Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: Beebs on November 30, 2006, 03:34:19 PM

Title: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Beebs on November 30, 2006, 03:34:19 PM
Just watched something on TCM or AMC (sorry can't remember which) about the evils of full screen. They used Lawrence of Arabia as an example. It worked perfectly. What are the advantages to full screen anyway. Sure it fits your TV screen but why not have the two black lines at the top.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: The Peacemaker on November 30, 2006, 03:38:35 PM
I saw that documentary before and, yes, it uses great examples of how full screen just butchers a film.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: pixelated on November 30, 2006, 03:46:06 PM
fullscreen serves no purpose, other than to make people happy that have no appreciation for film as art.. but rather think of them as flashy images to distract them for a couple of hours

got to have that whole screen filled, or i'm not getting maximum distraction out of my TV
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: The Peacemaker on November 30, 2006, 03:55:45 PM
fullscreen serves no purpose, other than to make people happy that have no appreciation for film as art.. but rather think of them as flashy images to distract them for a couple of hours

got to have that whole screen filled, or i'm not getting maximum distraction out of my TV

 ;D


I agree with you 100%.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 30, 2006, 04:00:31 PM
Full frame forever, full screen never! Full screen is an evil abomination which must be stamped out.

Unfortunately TV companies all over the world have been told in viewers survay's that the vast proportion of their viewers hate "those horrible black bars" at the top and bottom of the picture, hence they are merely bowing to market preasure. It's the TV audience which needs educating.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Amaze on November 30, 2006, 04:10:42 PM
speaking of which, I just realised my full metal jacket dvd is in fullscreen.

"this movie has been modified as follows from it's original version: it has been formatted to fit your screen."

 >:(
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: cigar joe on November 30, 2006, 04:11:39 PM
Yea thats a good little demo, its on TCM quite a bit.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 30, 2006, 04:29:36 PM
speaking of which, I just realised my full metal jacket dvd is in fullscreen.

Bizarre huh? Apparently this was done on Kubrick's instructions.

Seems he hated them black bars on the top and bottom of the screen too. VERY odd.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Amaze on November 30, 2006, 04:38:49 PM
huh? so there is no ws edition?
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 30, 2006, 05:01:17 PM
I'm not sure, as I don't like the movie, but I have heard friends discussing the subject. I suspect not.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Groggy on November 30, 2006, 05:07:44 PM
It depends on the movie.  I don't think I'll mind too much if I miss the widescreen effect watching "Click" or "xXx", but if I'm watching a Ford, Peckinpah, Lean, Leone, Hawks, Kubrick kinda film, then I take umbrage.  I can enjoy any movie regardless of whether its full- or widescreen if I would enjoy it anyway, but it does take away from the film's power a great deal.

I understand entirely why people have problems with the "black bars" - on a normal size TV they make the picture so small it's almost impossible to see.  Unless you have a plasma or widescreeen TV, then that would be a big problem, and I don't think it's a matter of people just being ignorant at all.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: pixelated on November 30, 2006, 05:15:20 PM
It depends on the movie.  I don't think I'll mind too much if I miss the widescreen effect watching "Click" or "xXx", but if I'm watching a Ford, Peckinpah, Lean, Leone, Hawks, Kubrick kinda film, then I take umbrage.  I can enjoy any movie regardless of whether its full- or widescreen if I would enjoy it anyway, but it does take away from the film's power a great deal.

I understand entirely why people have problems with the "black bars" - on a normal size TV they make the picture so small it's almost impossible to see.  Unless you have a plasma or widescreeen TV, then that would be a big problem, and I don't think it's a matter of people just being ignorant at all.

ah come on man.. i have a widescreen TV now, but for the first time i've ever had one.. i spent the rest of my life watching letterbox/widescreen films and always preferred it.. even on a tiny, normal TV.  never thought it was "impossible" to see the picture.

you're not seriously watching xXx are you?  ;)

i do see your point though, it doesnt bother me on a average movie, or TV show that isn't filmed with cinematography in mind
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Groggy on November 30, 2006, 05:18:26 PM
I've seen "xXx" once, a long time ago - that was just an example.  ;) I actually did see "Click" last week though.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Beebs on November 30, 2006, 06:07:36 PM
I always thought the TV's should be widescreen STANDARD and if you want full screen, there should be two black bars on the sides.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: pixelated on November 30, 2006, 06:20:05 PM
I always thought the TV's should be widescreen STANDARD and if you want full screen, there should be two black bars on the sides.

haha
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Groggy on November 30, 2006, 06:48:45 PM
Just watched something on TCM or AMC (sorry can't remember which) about the evils of full screen. They used Lawrence of Arabia as an example. It worked perfectly. What are the advantages to full screen anyway. Sure it fits your TV screen but why not have the two black lines at the top.

The documentary was on TCM.  I know because a) I've seen it, and b) it would be kind of hypocritical for AMC to run such a program nowadays, wouldn't it?  ;D
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: The Peacemaker on November 30, 2006, 08:58:36 PM
I always thought the TV's should be widescreen STANDARD and if you want full screen, there should be two black bars on the sides.

I thought of this a while back.

It makes sense, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: marmota-b on November 30, 2006, 11:16:20 PM
Yes, like in cinema!
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Leone Admirer on December 01, 2006, 05:20:11 AM
There are a lot of people who still prefer fullscreen, and if they want widescreen they can't have those 'distracting' black bars. Most of the films I watch tend to be before the widescreen revolution and I watch them in their 1:33:1 or narrower ratio with the black bars on either side. Of course people who own TV's which are more then a year old have to deal with overscan from the TV itself meaning that watching full frame and widescreen films on those TV's will result in a very marginal loss of picture on the left and right hand side.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Silenzio on January 21, 2007, 09:38:13 PM
Bizarre huh? Apparently this was done on Kubrick's instructions.

Seems he hated them black bars on the top and bottom of the screen too. VERY odd.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Kubrick's later films, such as Barry Lyndon, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket were all filmed in 1.33:1 because Kubrick saw the way that tv stations butchered 2001 and started filming in 1.33:1 so that none of his films could be messed with like that again.

The irony is, there is now a Widescreen edition of The Shining (which was filmed in full-frame, so they crop the top and bottom of thet image) because people with widescreen tvs don't want black bars on the side.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: The Firecracker on January 21, 2007, 09:43:50 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure Kubrick's later films, such as Barry Lyndon, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket were all filmed in 1.33:1 because Kubrick saw the way that tv stations butchered 2001 and started filming in 1.33:1 so that none of his films could be messed with like that again.

The irony is, there is now a Widescreen edition of The Shining (which was filmed in full-frame, so they crop the top and bottom of thet image) because people with widescreen tvs don't want black bars on the side.


anybody know when those Kubrick SE's are supposed to be coming out?
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: marmota-b on January 21, 2007, 11:19:12 PM
The irony is, there is now a Widescreen edition of The Shining (which was filmed in full-frame, so they crop the top and bottom of thet image) because people with widescreen tvs don't want black bars on the side.

 :P
I really cannot imagine it without top and bottom. What could e.g. that axe scene look like?
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Leone Admirer on January 22, 2007, 06:25:02 AM

anybody know when those Kubrick SE's are supposed to be coming out?

Later this year apparently, probably around summer time. Believe me there has been so many arguments about the aspect ratio hardly any one agrees what ratio he really shot things for, except The Shining as for the new Taschen book, a storybaord surfaced with a telling note around the side for 'framing at 1.85:! and so a lot of people have taken that as how the Shining was supposed to be shown.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: grandpa_chum on January 22, 2007, 08:37:46 AM
first of all let's not bash full screen, there is nothing wrong with movies shot in that ratio, the problem is doctoring original aspect ratios, plenty of great films have been shot in full screen and remain in full screen... kubricks movies which he demanded be released in full screen were originally shot in full screen and then doctored and changed for the theatrical release... the theatrical release of the shining and full metal jacket have some of the edges missing and the full screen dvds are a more complete picture... so lets not get gung ho on the widescreen thing... i hate altering movies for the widescreen format as much as i hate altering them for the full screen format, widescreen tvs now are doing the same thing, getting rid of those black bars on the side instead of the top and bottom, films should just be watched the way they were made if at all possible... the reason it started is simple though, tv's used to be a lot smaller, why it continues I couldn't tell you, but it makes sense that back in the early days of television movies they altered them, because tvs were small and honestly a 1.85/1 movie altered to fit the television screen isn't that bad, it's when you start changing the 2.35/1 that the problem of pan and scan comes in.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Leone Admirer on January 22, 2007, 08:51:11 AM
Thing about the Kubrick widescreen thing (and I don't want to stir up a huge debate) it is now believed he shot the films for the cinema in widescreen whilst preserving the 1.33:1 for TV showings. As I said before the storyboard that recently surfaced from his collection backs this up and is also why the new versions on DVD should be reverting back to the original theatrical presentation. Full screen as a term today seems to define the refomatting of the OAR rather then meaning 1.33:1 which is often why in R1 the two versions are called widescreen and fullscreen. Also in todays world of Super 35mm where directors take infomation out of a larger source (see the demonstation on the T2 Ultimate Edition DVD for best results) in which the anamorphic widescreen crops the top and bottom and the fullscreen takes off the sides, has also become quite popular. Another example being Robocop in which director Paul Verhoven shot the film for 1.85:1 but actually prefers 1.66:1 even though really the OAR is 1.85:1 collectors of the Criterion editon and film buffs have taken 1.66:1 to heart as the films OAR. It's a murkey world out there in ratios...
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Aguirre on January 22, 2007, 05:20:10 PM
Bizarre huh? Apparently this was done on Kubrick's instructions.

Seems he hated them black bars on the top and bottom of the screen too. VERY odd.

I heard he wanted to show the movie the same way he saw them through his viewfinder.

Of course, Clockwork Orange and 2001 are not in full screen.
The WS versions were shown in theaters on initial release, but I believe those were cropped to be WS.
Anyway, most Kubrick movies on DVD are simply open matte with that idea in mind, and not pan and scan.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: The Peacemaker on January 23, 2007, 11:02:31 AM
Speaking of full screen vs. widescreen, I saw a hilarious Benny Hill episode yesterday where he says that instead of using the black bars on top and bottom they chop off the sides. So in the skit it's suppose to be a pan-and-scanned movie.

I won't get into it, but it was hilarious.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Senza on February 24, 2013, 11:02:39 PM
I've always preferred wide because more of the image is revealed, especially in Leone's westerns showing the vast landscapes.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Tex on February 25, 2013, 10:29:38 AM
Ha, one of my old threads! Thanks for digging this up.

Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: cigar joe on February 25, 2013, 03:46:26 PM
Ha, one of my old threads! Thanks for digging this up.



Are you Beebs?
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Tex on February 25, 2013, 03:53:11 PM
Are you Beebs?

Indeed I am! I decided to dust off my spurs and saddle up once more.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: cigar joe on February 25, 2013, 04:04:49 PM
One cool effect I've noticed especially when watching 3:4 Black & White Film Noir, is that the black bars basically blend and disappear into the film.

The vertical bars take on the aspect of virtual corners, columns, abrupt shadows in quite a few sequences.
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: cigar joe on February 25, 2013, 04:05:54 PM
Indeed I am! I decided to dust off my spurs and saddle up once more.

Welcome home! O0
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Tex on February 25, 2013, 04:08:00 PM
Welcome home! O0

Thanks, Joe! Good to be back
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: cigar joe on February 26, 2013, 03:13:21 PM
One cool effect I've noticed especially when watching 3:4 Black & White Film Noir, is that the black bars basically blend and disappear into the film.

The vertical bars take on the aspect of virtual corners, columns, abrupt shadows in quite a few sequences.

Of course it only is really noticeable in the noirs that seem to be shot in an eternal night.  O0
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: marmota-b on April 12, 2013, 01:05:36 PM
Hm... I now have a new computer with a widescreen monitor; I guess I should watch some Leone to put it to good use. ;D

And welcome back, Beebs/Tex, a bit late from me. O0
Title: Re: Full Screen vs Wide
Post by: Tex on April 12, 2013, 01:54:19 PM
Hm... I now have a new computer with a widescreen monitor; I guess I should watch some Leone to put it to good use. ;D

And welcome back, Beebs/Tex, a bit late from me. O0

Thanks, Marmota!