Widescreen vs. Fullscreen Movies

Bill writes:

I guess that I am old fashioned in that my TV is a very square rectangle and I prefer movies in full screen format. Imagine my frustration when I found that both Netflix and Blockbuster Online rent movies in wide screen format almost exclusively. When I emailed a customer service rep about the lack of choice, I kept getting a changing story, from "That's how the movies are provided to us by the studios" to "our customers prefer wide screen."

From the Netflix Help Center:

Q: Does Netflix carry the widescreen and the fullscreen version of a movie?

A: You can view the formats available in the box on the top right of the movie page. If there is more than one format available, the more link will appear, and the Details tab on the movie page will have the full listing.

Often the widescreen and pan-and-scan movies are on opposite sides of the same disc. In this case, you can choose to play your preferred format by flipping the disc over.

Sometimes a movie is manufactured as two discs, one with the widescreen movie and the bonus features, and one with the pan-and-scan movie. In cases like this, we ship only one disc, to keep costs affordable. Most of our customers prefer the widescreen with bonus features rather than the plain pan-and-scan disc, so the other disc is not entered into our rental inventory, and is not available to rent.

Occasionally the bonus features are on the disc with the pan-and-scan movie, in which case that is the movie we will ship.

Do you prefer widescreen or fullscreen movies?

Comments

[Shrike]

Fullscreen is for the ignorant. Losing up to a 1/3 of the picture...the whiplash motions of pan and scan...watching half a person talking from the edge of the screen to half a person on the other edge of the screen. The butchery is far too distracting.

*shudder*

[Dave Zatz]

While I don't watch pan & scan movies even on my bedroom 4:3 set, I do think Netflix should make that option available for those that do.

[BrentTodd]

This drives me crazy when a full screen disc and a widescreen disc are released seperately. I will only watch movies in widescreen even on my old tv. I would rather be able to see it the way it was intended to be sceen than cropped. Remember when dvd's just had both formats on one disc? Must be one of the ways that the studios are cutting down on the cost of making the disc. I wonder if there is some movie out there that has all these full screen discs just sitting around...

[Matt]

I prefer widescreen for the reasons already listed.

[Becky]

I prefer widescreen. I prefer to watch them on my 16:9 television, but I watched widescreen when I had a 4:3 TV.

[Jim]

Widescreen all the way. I'm even going so far as to try to get "Yokelvision" to catch on as the term of choice for pan-and-scan. :-)

Interesting aside, last night I watched The Interpreter (good movie, crap ending) and one of the special features is director Sydney Pollack talking about this very issue. He said WS used to be his aspect ratio of choice for shooting his movies, but then movies on TV became lucrative/popular, and he hated what the pan-and-scan process did to his compositions, so switched to shooting in 4:3 so he could be sure most viewers would experience the shots as he set them up. With DVD and the increasing availability/prevalence of widescreen at home, he shot The Interpreter in widescreen, his first such movie in 20 years.

[cmmsml]

I prefer widescreen, but I certainly wouldn't say "Fullscreen is for the ignorant". To each their own.

[redbill]

If you like fullscreen watch old movies or rent VHS.

[Shrike]

"Yokelvision". Very appropriate :)

[subliminalis]

I used to work for a DVD store and when customers would bring up the "Fullscreen" version, I would tell them that it's 'edited' and the edges of the picture are cut off. I've converted many customers that way.

Movies are filmed in 16:9, they're MADE that way. Why watch it any other way?

[SAP]

Widescreen only.

[nOva]

It's always better to see a character come into the shot rather than into the screen....

[NetflixShill]

Not all full screen movies are pan-scan. More often than not, movies are shot in square format and then matted to widescreen for theaters. If you compare a widescreen and full screen disc, you often see this. The following movies were shot in a 1.37:1 format - Back to the Future trilogy, Hudson Hawk, Minority Report, Dazed & Confused, Back to School, Ronin, Titanic, Terminator 2, Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining, The Addams Family, etc.

See the Tech Specs on IMDB. If the film is "Super 35" or "film aspect" is 1.37:1, that means it was matted (top and bottom cut off) for its theatrical run. Usually I prefer widescreen in this case, but not always. I liked the Back to the Future trilogy and Back to School better in full screen. Matting is often poorly done, cutting off things you would like to see. Matted movies are like pan-scan done vertically.

[Mr. Nethead]

I started watching DVDs about 8 years ago. (Wow, has it really been that long?) At first I hated the widescreen format. But then I did research online and discovered that fullscreen movies have the ends chopped off. One website compared screen shots from the same movies in both WS and P&S just to demonstrate how much can be missing. I was shocked and even a little angry because all this time I had been watching fullscreen movies and I felt cheated. For me it's been WS ever since.

[BeefJerky]

"Not all full screen movies are pan-scan."

True.

"More often than not, movies are shot in square format and then matted to widescreen for theaters."

This is false. I suggest you do some research rather making up these false statistics.

[Dustin L.]

Even if a movie was shot in "square format" and matted, the filmmakers know this ahead of time and make sure what they want to be seen is in the frame of what will be the final cut.

As to the WS vs. P&S argument, of course WS is better, but it would be better to educate people to see why WS is better rather than just saying they're stupid if they like P&S. Ignorance does not equal stupidity.

[redbill]

"More often than not, movies are shot in square format and then matted to widescreen for theaters."

35 mm film is filmed in 4:3, but when the filmakers frame the picture, they have the 16:9 markings on the viewfinders, so they know what will be captured at 16:9. It is up to the projectionist to matte/frame properly, that is why sometimes you see a boom at the top of the picture in the movie. That is the projectionist's fault, not the filmaker.

[NetflixShill]

"This is false. I suggest you do some research rather making up these false statistics."

It's not false statistics. You do your research. I have seen thousands of hit movies that were shot in Super 35. It's probably the most common film stock. I've seen VERY FEW wide screen and full screen DVDs versions that were pan-scan. I can only think of a couple - "Trapped in Paradise" and "Pieces of April." Every other movie I've seen lately has been matted. So you get less image with the widescreen version.

[NetflixShill]

"Even if a movie was shot in "square format" and matted, the filmmakers know this ahead of time and make sure what they want to be seen is in the frame of what will be the final cut."

Irrelevant. The matted version may look worse and the full frame better, despite what the film makers intended. Also, how do we know what they intended? IMDB says that Eyes Wide Shut was "intended" to be 1.85:1 (matted), even though it was shot in 1.37:1. Stanley Kubrick stated his preference for a square format on numerous occasions. Almost all his films were shot in 1.37:1, except Spartacus and 2001.

If people want to talk ignorance, saying that most movies are shot in widescreen is ignorant. Saying that directors always "intend" movies to be shown widescreen is ignorant. It's more that the studios FORCE them to shoot that way and show that way in theaters. And ignorant people demand widescreen on DVD, regardless of whether it has to be cut or not. I prefer widescreen when a movie was shot in wide screen from the beginning. But most DVDs I've seen with widescreen AND full screen have been matted.

You can't blindly say matted widescreen is better than un-matted full frame. You need to compare the two side by side or back to back. If you're open minded, you might find you prefer the full framed version. If you're a widescreen zealot (which is about as ignorant as a pan-scan zealot), you will just dogmatically say that widescreen is the best.

[Rusty Ramrod]

Widescreen, of course.

[NetflixShill]

Some more Super 35 movies (matted widescreen). LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY, True Lies, The Abyss, X-men 2, Zoolander, Vanity Fair, Three Kings, Terminator 3, Team America: World Police, Tank Girl, Stigmata, Strange Days, Sphere, Speed, Serenity, Se7en, L.A. Confidential, Kingdom of Heaven, KING KONG 2005, Heavenly Creatures, Runaway Jury, The Rock, The Jacket, Italian Job 2003, KILL BILL VOL. 1 & 2, Reservoir Dogs, Titus, The Replacement Killers, Punisher 2004, Point Break, Pitch Black, Payback, Phone Booth, Panic Room, Fight Club, The Game, Old School, O Brother Where Art Thou, Ocean's Eleven, Negotiator, National Treasure, Love Actually, Monster's Ball, Men of Honor, THE MATRIX TRILOGY, ALL the Harry Potter movies, Goodfellas, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, Gosford Park, GLADIATOR, Brazil, Fisher King, Finding Neverland, Fifth Element, Ferris Bueller, Election, Donnie Brasco, The Cell, Don't Say a Word, Bourne Identity, Bourne Supremacy, Bridget Jones 1 & 2, thousands of other big budget hit movies....

Not to mention, most movies before 1954 were shot in a square format: Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, Singin' in the Rain, Gone With the Wind, From Here to Eternity, etc. Would you demand that those movies be matted to fit your widescreen TV, or would you want the full frame presentation?

[Buñuel]

I prefer whatever the director intended, which is usually widescreen, but not always. Even when all I had was a 17-inch TV I would only buy widescreen DVDs. I never ever watch pan and scan DVDs, if I know the original movie was widescreen, even if it's the only version that's available.

[Jes]

Full-screen. The comments about full-screen being for the "ignorant" or "yokelvision", are silly.

I've got more important things in life to worry about than whether I'm missing out on an inch of someone's head, wallpaper, or some trees in a freaking movie.

I've also seen a website like the one Mr. Nethead mentioned, with side-by-side, fullscreen and widescreen comparisons. I can understand that some people would feel cheated. I don't.

Also, why on earth would I watch VHS, when I enjoy the special featurs of a DVD.

On my TV, massive black space is distracting and unappealing.

[shoobe01]

"Fullscreen is for the ignorant." Agree totally. Fullscreen is for TV. I don't get HBO, etc. because they mostly seem to show 4:3 cutdowns.

And what's with this spin-inspired name "fullscreen"? I hate actually calling them that. "Not Widescreen" is what I usually say.

As far as shooting in another aspect ratio, there is a viewfinder. Anyone not correctly taking that into account is a crappy cinematographer and I am almost sure I don't want to see the movie anyway.

Anyone noticed how movies may or may not be 16:9? Many (at least older, dawn-of-color masterpieces) are even wider than this. You loose like 1/2 of Lawrence of Arabia when its cut down. Sad.

"I prefer whatever the director intended, which is usually widescreen, but not always." Bigtime. I, for the record, have a 4:3 TV. The black bars don't bug me, leave room for subtitles and don't require switching from the 4:3 title screen, etc.

Now, you know what bugs the hell out of me? People who watch 4:3 source STRETCHED to fill their 16:9 screen! WTF?

[Molsby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic

I prefer WIDESCREEN, preferably letterboxed. I will not rent or buy a fullscreen title unless that was the original and only format available. Plus, most of the full screen only titles are 4 or 5 years old and the video resolution is horrible when compared to current higher-definition DVD-9 discs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD