sense in this case since it was made to be view in full screen, to modify it for widescreen is the same as changing a movie from wide to full (or close enough anyway).


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 3, 2003)

It's the same thing as colorizing a black and white movie.  Citizen Kane was filmed with the intent to utilize the highlights of blacks, whites and greys.  Colorizing screws it up.


----------



## Green Knight (Aug 3, 2003)

What permanently soured me on Fullscreen DVD's was the Lord of the Rings DVD. What can one say about it when the dialogue says something along the lines of "Nine rings for mortal men doomed to die" yet they only show seven men? And BARELY seven at that (One guy's cut in half, so you can barely see he's there)? So I gave that version to my brother and went out and bought the Widescreen version, where I can actually see all 9 kings. Have no intention of buying Fullscreen after that (Even went to the trouble of returning some FullScreen Star Wars DVD's I got for my birthday, and exchanged them for the WideScreen versions).


----------



## Green Knight (Aug 3, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *Well it makes sense in this case since it was made to be view in full screen, to modify it for widescreen is the same as changing a movie from wide to full (or close enough anyway). *




Yeah, that's stupid. Why make it WideScreen if it wasn't made in WideScreen to begin with? They did the same thing on the uncut version of Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. It wasn't made as a FullScreen movie, but they released it as if it was a FullScreen movie. The end result. Bruce Wayne's head gets chopped off whenever he stands up. It's ridiculous. Isn't the whole POINT of getting the WideScreen version so you can see the movie WITHOUT having parts chopped off? But if it wasn't made in WideScreen, but you make it that way, you end up with parts getting chopped off. It's like buying a WideScreen movie as FullScreen. Unfrikkinbelievable, but there it is.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 3, 2003)

I bought a widescreen TV then discovered that my cable service (NTL) only broadcasts in 'full' screen .  Does this happen in the USA or is it a British thing only?


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 3, 2003)

Well, I'm not exactly an expert, but most television is full-screen.  Only a handful of shows are actually broadcast in wide-screen, although this will change more and more as wide-screen capable TVs become more available.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Aug 3, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Girls play video games too! If you have a daughter just make sure to train her properly, none of that rading or outdoors crap! *




For that matter, train your gf!  That's what I did to my gf, and we're both much happier for it. 

And I must say, this thread is really making me wish I had a job right now.  I mean, being able to pay for food and rent and such are nice, but this is making me drool.

Oh, one comment I was going to make, but please don't think this is me trying to escalate flame wars, because it isn't.  People like to spend money on hobbies - we all buy role playing books.  Some of us also love to collect and play with technology, and that's a hobby as well, albeit a more expensive one.  If you have the money, and you want to indulge your hobby, more power to you.


----------



## Aeolius (Aug 3, 2003)

In my neck of the woods, Time-Warner Cable offers 10 channels (out of hundreds) in HDTV format: Discovery HD, 2 HBOs, 2 Showtimes, PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX (the last 4 do not broadcast 24/7).


----------



## S'mon (Aug 4, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Well, I'm not exactly an expert, but most television is full-screen.  Only a handful of shows are actually broadcast in wide-screen, although this will change more and more as wide-screen capable TVs become more available. *




In the UK most digital-terrestrial broadcast tv is in both formats - you can change between wide & full screen versions at the press of a button.  I have this on my old 12" Sony fullscreen tv in the kitchen.  However the big new ca 30" widescreen TV in the living room is plugged into NTL cable, which is fullscreen-broadcast only.  Given that this is digital cable (near universal in UK) it's annoying.  I understand most people in USA still get analogue cable?


----------



## Welverin (Aug 4, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> In the UK most digital-terrestrial broadcast tv is in both formats - you can change between wide & full screen versions at the press of a button.  I have this on my old 12" Sony fullscreen tv in the kitchen.  However the big new ca 30" widescreen TV in the living room is plugged into NTL cable, which is fullscreen-broadcast only.  Given that this is digital cable (near universal in UK) it's annoying.  I understand most people in USA still get analogue cable? *




Yep, and there are truly barbaric people who don't have cable at *all*!

Even digital doesn't guarantee high definition programming, much less widescreen.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 4, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yep, and there are truly barbaric people who don't have cable at all!
> 
> Even digital doesn't guarantee high definition programming, much less widescreen. *




In point of fact, most of the video afficianados I know claim that digital cable's signal is much worse for picture quality than analog, at least currently.  All I know is that they seem to make the technology far more confusing than it ought to be.


----------



## Welverin (Aug 4, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *In point of fact, most of the video afficianados I know claim that digital cable's signal is much worse for picture quality than analog, at least currently.*




And there are people that thnk records sound better to cd's, but does it really matter to us normal people?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 5, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And there are people that thnk records sound better to cd's, but does it really matter to us normal people? *




But, unlike the record vs. cd issue, the math often supports analog cable over digital.  Most stations on your digital cable are analog broadcasts converted to digital.  So there's no base difference.  Plus, the digital infrastructure is pretty shoddy in most places (like where I live) such that you get a LOT of artifacts and skips in your digital signal, much more so than analog.  Doesn't matter if the picture is marginally clearer if it wonks out every 10 or 15 seconds while the analog one is stable.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 6, 2003)

Digital cable is really only good for more channels.  The picture quality doesn't noticeably improve with digital cable.  The only way to get a better picture from a broadcast is from satellite for now.  The TV receiving the signal does make a difference, but not that much.


----------



## mojo1701 (Aug 6, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Digital cable is really only good for more channels. *




I second that. When I first got my Hi-speed, it came with 2 months free digital cable. All it had was certain stations that did reruns of old shows (Gilligan's Island, Batman), or the GameShow network (although I wish I still had that). There wasn't a noticeable difference, especially considering that the old shows were lesser picture quality.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 6, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *And there are people that thnk records sound better to cd's, but does it really matter to us normal people? *




As Canis mentions, I'm not talking about 'sounds richer'...I'm talking about blocky images and bad artifacting, particularly if the signal comes over poor transmission equipment.  

In some cases, digital cable channels are decompressed and then recompressed, creating visual problems and reducing quality.  In others, the image is assembled in squares, and you can see the borders/stitches, making lots of strange artifacting, and so forth.  
In my local market with Comcast, there are complaints of slowdowns during peak broadcast hours, audio mis-sync, and other problems.

So yeah, it makes a big difference to everyone, not just video die-hards.


----------



## KenM (Aug 12, 2003)

Chauzu said:
			
		

> *They should have full screen and wide screen options in DVDs. *





   Some DVD's do. The first princess Bride was a double sided DVD, one had widescreen, the other P&S. Shrek's 2 DVD set is like that, too. One DVD widescreen, the other full. 
   I prefer widescreen, you miss too much with P&S IMO.  I have a 27 inch TV, so its not too bad. I'm saving for one of those 42 inch plasma TV's.   My Girlfriend likes fullscreen, but I have a soution. My DVD player has a feature called Zoom, where you can fit the picture to the screen. Yes it changes Widescreen to P&S, but I only do that when She watches it with me. I think most DVD players have that zoom feature.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 13, 2003)

Maybe it's because our TV system uses a higher quality broadcast, but digital does make a big difference to picture quality in the UK.  With a digital feed a cheap TV screen looks comparable to a Sony trinitron on analogue broadcast.  I've noticed that TV shows like Star Trek TNG recorded off digital (or off broadcast to my little old Trinitron) onto video look a lot better than the analogue STTNG videos I actually paid for.


----------

