Question about commercial dvd's

[HAMMER30]

I tried to search for the answer to this but could not find it, this has probably been addressed here before. My question is why do the manufactures bother to make both widescreen and fullscreen versions of dvd's, but at other times widescreen and fullscreen are available on the same disc. What I mainly want to know is why arn't all dvd's made with the choice to choose between wide and full on the same disc, does that option take up to much room on the disc? because alot of the one's I have seen that have the option seem to still have alot of extras still on the same disc. The disc's that do have this option is it not in the true widescreen format? Can anyone please explain this to me?

[LloydAZ]

I tried to search for the answer to this but could not find it, this has probably been addressed here before. My question is why do the manufactures bother to make both widescreen and fullscreen versions of dvd's, but at other times widescreen and fullscreen are available on the same disc. What I mainly want to know is why arn't all dvd's made with the choice to choose between wide and full on the same disc, does that option take up to much room on the disc? because alot of the one's I have seen that have the option seem to still have alot of extras still on the same disc. The disc's that do have this option is it not in the true widescreen format? Can anyone please explain this to me?

Usually the discs that offer both widescreen and fullscreen are 2-sided discs with widescreen on one side and fullscreen on the other.

Personally, I don't know why they bother doing both. Just release it in the format that it was presented in originally. But this is my opinion on this. I've had people tell me that they are distracted by the black borders when watching a widescreen movie on a 4:3 TV. Why they are watching the black borders and not the movie is beyond me.

[HAMMER30]

The disc's that I am referring to are the single sided disc's, they make them alot for kids movie's such as Disney movies. I know that alot of people cant stand the thought of watching a movie in fullscreen, but if they have the technology to do both formats then why don't they just do it to satisfy everybody?

[DeadLily]

A couple of reasons are likely.

1) The finite space on the disk means that if they have to pack twice as much material on a single side, the overall picture quality will suffer. Most don't notice the difference or care, but some do and prefer better quality.

2) Children are even less likely to care, so it will be made available more often for children's movies.

3) A different video master has to be made for each version (of the full movie, not just the DVD), and that costs $$$. If the distributor doesn't feel the need to pay for it (and face it, there's not a huge demand for it), they'll only go with one version.

[yoda313]

Yep price and space are the two main considerations.

[HAMMER30]

What I want to know is that I don't think that there is really two whole seperate versions of the movie on the disc, I think they use some kind of structural program or something that uses the same version of the movie but somehow is able to switch between the two. Does anyone know exactlly how it works?

[RottenFoxBreath]

some definatly have 2 movies on the disc,and some are double sided.
dont lose sleep over it though.lol

[kschang]

The short answer is it's the difference between DVD9 and DVD5.

Example... Top Gun is a DVD9, single-sided, double-layer. (IMDB calls it SS-DL)

However, the collector's edition Top Gun is DS-RSSL (double sided, single layer, but what's RS? Can't find a definition)

I think most of the DVD9's decided that the silkscreen is more important then have a double-sided disk. Adult stuff will come on double-sided disks.

[edDV]

Let me offer a try.

The producers want to offer the original widescreen theatrical version to match the directors intention and satisfy the premium TV audience (a small but growing minoity).

Joe 4:3 sixpack looks at 2.35:1 letterboxed aspect ratio on his 27" Zenith and says "WTF" and returns the DVD.

So, we have a polarized market. How to offer a solution for both?

1 - two DVD masters and offer "widescreen" and "full screen" separate products. This carries heavy inventory penalty if you can't forecast the mix exactly.

2 - two DVD masters and 2 discs in the box (very expensive and even more expensive for long 2 disc movies)

3 - two DVD masters and one 2 sided DVD (16:9 and 4:3) with more compression for long movies to keep it to one disc (a bit less expensive). This also stops the second disc from being given away or sold on ebay.

4.- a single widescreen DVD master with "pan scan" codes that move the picture left and right to best frame the scene for 4:3 viewers. Since so few of these exist, I have to conclude that the process either didn't work at the player level (i.e more returns) or Joe 4:3 didn't want to fiddle with menus or both.

5. ... Mission Impossible ... You HAMMER30 have the product manager job to sort this mess out and have a solution posted ASAP. Goal is to maximize customer satisfaction and profits.

This message will dissappear shortly.

[guns1inger]

The Widescreen/Fullscreen issue seems to be worst in the US. Europe have had widescreen TVs for years, so the idea of widescreen movies on DVD was natural. Australia, being PAL, usually gets discs from the same masters as Europe, so most of our releases are widescreen, and again, there has been no fuss or backlash. Only the US viwere seems to really have a problem watching correctly formatted films.

[yoda313]

Only the US viwere seems to really have a problem watching correctly formatted films.

?????

As far as I know you've always been able to buy a widescreen version of a movie on dvd here.

Though there was a flap at blockbuster when dvds first started taking off. They'd only stock FULLSCREEN dvds. That stopped pretty quickly after complaints from home theater owners.

We've also had WIDESCREEN available on letterboxed VHS tapes for years too.

I think the original poster was just asking why all dvds don't include both versions. Again mostly for disc space and cost reasons they don't all have them.

[edDV]

The Widescreen/Fullscreen issue seems to be worst in the US. Europe have had widescreen TVs for years, so the idea of widescreen movies on DVD was natural. Australia, being PAL, usually gets discs from the same masters as Europe, so most of our releases are widescreen, and again, there has been no fuss or backlash. Only the US viwere seems to really have a problem watching correctly formatted films.

Europe has the big brother national networks preaching the directors intention as reasons they will only provide letterbox and you as serf viewer will be happy and also pay your TV license,

In the US market, the networks experimented with letterbox and were swamped with complaints so letterbox was never seen again except on late night PBS and some artsy cable channels.

Some explanation goes to lower vertical resolution of NTSC, but that is swamped by the cultural issue of taking direction from a self proclaimed "higher" aesthetic elite.

[Noahtuck]

Well ...
Where i live it's mixed, one of the larger chains carry more WS than FS and when they sell off new releases and keep just a couple for normal stock they keep the WS versions.

One other larger chain used to do the opposite, they would not even get in widescreen, just FS because they said too many people complained, but then they have shut down alot of their locations over the last 8 months 8)

And actually the more people i talk to the vast majority prefer WS over FS.

But as more and more tv's seem to turn to WS, even more people will be either embracing WS or they will have new black bars to bitch about, just moved from the top and botton to the sides, or watch really short and wide people

[edDV]

I was amazed how this issue even entered the highbrow Laserdisc market in the first phase (early 90s). Laserdisc promoted widescreen acceptance but at first it was tough to rent widescreen Laserdisc and near impossible to get widescreen VHS.

The first phase of DVD was also mostly 4:3. Over time widescreen has become more accepted.

[festmaster]

Joe 4:3 sixpack looks at 2.35:1 letterboxed aspect ratio on his 27" Zenith and says "WTF" and returns the DVD.

The fact is 2.35:1 on on 27" Zenith looks terrible from across the room, and it looks terrible on a 10" laptop at 30,000 feet. However, it looks fantastic on a 50' DLP. I have all three types of displays and I want to option to optimize my viewing experience in a way that suits my taste. I am all in favor of flipper disks with WS on one side and FS on the other. If a DVD release is expected to have only limited appeal, I can understand mastering only the original proportion, which interestingly is usually 16:9. But it chaps my backside to walk into a store and see two kiosks for a blockbuster release, one for each format. I want both formats but I have no need to buy an extra copy of the special features disk.

The upcoming release of the latest Harry Potter is taking a unique approach. The special feature disk will only be packaged with the WS version. The FS version will be sold as a single, cheaper package. I might be able to live with that concept.

[NiteLite]

If the bars are such a problem when using a 4x3 monitor there is another way.
Since "most" new movies are released "enhanced for 16x9 widescreen" simply go into the DVD player main menu and for TV type untick 4x3 and tick 16x9. This will stretch a 16x9 to full screen on 4x3. No black bars. Wider aspects will of course not fill but will enlarge. This method will keep the width of the movie but will stretch the height causing people to look an inch or so taller and a few pounds lighter.
However, after a few minutes you will adapt and not notice. I've done this for a couple people (older couples) and they really liked it. They were using 27" and 32" TVs and didnt notice the difference. Oh well they were happy.

I agree with the comment above. What are you doing looking at the black bars.
With contrast set correctly and in a dark or darken room the bars fade into the background anyway.
If I had to watch a 2:35 on a 27" from several feet away I would give it a try.

[stackner]

my friend is the classic fullscreen freak. i always laugh at him. he complains about most dvds being widescreen becouse he feels that he is MISSING out on some of the picture???? figure that one out. i think becouse of the black bars somehow he thinks he is missing picture? i just laugh at hime and i have tried many times to explain to him that its the fullscreen copy thats actually missing part of the picture. ive even shown him with ones that have both the fullscreen and widescreen copy on the same disc that the wide screen while yes it fills the whole screen and looks good actually get the sides of the picture cut off to do so and the widescreen is the one that actually shows the whole picture. i have a 4:3 tv but personnaly hate it if the movie is not in widescreen format like it was intended and looks best (apart from OLD movies)

[guns1inger]

To NiteLite - you work in the TV department of a major appliance store, don't you. They all seem to set their TVs up the same way.

How in the hell can tall thin people be less distracting than the letterbox bars ? Insane.

[HAMMER30]

I do like to watch letter box better way more than fullscreen but as it was stated above in stackner's post that his friend thought that he was missing parts of the movie when watching full screen, I have actually found that to be true on atleast one movie, on the movie Oceans 11 on the fullscreen version (like the version that is most shown on cable) there is a scene I like to watch out for were they made a mistake while filming the movie, it is the scene were Rusty(Brad Pitt) is in the casino eating some cocktail shrimp and it goes from him holding a cocktail glass to holding a actual plate back to holding a cocktail glass all in the same scene, I always assumed from what Iv'e heard is that when watching a letterbox version of a movie that your seeing everything that was intended to be scene just as if your watching it in a theatre, but how come on this letterbox version of this movie you can't even see the mistake happen at all because the cocktail glass and the plate are beneath Rusty's waist were the letterbox bar is located????????????

[edDV]

I do like to watch letter box better way more than fullscreen but as it was stated above in stackner's post that his friend thought that he was missing parts of the movie when watching full screen, I have actually found that to be true on atleast one movie, on the movie Oceans 11 on the fullscreen version (like the version that is most shown on cable) there is a scene I like to watch out for were they made a mistake while filming the movie, it is the scene were Rusty(Brad Pitt) is in the casino eating some cocktail shrimp and it goes from him holding a cocktail glass to holding a actual plate back to holding a cocktail glass all in the same scene, I always assumed from what Iv'e heard is that when watching a letterbox version of a movie that your seeing everything that was intended to be scene just as if your watching it in a theatre, but how come on this letterbox version of this movie you can't even see the mistake happen at all because the cocktail glass and the plate are beneath Rusty's waist were the letterbox bar is located????????????

Seems to me like they mastered the full screen version first. And then caught the continuity error.

[stackner]

well that one is a mystery to me. but i do infact belive the general rule is letterbox shows all that was filmed and intended to be seen. generally the bars to not cover anything they are only there becouse the picture is wider than your 4:3 tv

[HAMMER30]

That may be true that they may have purposely cut it out on the letterbox version, hard to know though because that movie was never released on dvd in fullscreen just shown on television in fullscreen.

[Nitemare]

I'm guessing that the film (Ocean's 11) was shot on Super35mm film.

Please realize that I'm NOT an expert, but I heard that the super35 film shoots basically in 4x3, but can then be processed to widescreen "somehow".

"...Super 35 uses the frame area of the film that movies occupied prior to the advent of sound from sprocket hole to sprocket, top to bottom. When the sound track area was added to film in the late 1920s, the picture had to be narrowed and shortened to maintain the same aspect ratio (frame shape). As a result, a significant portion of the original frame is not used in conventional 35 mm cinematography. In post-production, you can choose in which aspect ratio to release the film. Also, you can manufacture an anamorphic (CINEMASCOPE) release without the film having been shot that way. Most telecine facilities can take advantage of the bigger negative area when transferring to video to produce a sharper picture or to make creative decisions in post-production by cropping and zooming within the film frame area."
taken from :
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/faqs/faq2110.shtml#g3

"Air Force One" was shot this way and is most noticable in a scene between Gary Oldman and Harrison Ford fighting. Oldman forces Ford against the wall during a fight and they argue. One the widescreen edition their faces are in extreme closeup but in the full screen edition you can clearly see both full heads and also see that Mr. Oldman has a fistful of Mr. Ford's hair.

In a way, films using this method validate the normally "wrong" thinking that widescreen editions chop some of their movie away. When shot on Super35 it turns out to be true. Disney did this digitally with "Finding Nemo". The full screen version is actually the widescreen version with extra scenery "added" to fill in the black bar area. (their explanation... not mine)

I originally learned all this during some TV show on special effects, film techniques, etc. Rumor has it that James Cameron is a Super35 junkie ... and for the reasons mentioned by Kodak. He could get a widescreen theater release and a 4:3 video release off of the same negative with almost no extra work/cost.

Regards,
Nitemare

[edDV]

The basics are covered in these links:

http://www.high-techproductions.com/widescreen.htm
http://hometheater.about.com/cs/television/a/16x9tvfactor.htm
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen

[NiteLite]

To NiteLite - you work in the TV department of a major appliance store, don't you. They all seem to set their TVs up the same way.

How in the hell can tall thin people be less distracting than the letterbox bars ? Insane.

No sir, gunslinger.
I am retired from my own company and it had nothing to do with retail.
To your second question. If you read my post I explained it. The brain adapts. Sure if you want to get a ruler and start measuring objects in both modes you will notice a differece. That may be "insane".
My post was intended for the original poster that seemed to be having a bad experience and I offered a workaround solution that 9 of 10 people would never notice if they had not seen the original 16x9.
Again, whew, I prefer 16x9. However, there are a few people, again, usually older couples mentioned again, in my original post that just cant see the picture as good on there small TVs and the solution I offered them made them happy.
The stretch is not as much as you think it may be. Why dont you try it and see. You may be amazed at how the brain does indeed adapt after a few minutes and if you never knew the video was 16x9 and you played it the way I stated you probably would not know.
Now that I have had to let you know about myself, nice to meet you.
NL

ps. I have never seen a 16x9 set up that way where I shop. They may where you do. I dont shop much to be honest. I have one dealer I work with when making changes to my HT. And he is not a mass markert "appliance" ? store.

[dvd3500]

When you have people hooking up DVD players using the antenna connection what do you expect?

[superpotts]

I often wondered the same thing as your original post, Hammer. I personally hate the discs with a version on each side. I like to see the picture on the disc because my wife and I always leave our movies in the dvd player when we're done watching them, and I hate having to strain my eyes to read the 1pt font on the inner circle of the double-sided discs to find out which movie it is whenever I finally take it out of the dvd player.

I also think it's kind of funny how people refer to the black area on widescreen dvds as "black bars" when technically they're empty space. I used to hate the black bars and called them that. But once I started watching more movies in the widescreen version I didn't think of them as 'bars' anymore, but rather as just unused space - and I now hate watching movies in full screen because it looks so squished to me. Though, I do understand people's reasonings for wanting the full screen. I have a cousin who has a 36" 4:3 and he detests widescreen; he always says he didn't pay $1200 to only use half of his screen, and that if he wanted to use half his screen he would have spent half has much on a tv half the size.

[lordsmurf]

It would have matched his half brain!

I watched something on TCM a few nights ago, a documentary-style segment, ran about 15 minutes long after the movie, with famous directors discussing widescreen vs pan-and-scan. They are terribly against the re-editing, re-directing of the P&S process. They showed a ton of examples where fullscreen basically destroyed the look and feel of the film. The old Cinemascope (super wide!) movies are by far the most butchered. Even the 16:9 and 235:1 "widescreen" tends to be cropped slightly.

[edDV]

...
I have a cousin who has a 36" 4:3 and he detests widescreen; he always says he didn't pay $1200 to only use half of his screen, and that if he wanted to use half his screen he would have spent half has much on a tv half the size.

Must be a ESPN sports guy, not a movie guy. You have to get close or have a large screen to watch ESPN HD. But if you do, it's a better better view than if you were in the stands. The food and beer are better too.