Talk:Fullscreen (aspect ratio)

Fullscreen DVDs and Widescreen TVs

With the advent of 1.78:1 television sets, as opposed to 1.33:1 ones, full-screen DVD versions of widescreen films are arguably obsolete, but some retailers (such as Wal-Mart) insists that full-screen (or 1.33:1) versions of films originally in widescreen be made available. If a full-screen DVD is played on a 1.78:1 television set, the image would be pillarboxed (thus having vertical black bars). If Blu-ray becomes the standards, then full screen would definitely be obsolete. There will probably be no 1.33:1 Blu-ray discs of films originally presented in widescreen. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would Blu-ray preclude studios from releasing full screen versions? It would seem that widescreen TVs are the factor that will change things. Girolamo Savonarola 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What is called "full screen version" in DVD format would be called "(pan and scan) 4:3 version" or "(pan and scan) 1.33:1 version" in Blu-ray, because Blu-ray discs are designed for widescreen TVs. 1.33:1 Blu-ray discs would feature pillarboxing. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 03:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point - the storage technology is ratio agnostic. It's the televisions which force the point. In any case, a 1.33 disc can be shown at full-width on a widescreen TV, which should (roughly) restore the original aspect ratio, assuming that the full screen process is open matte and not pan and scan. Girolamo Savonarola 06:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's safely said that

(1) Widescreen televisions with a 16:9 screen ratio have become the norm for LCD, plasma, and projection screens. Creating 1.33:1 (fullscreen) versions of feature films screened in widescreen formats is a travesty for such televisions. (Open matte, in which the image is framed in fullscreen and then cut to fit a widescreen image for cinema, might be tolerable for viewing in full frame). That might appropriately be offered in dual versions, as both formats exist in reality. Pan-and-scan chopping of sides from a film leads to cinematic travesties -- and is rightly avoided, especially by those who own widescreen televisions.

(2) In 2007, the 1.33:1 screen ratio for televisions is now in use only for the least-expensive televisions. This ordinarily suggests obsolescence. The trend is toward widescreen televisions, and I would not be surprised that by 2009 widescreen becomes the norm even on the smallest TVs in the United States. Anyone who buys chopped versions of widescreen films cheats himself. Someone who tries to fill a 16:9 screen with an already-chopped (full frame) movie either distorts the image or loses visible area twice -- 25% from the first chopping and 25% from the second chopping, getting a bloated version of a film cut 43.375% by both the sides and the top and bottom. That is a huge loss of image.

(3) Blue-ray or HD DVD players, as technological novelties, are now high-end purchases. People who buy these aren't buying them to play back movies on obsolescent televisions, including anything with a standard screen ratio.

(4) Wal-Mart tends to have more of a low-end clientele than do specialty retailers. It kept selling VHS tapes (talk about obsolescence!) after many retailers quit selling them. Wal-Mart has a significant late-adapter (poor or penny-pinching) clintele, but once that clientele quits buying something, Wal-Mart removes the unsalable stuff from stock. Full-frame versions of widescreen video are clearly for late-adapters, people who do not yet buy HD-DVD or Blu-ray discs or players. Wal-Mart still sells standard-ratio televisions up to 27" in August 2007... but I would not be surprised if it closed them out as it recently did with 32" standard-ratio sets.

It is more likely that purchasers of Blu-ray or HD DVD already own widescreen LCD, plasma, or projection televisions, and are not going to connect them to anything other than first-rate televisions.

(5) The proper presentation for any movie is ordinarily the original screen ratio. It is conceivable that films that in their cinematic releases had 4:3 ratios might be cut laterally to accommodate widescreen televisions. That is a mistake by someone who owns a copy of the film, and a travesty by some entity that distributes film disks.--Paul from Michigan 18:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question

I saw a movie on an ancient VHS cassette once (I forget what the movie was) in which a widescreen image was actually stretched vertically in a video release, giving a distorted image throughout the entire movie. Obviously, this was a horrible idea, and was abandoned long ago, but I'm curious: Does anybody know the name for this method of displaying a 16:9 movie on a 4:3 screen? (Other than "mangling"?) Does anyone know where there's even the least bit of info about it? Thanks.  :) 63.229.18.239 (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See anamorphic widescreen. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a sentence

"However, at the start of the 21st century, broadcasters worldwide began phasing out the 4:3 standard entirely as manufacturers started to favor the 16:9 aspect ratio of all modern high-definition television sets, broadcast cameras and computer monitors, and certain tablet computers uses the 4:3 aspect ratio. "

The last part makes no sense. Totally shot grammar. 46.232.229.52 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup ~Kvng (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)