Letterbox vs. Pan & Scan

[quadz]

[Spoiler Alert: If you don't already know the ending of the original Planet of the Apes, this post will spoil it, so be warned...]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


So... I DVR'd the original Planet of the Apes the other night from a commercial-free movie channel. (Encore, I believe.)

I have gotten used to expecting these charlatans chopping up movies to make them "fit the screen"... but it still pisses me off every time.

As goofy as Planet of the Apes is, it's still one of my favorite top 5 or 10 movie endings ever.  Look what these disgraceful hacks did to the movie.

Here's the original:



Here's the Pan & Scan version.  (And yes, they actually made it start at the right and "pan" over and stop at this frame below... and the "pan" is very linear and stops abruptly, unlike what a camera operator would do.)




...I mean, sure, there plenty of more substantial things in the world to be outraged by.  But that said, I hate Pan & Scan.  And yet I've actually spoken with people who claim to prefer it to letterbox.  (But then, they seemed to believe letterbox "cut off" the top and bottom of the movie, so.... I mean... Uh...  )

Anyway...

So here's a vitally important poll on the subject!

[[BTF]Sigma]

I'm a big fan of cinematography. It really sets the atmosphere of a scene and the tone of the movie in general. When you see the panning it looks so inorganic to the feel/flow of the movie and really breaks the continuity of what I have invested 2hrs to watch.

I've had the debate over the letterbox cutting off the top and bottom of the scene debate a small handful of times when I at one of my early jobs working for a rental store. Usually it was with people who you can tell weren't that savvy on the tech front. So using pictures really helps.

Here is a helpful picture depicting an image that is pan 'n scanned.


I opt for letterbox when watching on a 4:3 ratio screen. Lucky I don't have to worry about that with the TV I have (16:9 HDTV)



*python reference win

[quadz]

Here is a helpful picture depicting an image that is pan 'n scanned.

Ahh. Excellent example...

[The Happy Friar]

I HATE pan/scan.  What I do NOT hate is when they shoot the scene also with 4:3 in mind (not an issues any more).  That was when they released it on video or showed it on Tv it was a different angle/cut, so you didn't miss what you needed.

however... most films now a days (I'd say 80's on) are shot to be pan/scanned anyway.  they don't put anything required on the edges.  Bad framing is what I'd call it.    You have a wide view, use it!

[peewee_RotA]

This topic is funny because we are watching Die Hard and as most proud owners of the VHS collectors set, released while die hard 3 was in theaters, know is that the movie is only partially pan and scan, and is also squished to show more of the screen. Before the movie even started I made the comment to my wife about watching it in widescreen to see how short some of these actors really are.

But other than that I prefer fullscreen simply because widescreen is a marketing gimic. Entire televisions series are filmed in faux widescreen (in which the tops and bottoms actually are cut off) for the sake of this marketing gimic. A few years ago I finally wikipedia'd the topic and low and behold:

"A widescreen image is a film, computer or television image with a wider and shorter aspect ratio than the standard Academy frame developed during the classical Hollywood cinema era. Silent film was projected at a ratio of four units wide to three units tall, often expressed as 4:3 or 1.33:1. The addition of sound-on-film soundtracks and a thicker frame line in order to hide physical splices in prints caused the frame dimensions to standardize by 1932 to Academy format, which is actually 1.37 but often erroneously called 1.33.

...

By 1932, the Depression had forced studios to cut back on needless expense and it wasn't until 1953 that wider aspect ratios were again used in an attempt to stop the fall in attendance due, partially, to the emergence of television in the U.S. However, a few producers and directors, among them Alfred Hitchcock, have been reluctant to use the anamorphic widescreen size featured in such formats as Cinemascope. Hitchcock alternatively used VistaVision, a non-anamorphic widescreen process developed by Paramount Pictures and Technicolor which could be adjusted to present various flat aspect ratios.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen

[The Happy Friar]

cutting things off 100% depends on the person who made the film/show.  IE when I use widescreen, I use the whole width on purpose.  In the FireFly special features (or serenity, not sure) it's said that even though the TV on DVD is wide screen, Fox said it would only be broadcast in 4:3, so the extra width isn't used.

[quadz]

But other than that I prefer fullscreen simply because widescreen is a marketing gimic.

That seems roughly equivalent to claiming any painting that doesn't fit a standard 1:1.25 frame is a gimmick.

Granted, I could be persuaded that some directorial hacks may have "bought into" widescreen because it was the "dominent box office paradigm" vis-a-vis "projected maximum marketshare".  Or whatever.  But such people's motivations would be irrelevant to me because I'm interested in the others who are a bit more serious about their art.

It just occurred to me that the first poll question that includes the words, "Widescreen only" may be misleading.  In no way was it meant to restrict the director's choice of aspect ratios in which to choose to film a movie.  If a director wants to film in 1.33:1, great.  Or freakin 2.76:1 like Ben Hur.

Again, I don't care at all about any hypthetical alleged hackneyed gimmickry.  I care about artwork planned and rendered to a particular size canvas.

The Last Supper is 181x346 inches (1.91:1) ... should we crop it to a standard 1:1.25 frame?




If not, then don't crop this either.  I'm not saying William Wyler is Leonardo da Vinci, but the principle is the same.

[The Happy Friar]

It just occurred to me that the first poll question that includes the words, "Widescreen only" may be misleading.  In no way was it meant to restrict the director's choice of aspect ratios in which to choose to film a movie.  If a director wants to film in 1.33:1, great.  Or freakin 2.76:1 like Ben Hur.

as someone who deals with video all the time & was in TV for a while, there's nothing misleading about it.  Widescreen = wider then 4:3.  Doesn't matter what, it's anything.  Normally you eigther say the ratios (ie 16:9) or the (when dealing with TV) pixel aspect ratios (ie 1.21).

[peewee_RotA]

That's just it. Widescreen is not some magical mystical number like a Pythagorean triple. It was invented in contrast to the current standard to compete with television. If you want to imply that there is some golden original that should be preserved for the sake of it's famous grand design, then you would obviously be talking about the academy standard. Widescreen is somehow more artistic than standard? Sounds like a Trans Am commercial to me.

That being said, obviously we do not have the same technological constraints as they did in the early 20th century. So a new technology replacing an old is fine. However that has yet to be brought up in a single conversation that I've ever had regarding wide screen. So far wide screen is just better because.. well it just is! An argument more humorous than someone erroneously describing widescreen as "cutting off the tops and the bottoms"

Or maybe only mostly erroneously:
"Masked, aka flat. Introduced in April of 1953. The negative is shot exposing the Academy Ratio using spherical lenses, but the top and bottom of the picture are hidden or masked off a metal aperture plate, cut to specifications of the theater's screen, in the projector. Alternatively, a hard matte in the printing or shooting stages may be used to mask off those areas while filming for composition purposes, but an aperture plate is still used to block off the appropriate areas in the theater. A detriment is that the film grain size is thus increased because only part of the image is being expanded to full height. Films are designed to be shown in cinemas in masked widescreen format but the full unmasked frame is sometimes used for television. In such an instance, a photographer will compose for widescreen, but "protect" the full image from things such as microphones and other filming equipment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen

The fact is that movie studios filmed movies in direct disregard to the current standard in order to compete with a different medium. This disregard for the current standard included little to no backward compatibility when that same product had to be presented on the alternative medium by popular demand. In today's world that would be called Windows Vista.

[|iR|Focalor]

Letterbox ftw. Especially if it's a foreign film or has subtitles. How much intelligence does it really take to know that if you're going be shooting a movie outside in the snow, YOU DON'T HAVE WHITE TEXT FOR THE GOD DAMN SUBTITLES!!!

[The Happy Friar]

However that has yet to be brought up in a single conversation that I've ever had regarding wide screen. So far wide screen is just better because.. well it just is!

Star Trek 6 had a completely different cut for non-theaters for the end space battle.  You got to see a hole blown though the enterprise with the whole ship in view, not the angle that's been on the VHS, TV & (not sure about latest) DVD releases.  Is that a good enough reason to not mess with the original?  (I say original, NOT widescreen). 

[peewee_RotA]

I say original, NOT widescreen

This I agree with. I just disagree that the originals should have been filmed in widescreen. Wide screen was used compete with full screen television, not be compatible with it. Widescreen presentation of movies as well as widescreen TV's and computer monitors are being shoved down the consumer's throat. That's another reason I dislike the format. Somehow writing the words "widescreen" on a DVD or a television is supposed to appeal to the consumer more yet it doesn't. For the same reason that the racks of blueray discs are collecting dust in stores this holiday season. You can't force a change, and if you try you will lose money.

Until recently with HD TV's being sold almost exclusively in a widescreen ratio, all video rental stores that I visited would constantly be sold out of full screen versions and almost never sell out a movie in widescreen format only. You really do need to go to an extreme measure by purchasing a widescreen TV in order to properly enjoy any movie in widescreen. Watching both Death Race and X-Files: I Want to Believe in letterbox on my standard TV made text integral to the movie plot unreadable. This is not the first time this has been a problem. Movies are being released that can only be properly enjoyed by spending more and more money on fancy equipment. This is not installing surround sound and watching Jurassic Park again to here T-Rex stomping behind you. This is not some extra fancy feature for the avid movie goer. This is a plot breaking problem caused by years of ignoring an industry standard.

But the constantly ignored problems with letterbox on a standard TV aside, people are assuming that pan and scan is the lesser of 2 evils. Yet you only need to visit You Tube in the past 2 weeks to find out what really is the least artistic way to present media. I will visualize this as quadz has using famous art:
1.) Mona Lisa in standard Ratio
2.) Mona Lisa with vertical letterbox
3.) Mona Lisa stretched to widescreen

Both methods to change standard to widescreen are infinitely worse and less artistic than pan and scan. Something else never mentioned about the format. This is why standardization is great and should only change when the technology and demand allows it.

[|iR|Focalor]

Good lord, Mona must've pigged out at Christmas dinner, she's put on a few pounds in that last one!

[quadz]

I say original, NOT widescreen

This I agree with.

Yeah... this is why I mentioned earlier feeling I may have expressed the poll choices poorly.

I have no problem with movies filmed in whatever aspect ratio... I just don't want them modified to "fit" a TV screen.

Wide screen was used compete with full screen television, not be compatible with it.

To me, that's a completely backwards way to look at it.  It's not just a strict question of "compatibility".

To look at it purely in the light of in/compatibility requires believing there is no authentic artistic distinction between the framing of scenes in different aspect ratios.  Note that I'm not claiming one aspect ratio is better than another.  I am, however, absolutely claiming that a different shaped frame favors differently composed scenes, and that good directors are well aware of this.

The idea that TV is so special that it should serve as the limiting factor determining that only a single shaped frame is available to moviemakers is absurd. 

Somehow writing the words "widescreen" on a DVD or a television is supposed to appeal to the consumer more yet it doesn't.

Consumers, bah.  Who needs 'em?    Look at the crap they buy, anyway.

Watching both Death Race and X-Files: I Want to Believe in letterbox on my standard TV made text integral to the movie plot unreadable. This is not the first time this has been a problem.

My TV for about a decade was an old 13 inch Amiga computer monitor.  I suppose I would have had trouble reading the text you mentioned on that screen as well.  That just means my screen is too small, not that the movie should be sliced up.

1.) Mona Lisa in standard Ratio
2.) Mona Lisa with vertical letterbox
3.) Mona Lisa stretched to widescreen

Stretched is obviously dumb.  As clearly, unimpeachably asinine as slicing up a widescreen movie to make it pan & scan.   Either is ridiculous and should be summarialy rejected with extreme prejudice.

The vertical letterbox looks strange in your example because of the giant gilded frame.  That's a bit different than the black borders on youtube, which don't bother me in the slightest.


Regards,

[peewee_RotA]

The vertical letterbox looks strange in your example because of the giant gilded frame.  That's a bit different than the black borders on youtube, which don't bother me in the slightest.

I added the frame to make a better example. You cannot reproduce the affects of vertical letterboxes with a still picture, especially since almost all famous art (starry night, scream, whistler's mother, etc...) were painted in colors that compliment a black border best. The problem is with motion, the way that pictures are reproduced on a screen, and with the human eye.

Motion almost always happens left to right. You rarely have motion up and down on a screen, as shown by the general decision to use a wide frame in the first place. This will draw your attention to the left and the right of the screen. Changes in color from the border to the color of the side of the TV distract and break attention from the action on the screen, if only in a minor way. Horizontal boxes do not break this in any way shape or form, and in fact can provide an additional function by giving a solid background for subtitles.

Since most action happens from left to right, video compressions are made to take advantage of this this as well, objects moving up and down are blurred more and updated less. Objects moving left and right are updated more often and not nearly as blurred. If videos on you tube were compressed in a way that caused vertical lines then you'd probably immediately find another source for videos. The changes in horizontal movement go almost completely unnoticed and with a horizontal letterbox nothing changes. With a vertical letter box contrasting with the actual sides of the web page your attention is drawn the sides of the screen making compression more noticeable.

The very existence of wide screen, to capture action horizontally with the collective understanding that action almost never happens vertically, coupled with the history of video compression and the use of letterboxes in a horizontal direction, as to have the absolute least impact on distracting a viewer, shows that vertical running letterbox is a logical opposite to a proven philosophy of film and media. It is once again a disregard of standardization and tradition for the sake of selling widescreen.

Did youtube switch to widescreen (and start filling it's mainpage with ONLY widescreen videos) because users started uploading more widescreen videos than standard? Are there even any webcams on the market that film in widescreen? Did any users actually ask for it? Or is it a marketing gimic? No technology changed the warrant the change in format. And in turn more videos suffer the wholly unartistic effects of vertical letterbox and stretching than were previously subjected to pan & scan. The same is true to the average user who bought a widescreen TV only to find out that they probably watch up to 6 hours a week of movies in widescreen format and 10-20 hours a week of standard format television that has to be stretched. Where's the need for preserving the art in that?