pan and scan dvds i hate them

[jamespoo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoCrq_Y1dlI

just look how bad it is

[DB83]

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember when tvs were not widescreen.

Similar complaints then when the transmission or dvd dared to be shown letter-boxed.

[Case]

1/ The DVD releases are from December 2006, a long time ago.
2/ The rated version was released in “widescreen” (1.78:1) and “full screen” (1.33:1) -- buyer beware.
3/ The unrated version was released in “widescreen” (1.78:1)
(The theatrical release was 1.85:1)

[smrpix]

1/ The DVD releases are from December 2006, a long time ago.
2/ The rated version was released in “widescreen” (1.78:1) and “full screen” (1.33:1) -- buyer beware.
3/ The unrated version was released in “widescreen” (1.78:1)
(The theatrical release was 1.85:1)

...And most of it was shot on mini-DV, so the aquisition ratio was 1.78:1. There's no way to know (without talking to someone who was there) how the final DVD release was derived.

[jamespoo]

same with tv channels when they pan and scan letterbox movies to 16:9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ikn1b75058

[smrpix]

same with tv channels when they pan and scan letterbox movies to 16:9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ikn1b75058

That specific example may not be a good one. James Cameron generally shoots full-aperature 35mm and crops his images for the delivery format. You may actually be seeing more of the image on the 16:9 version than the 2.4:1. A classic example is the reframing on the 3D BR release of Titanic.
(Also, although I'm against it in principle, HBO tends to do an excellent job of panning and scanning widescreen to 16:9.)

[lingyi]

But...but...the movie doesn't fill my whole screen. *Sigh*

When HDR sets become mainstream, people will be complaining about how the movie doesn't "pop" like it did on their wildly mis-adjusted set in Vivid mode. *Double Sigh*

IIRC, back iwhen movies were offered in Pan and Scan or Widescreen, the Pan and Scan versions usually outsold Widescreen. "Triple Sigh*

[hello_hello]

I have a pan and scan DVD of The Last Samurai. "As it was originally intended" arguments aside, it blows the widescreen version away for picture detail, where a much wider image was encoded at a lower resolution. Although shouldn't the "as it was originally intended" argument apply to picture detail too?

I'd be surprised if the majority of movies aren't framed with an eventual 16:9 viewing format in mind these days. I often zoom in so widescreen movies fill the screen. I almost never feel like I'm missing something. In fact as zooming in increases the size of the picture I'm viewing, to me it feels more "immersive" and makes watching a movie on a smaller screen a little more like the intended viewing experience in a theatre.... which I'm sure wasn't to provide an audience with a "view a movie through a letter box" experience. Personal preference, I guess.