Full Screen vs. Widescreen vs. HD

[Criswell]

Thinking of ones that look bad. Watch any old vhs of a Toho scope filmed Godzilla movie. My tape of Godzilla vs cosmic monster is almost incomprehensible.

[JaseSF]

I really hate when they take for example a CinemaScope film (or a 2:35:1 aspect film originally) and squish it all together so that everybody in the film looks horribly skinny and almost distorted. It creates a bizarre viewing experience that's for certain. I've often seen this done with Kung Fu films especially during their opening credits.

[Jim H]

I really hate when they take for example a CinemaScope film (or a 2:35:1 aspect film originally) and squish it all together so that everybody in the film looks horribly skinny and almost distorted. It creates a bizarre viewing experience that's for certain. I've often seen this done with Kung Fu films especially during their opening credits.

Yeah, speaking of kung fu films, they generally do an excellent job of filling up the screen with wide aspect ratios.  They're often just as badly damaged, if not more so, when cropped to 4:3 than even films like older widescreen war epics, etc.  I might also add that from what I've seen, it appears most kung fu films (especially Shaw Bros.) were shot anamorphic, so they're never "opened up" when put at 4:3.  Even if they were, it'd be very bad for those films as most of them are shot in the Shaw Bros. backlot, and you'd probably end up seeing a great deal of things you're not supposed to.

[Jack]

Just put the film in whatever aspect ratio it was originally shot at, and I'll have my TV stretch it out to widescreen.  I'm not a big perfectionist with that stuff.  I hate pan 'n' scan, but only if  it's badly done (two guys having a conversation but you can only see 1 1/2 of them).  I get sick of all these direct-to-video movies being in 2.35:1.  It ain't gonna be shown in theatres, and you ain't no artiste.  There's no reason for me to be watching a thin strip of movie with huge black bars on the top and bottom.  I'm also sick of direct-to-video stuff being in 1.85:1.  Look, it's meant to be watched on TV's.  Make it the size of the damned screen, not slightly off.  Don't try to tell me that the difference between 1.77:1 and 1.85:1 is going to hamper your artistic intent.

[Torgo]

I've always been a stringent believer in that a movie should be watched in the aspect ratio that was intended the film to be seen by the director.

Most 1.85:1 movies are shot in an open matte process but in most cases the director frames the film for the theatrical purposes at the matted ratio of 1.85:1.  Back in the old days of VHS/pan scan, they would then remove the mattes and show the movie at full frame so that no picture information was getting lost on the sides.

The huge problem with this is that a lot of the times this would expose stuff in the top and bottom of the frame that the director didn't intend to be seen as it would be cut off by the theatrical matting.  Case in point would be when watching Pee Wee's Big Adventure, the part where the almost endless chain is getting pulled out of the storage container on the side of his bike. In the full frame version it shows how the gag was done as the chain is just being pulled up through the bottom of the container. In the matted theatrical widescreen version, this is blocked off and sells the illusion of the gag as the stuff at the bottom of the frame can't be seen.

       

[Torgo]

 I'm also sick of direct-to-video stuff being in 1.85:1.  Look, it's meant to be watched on TV's.  Make it the size of the damned screen, not slightly off.  Don't try to tell me that the difference between 1.77:1 and 1.85:1 is going to hamper your artistic intent.

I've noticed that most movies anymore that are listed as 1.85:1 are actually 1.78:1.  A lot of directors will usually open up the mattes a bit so that the film fills up an entire HDTV display.

[Jim H]

 I'm also sick of direct-to-video stuff being in 1.85:1.  Look, it's meant to be watched on TV's.  Make it the size of the damned screen, not slightly off.  Don't try to tell me that the difference between 1.77:1 and 1.85:1 is going to hamper your artistic intent.

I've noticed that most movies anymore that are listed as 1.85:1 are actually 1.78:1.  A lot of directors will usually open up the mattes a bit so that the film fills up an entire HDTV display.

Yeah, I've noticed this.  In general, if the film was intended for 1:85:1 the opening up to 1.78:1 is slight enough that it doesn't damage anything noticeably, but I'd still rather they just keep the OAR.  However, I also think it is a little silly that films with no ambition for theatrical release get framed at 1:85 on DVD.  I will say there are some films that you might think have no theatrical release, but actually do.  Steven Seagal films, for example, are apparently pretty popular theatrically to this day in some countries.

I have mixed feelings about the use of 2.35:1 on straight-to-DVD content.  Mixed because I feel many use the ratio just because it's supposed to be the most epic, the thing a "real" film maker would use, even though their subject matter doesn't fit it.  When it's appropriate, I'm fine with it, but off-hand I can't think of any straight-to-DVD film that had any real reason to be 2.35:1. or 2.4:1.