Which format do you prefer?

[General Chang]

I prefer the Letterbox/Widescreen format to PAN and SCAN. I like knowing that the picture I am seeing on screen is the complete picture as it was seen in the movie theaters.

Lots of people give the "I can't stand them black bars at the top and bottom. Makes me think my T.V.'s screwed up!" answer.

Actually, there are other reasons why people hate letterbox. A friend of mine seems to think that the black bars tend to cut off the tops and bottoms of the picture. When you see a close up of a character, it looks like the bars are cutting off part of his/her head. I explained to my friend that what he sees at the top and bottom is exactly the same as if it were viewed in full screen. What IS missing in Full Screen is what's off to the left and right, not what's at the top and bottom.

One of my favorite ways to demonstrate the comparison is to show naysayers the opening scene from Star Wars IV. Of course, to most effectively demonstrate this, one would actually need an older copy of the PAN and SCAN version of Star Wars. Show the P/S version first, then show them the letterbox version, and ask if they notice anything new. When they point it out, tell them, that is EXACTLY what they saw in the theaters.

With the inventions of 16X9 HDTV's , at least the black bars tend to go away...however, the average joe cannot afford the HDTV just yet. I will settle for the black bars, as long as I can see the entire picture.

Respectfully,
General Chang

[REG]

Letterboxed is good but only if you have S-Video quality, such as DVD or Super VHS . Of course, I won't recommend you get letterboxed/widescreen version of you have a TV smaller than 20-inch and does not have S-Video input, unless it is a monitor you can look up close.

[Ineti]

I can't imagine anyone preferring pan and scan over widescreen. Why miss 1/3 of the movie?

I have a simple ol' 27" TV with no fancy video or audio features, and DVD movies sound and look great. I'll upgrade at some point in the future, but movies I watch look good, so I'm happy.

[Gabriel]

Some movies released in letterbox actually do chop off the tops and bottoms of the screen, making the "pan and scan" (even though that's not an accurate designation for these types) the better choice.

Offhand, I know that the DVD version of Battlestar Galactica is like this. And I'm pretty sure that the V miniseries DVDs are the same way. I'm fairly certain that there are other examples.

But when the letterbox version of a movie is showing what the actual theatrical version looked like, then it is pretty silly to prefer pan and scan to it.

[Balok]

Letterbox is definitely better than pan and scaM, which changes the movie -- and usually not for the better. I'll decide what's "important" in a particular scene.

But I do know people that swear by "full screen" editions of DVDs, won't buy anything else, and are deeply resentful when a movie is available only in fullscreen.

[Ramage]

Letterbox, hands down.

Looks much more like the film I would see in the theatre, thus closer to what the director was planning to present.

[Pratt of Borg]

Widescreen, without a doubt. Pan and Scan just gets under my skin. You loose so much in it that some movies become horrible to watch. Ghostbusters seems to be a particularly bad movie to watch in P&S.

[Sho-sa Kurita]

Originally posted by Gabriel
Some movies released in letterbox actually do chop off the tops and bottoms of the screen, making the "pan and scan" (even though that's not an accurate designation for these types) the better choice.

Offhand, I know that the DVD version of Battlestar Galactica is like this. And I'm pretty sure that the V miniseries DVDs are the same way. I'm fairly certain that there are other examples.

But when the letterbox version of a movie is showing what the actual theatrical version looked like, then it is pretty silly to prefer pan and scan to it.

These are not appropriate examples, because they were originally filmed in a television format and were then reformatted for the theatres -- exactly the opposite of what gets done from theatre to TV -- the top and bottom were lost instead of the sides.

True widescreen does NOT chop off the top and bottom. In a concession to "full screen" fans, many "widescreen" versions do still chop some of the sides as sort of a compromise where the picture isn't such a narrow strip across the middle.

For me, it's letterbox all the way.

-- Daniel

[Dan Gurden]

Letterbox/Widescreen, wins everytime and really comes into its own with a Widescreen TV.

The thing is, the Pan and Scan is simply not the film as seen in the cinema, it is not the directors vision, and because they drop the width and increase the height of the screen, it can actually loose some of the special effects/visuals that should be there...

In addition to the odd microphone boom that trails into the top of the screen occasionally, that would be cut in widescreen, the problem is best presented with the film 'Predator'.

In 'Pan and Scan' there are two major errors that simply wouldn't happen if the film was presented in Widescreen.

1 - When Carl Weathers/Dillon gets his arm blown off, he spins in the camera frame, and below the F/X bloody stump, strapped under the flak vest his real arm can clearly be seen. (after all, they dont really main actors for F/X shots... )

2 - Later in the film, Billy the tracker stops on a log bridge over a chasm and tosses his gun away. Seconds later there is a faint splash. unfortunatly the establishing shot shows that the rocks in the dry river bed below this bridge are nearly 1 foot away.

In both cases, the short drop and the non-injury would not be visible in Widescreen, and effectively proves its worth in preserving the vision of the director.

And that without mentioning old subtitled films that have to scan across the screen tio read the subtitles rather than showing the single image, wide...

[AslanC]

Letterbox or Widescreen is the way the director intended the movie to be seen.

That means so much to me.

I hate the fact that they are actually releasing Pan & Scan only DVDs now. As they have shown, they can release one DVD with both versions of the film.

[General Chang]

Myself being a video letterbox connoseuir, I admittedly find it sad when I can readily identify an aspect ratio of film on sight.

2.35:1 is known as the "epic" scale....used for older movies, and for big budget films of the last two to three decades. This is where the black bars come closer together to the center, providing a much wider aspect. Films like the STAR WARS series, most of the Trek films (ST IV and VI seemed to be in 1.85:1 scale, which I found surprising, although they are probably closer to 2.10:1)

1.85:1 represents a smaller scale, thus a smaller lens. I found it hard to believe that some epic films like ALIENS and STARSHIP TROOPERS ended up in this scale. In all truth, TV films that somehow get translated to the bigscreen are the ones that end up in 1.85:1 scale. I.E. Battlestar Galactica.

And then, there are the odd scaled movies that are special productions like the SF Channel production of Frank Herbert's DUNE which scaled in at like 1.77:1.

Disney Cartoons generally fall in around 1.85:1 or less. Although Spirited Away (Disney getting desperate by turning to Japanimation) weighs in at an even 2.0:1.

Why am I going on about aspect ratios? I don't know. Just seemed like the thing to do at the time.


Anyone remember when Pan and Scan was the standard on VHS, and Widescreen was the anomaly? When Laserdisc and DVD came out, Widescreen was the norm, and P/S was the anomaly.
But now, you can usually find both on DVD in equal proportions. This is well and good for the P/S set. It used to be that you could find both versions of one film on the same disc...double sided. MGM and Columbia had done this with quite a few of their movies. However, with the advent of dual-layer DVD's the info is spent more on extra features. Now, films are mostly available in seperate versions. Having worked in a CD/DVD/Videogame store, the thing I hated was when the price sticker would cover up whether the film was wide or full screen. A lot of people would look on the back, and not know how to read the modification standard. And of course, as soon as I announced "this film is widescreen", they'd turn right around and say: "Dang ee-it, ah wawn't tha reggalar verzhun." (Can you guess where I am?) Every now and then, I am able to convince some peeps that W/S is better...and I've not had a return from those customers.

Oh, well, to each their own. My conquest of the P/S realm is still ongoing. MUA HA HA! MUA HA HA HA! Harghhhh----HACK---cough! Ahem.


Respectfully,
General Chang