Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Wide-screen, while obviously more faithful to the film's presentation, really sucked extra hard when being watched on the old box 4:3 TVs where the average size of a TV screen was like 25 inches and anything above 30 was considered as a big screen today whereas today 30' is not even medium but small. I remember watching wide screen with black bars on my 21 inch box TV all too well. It's not an experience you forget easily and it will follow me to my grave. Not defending pan and scan in any way, but I can certainly see why there was a major headache on deciding how to present films on TVs between the 3 options: Black bars with extra tiny picture area, cropping or pan and scan. Every option had major drawbacks.

Sometimes I can't believe how spoiled us film fans are today.

You and I remember things very differently. I remember being awestruck by how cool it looked to have the first two Terminator movies in widescreen, even though they were VHS and I was watching on a little 19" color TV in my bedroom. I didn't even understand the whole thing about original aspect ratios, pan-and-scanning, etc yet - I just knew that it felt more theatrical (and dare I say special?) to me. It was hard to describe, but I loved it the moment I saw it.

It wasn't until sitting down to watch T2 for the first time (with the new VHS, umpteenth time overall) that I noticed I was actually seeing more than I did on my old fullscreen copy. I can even remember the scene - it was the moment where the T-1000 morphs from John's step mom back to the cop form. For the first time since seeing it in the theater, I was able to see the T-1000's head during the whole transformation. Good times, noodle salad.

[Zen_Amako]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

You and I remember things very differently. I remember being awestruck by how cool it looked to have the first two Terminator movies in widescreen, even though they were VHS and I was watching on a little 19" color TV in my bedroom. I didn't even understand the whole thing about original aspect ratios, pan-and-scanning, etc yet - I just knew that it felt more theatrical (and dare I say special?) to me. It was hard to describe, but I loved it the moment I saw it.

It wasn't until sitting down to watch T2 for the first time (with the new VHS, umpteenth time overall) that I noticed I was actually seeing more than I did on my old fullscreen copy. I can even remember the scene - it was the moment where the T-1000 morphs from John's step mom back to the cop form. For the first time since seeing it in the theater, I was able to see the T-1000's head during the whole transformation. Good times, noodle salad.

T2 was actually filmed in Super 35, and more of the picture was seen in the pan and scan version with the exception of visual effects shots.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by Zen_Amako

T2 was actually filmed in Super 35, and more of the picture was seen in the pan and scan version with the exception of visual effects shots.

Yes and no. The film was protected for 4:3 so he could reframe as needed for the pan and scan version. This wasn't an open-matte situation where you simply got more info on the top and bottom (at the expense of the proper composition of the frame.) Depending on how each shot was reframed, you often lost part of the picture you were supposed to see in favor of stuff not intended to be seen.

[Show spoiler]

Regardless, I care far more about retaining the proper composition and seeing what Cameron intended me to see than I am about how much of the image is filling my screen. And obviously my example was centered around a visual effect shot so...

[MiracleandWonder]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

You and I remember things very differently. I remember being awestruck by how cool it looked to have the first two Terminator movies in widescreen, even though they were VHS and I was watching on a little 19" color TV in my bedroom. I didn't even understand the whole thing about original aspect ratios, pan-and-scanning, etc yet - I just knew that it felt more theatrical (and dare I say special?) to me. It was hard to describe, but I loved it the moment I saw it.

It wasn't until sitting down to watch T2 for the first time (with the new VHS, umpteenth time overall) that I noticed I was actually seeing more than I did on my old fullscreen copy. I can even remember the scene - it was the moment where the T-1000 morphs from John's step mom back to the cop form. For the first time since seeing it in the theater, I was able to see the T-1000's head during the whole transformation. Good times, noodle salad.

I'm with you on this. I had no problem with "black bars" and I thought it only enhanced the view and made it look more cinematic compared to normal television.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Wide-screen, while obviously more faithful to the film's presentation, really sucked extra hard when being watched on the old box 4:3 TVs where the average size of a TV screen was like 25 inches and anything above 30 was considered as a big screen today whereas today 30' is not even medium but small. I remember watching wide screen with black bars on my 21 inch box TV all too well. It's not an experience you forget easily and it will follow me to my grave. Not defending pan and scan in any way, but I can certainly see why there was a major headache on deciding how to present films on TVs between the 3 options: Black bars with extra tiny picture area, cropping or pan and scan. Every option had major drawbacks.

Sometimes I can't believe how spoiled us film fans are today.

Yep! I remember being all excited about watching Blade Runner Directors Cut widescreen on VHS only to realise on watching how small the image was on my 25" Trinitron! (and that was a good TV for the time too!). Got a 32" widescreen CRT not long after that.

[Blu-21]

The shape of films in widescreen on 4:3 CRT TVs is just awful, especially 2.35:1 films. The black bars are so thick and consume way too much of the already small display screen. I'm not saying pan & scan is better on 4:3 CRT TVs, but widescreen looks vastly superior on 16:9 TVs.

[Nada]

I had so many widescreen VHS tapes that I didn't even see the black bars after a certain point. I loved those so much.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Nada

I had so many widescreen VHS tapes that I didn't even see the black bars after a certain point. I loved those so much.

One of the first widescreen VHS tapes I had was Dune. I had seen the P&S so much as a child on a smaller screen that when I got the widescreen version and saw it on our 32" CRT at the time it was like a revelation to say the least.

[baheidstu]

One thing that was always sticks in my mind re: pan & scan was Moonraker. The establishing shot of Venice is a moving statue pealing a bell. For years all it showed on the VHS I watched was the statue moving and the bell was out of the frame. Then I remember seeing a later release of the movie on VHS and it was changed so you see the bell being struck and the statue was out of frame. That was the point I finally got on board the widescreen train, realizing how much visual info was being cut out. Luckily, DVD was just coming out at that time and P&S started falling by the wayside.

[blonde_devil]

T2 is a bad example for selling widescreen because Cameron actually was thinking ahead and filmed with different formats in mind including pan and scan for home video so it isn't like traditional films where you zoom in and lose the sides, you actually are setting stuff in the pan and scan version you didn't get to see in widescreen. I think that one probably the only film done that way.

Pan and scan wasn't always that bad. To be fair, a lot of films were done with the action in the middle of the screen so you could cut off the edges and not really lose anything important. Certainly comedies and dramas are still done like that today. Action films are where you really lost out - Moonraker is a great example. Westerns too since you couldn't get the vast landscapes on the screen the same way. But remember too, there were a lot of movie formats being tried out too - Cinerama for example. Today we really only have 2 formats for the most part - 1.85 and 2.31 - and mostly 35 mm(or digital pretending to be 35mm). Before home video, they tried so many different things that when it came time to release them, pan and scan worked for everything. Yeah you might have lost out on some stuff but didn't matter if it was 16mm, 35mm or 70mm, or 1.85 or 2.31, pan and scan could be used to get it out to the audience. I think had they not done that, tapes wouldn't have been so popular. I mean, people today still complain about the bars on the screen and that has been standard for 15 years now - imagine the complaining if your vhs tape had that on a regular 4x3 tv? I think for the time, it was the right way to do it.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

T2 is a bad example for selling widescreen because Cameron actually was thinking ahead and filmed with different formats in mind including pan and scan for home video

Cameron shot T2 in Super35. I think he did a few effects shots with VistaVision (though here I may be confusing T2 with The Abyss), but I'd say 95%+ of the movie was in Super35.

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

so it isn't like traditional films where you zoom in and lose the sides, you actually are setting stuff in the pan and scan version you didn't get to see in widescreen. I think that one probably the only film done that way.

Super35 is remarkably common and hundreds of films were shot that way.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by 42041

And CD revenues have been dropping by almost double digit percentages annually too.

I was thinking again about why comparing CDs to Blu-ray (aka, music on disc to movies on disc) is like comparing apples to oranges:

As was already stated multiple times, we know watching movies is a PRIMARY activity (have to sit and watch), while listening to music is a SECONDARY activity (can be driving, jogging, doing laundry...etc)

But more importantly, the success of downloading music was an easy choice vs buying a CD because with downloading, you don't have to buy an entire album. You can choose only the songs you like. A song from Lamb of God's "Wrath" album, two from The Weeknd's "Trilogy" album, one from U2's "Joshua Tree" album... etc You can't and wouldn't think of doing that with movies! You wouldn't download two chapters from The Shining, three chapters from Inception, one chapter from Blade Runner... etc So again, music and movies (although always mentioned in the same breath) are apples and oranges

[Chiefy]

I'll never buy digital music over CD's. Why pay for a lossy, crappy sounding download? No thanks. My standards are much higher than that. It seems to me that today's younger generation prefers convenience vs quality. My much younger cousin crams his entire collection onto HDD's and many, many songs onto his iPod and he is perfectly content. He says it sounds "good enough". Sad, as it will be his generations doing when CD's finally are phased out. MP3's have their place like when going out on a jog, or to the gym using headphones, but when I'm home, I play music on my sound system. If you can't hear the difference between an MP3 and a CD, you need to get your hearing checked ASAP. Luckily for me, I own most everything I already want on CD anyways. I'll also hold onto my vinyl collection.

On a side note, we are going to have a lot of hard of hearing people in the future. I can hear some peoples music on their headphones from quite far away. Dumb asses.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Chiefy

I'll never buy digital music over CD's.

I don't buy either. I prefer my Vinyl. With the exception of when I can't get Vinyl, then I'll go CD.

[Chiefy]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

I don't buy either. I prefer my Vinyl. With the exception of when I can't get Vinyl, then I'll go CD.

You are die-hard! I prefer vinyl too, and in a way I'm guilty of what I said above by going with CD's. Vinyl has a sound quality that can't be beat. The reason I mostly play CD's now, is that I fear for my vinyl collection wearing out with each playing. When I was a teenager (before recordable CD's), the first thing I'd do when I got an album was dub it onto high quality audio cassettes. Lossy, but my mind was at ease that my babies were safe, especially then on a limited kids income.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by Chiefy

I'll never buy digital music over CD's. Why pay for a lossy, crappy sounding download? No thanks. My standards are much higher than that. It seems to me that today's younger generation prefers convenience vs quality.

Why not have both? I'm a physical media guy myself, but so far I've been pretty happy with some of the 24bit/192khz lossless music downloads I've bought recently.

[Chiefy]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Why not have both? I'm a physical media guy myself, but so far I've been pretty happy with some of the 24bit/192khz lossless music downloads I've bought recently.

I never looked into buying digital music. The mere thought is repulsive. It feels like I'd be selling out. Based on your positive comment on 24bit/192khz, I'll look into software that can create them. Thanks.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by Chiefy

I never looked into buying digital music. The mere thought is repulsive. It feels like I'd be selling out. Based on your positive comment on 24bit/192khz, I'll look into software that can create them. Thanks.

I assume you mean you'll be making needle-drops? Because it's useless to up-sample a CD to that level.

[Chiefy]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

I assume you mean you'll be making needle-drops? Because it's useless to up-sample a CD to that level.

MY LP's will live on forever.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

That's taken things a bit far isn't it? VHS might be physical media, but its low quality and a lot are in pan and scan.

Tell that to this guy:

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/quentin...153600273.html