DVD: Wasted?

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

yes well people are quite often pretty stupid

[MrTorso]

I guess I can understand the argument that people feel as though they're getting more when they get six discs, but that seems really stupid to me.  You can have something that takes up LESS SPACE and you don't want it? Weird.

The average consumer doesn't know any better and it is damn near impossible to teach them any new tricks. That is why we have "Foolscreen".... I mean fullscreen releases of DVD because the average consumer "doesn't want his movies cut off at the top and bottom". I have long given up trying to explain to them the difference. It is like banging your head against a brick wall. The funny thing though is that as 16x9 tvs become the standard they are going to either bitch about the black bars on the sides of their foolscreen dvds or that they will have to stretch the image to fill up their TVs. 

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

i know your pain well torso, i HATE fullscreen.  Its so retarded. 

[daltysmilth]

Actually, in quite a few cases, fullscreen is as close as they can possibly get the film to the aspect ratio it was filmed in.  For some movies, they have to chop the top and bottom of the image off so it will fit on the screen in the theatre.  Thus, I would prefer to see the movie as close as possible to the aspect ratio it was filmed in.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

well i cant argue with that.

[Pak-Man]

OK, one of us is either grossly misinformed or joking...

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

well i cant argue with that. 

[daltysmilth]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/home/wsfaq.html

See the section called "Matted Films And Super 35mm"

[MarkAndrew]

the way i see it, is sony has now a blu ray dvd player on the market that can play video games connect to the internet and do a whole slew of stuff,

If only their marketing dept hadnt gone insane they would have already crushed hd

I say, follow the porn, based on what happened with VHS vs Betamax.  With Blu Ray turning it's nose up at the adult industry, HD DVD will probably take the lead.

[MrTorso]

Actually, in quite a few cases, fullscreen is as close as they can possibly get the film to the aspect ratio it was filmed in.  For some movies, they have to chop the top and bottom of the image off so it will fit on the screen in the theatre.  Thus, I would prefer to see the movie as close as possible to the aspect ratio it was filmed in.

Lots of movies are technically "filmed in" a different ratio. What matters is what ratio does the Director want you to view the film? That is his or her vision. That is how each and every shot is composed, lit, blocked out for. The foolscreen version is a by-product and unfortunately a necessary evil because the studios have to cater to everyone to make the $$$. From day one the director knows what ratio it will be projected at.

[gbeenie]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/home/wsfaq.html

See the section called "Matted Films And Super 35mm"

You're completely misinterpreting that article. The point is, the entire frame may be filled during shooting, but the director has composed the shot to be in the 1.85:1 ratio. The extra information is at best superfluous, and at worst, in the case of films like Billy Jack and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, harms the director's original intent.

[MrTorso]

The extra information is at best superfluous, and at worst, in the case of films like Billy Jack and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, harms the director's original intent.

Exactly! I was going to post screen caps of Pee Wee but I forgot the DVD only has the proper widescreen version. How about the idiot who  sued MGM for false advertising of their matted 1:85:1 DVDs and they caved? That was the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

MGM for false advertising of their matted 1:85:1 DVDs and they caved

explain i dont understand what happned   please use laymans terms for a second here.

[MrTorso]

When they film, the whole negative of the film can be exposed at a 4x3 ratio. A square. When it is projected in a theater since the screens are not square they use mattes to crop the entire exposed frame to the ratio the directer intended to use. The most common for this is the 1.85:1 ratio. So you lose information (that you are not intended to see in the first place) from the top and bottom and not the sides. This guy claimed (and won) that since nothing was added to the sides it wasn't widescreen and they were ripping him (and everyone else) off. MGM had to give like 4 or 5 bucks to anyone who made a claim. One of the best examples of open matte vs matted is Pee Wee's Big Adventure. When he is locking up his bike in the open matte full frame version you see the bottom of the saddle bag and the endless chain coming through the bottom. When you watch it in its correctly matted version you don't see it. When Pee Wee was shot there was no home market for movies so watching for those kinds of "mistakes" wasn't even a consideration.

This is the best example I could make:



The full frame version on the left looks a little zoomed in but not by much. It could be difference in my player/capture. The full frame version just has the mattes removed.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

This guy claimed (and won) that since nothing was added to the sides it wasn't widescreen and they were ripping him (and everyone else) off

While i understand this man is an idiot, i dont understand his argument (which i realize might be related)  his argument is what?  they chop stuff off the top and bottom and not the left and right.  so the screen is technically equally wide in either version.  so he saying that it wasnt a wide enough shot?  And if that is his objection then what was the difference between wide screen in the 80s and whatever the other option was. 

Im sorry firewall blocks images here.