Ok, I noticed this with watching in both formats and if you buy the Widescreen version of the film it chops off the top and bottom of what you see in the FULL SCREEN version of the film! So basically you GAIN picture with the full screen dvd, you do not see more on the sides on the widescreen!
shareIt was shot in widescreen and is meant to be viewed in widescreen, so whatever you see at the top and bottom are not part of the intended shot.
When the American video/DVD distributors release a full screen version, they either crop the sides (a so called pan and scan) or they "open up" the widescreen shot and use the top and the bottom. Neither is a correct viewing of the film as it isn't what the director or cinematographer wanted the film to look like.
Late to the party here, but pan and scan is NOT the same thing as edge crop...
"Alright let's get this bull sh!t over with..."
-Larry David, Curb Your Enthusiasm
Wow. This post definitely needs to be on some all-time lists.
shareI think what the poster is saying is that the widescreen version of the DVD is a 1:33 image cropped into a widescreen picture. This could actually be true, but not for the reason he thinks. A lot of fullscreen transfers actually included the intended image of their counterparts with some extra vertical space. This is the result of the films being shot with a spherical lens. So the image that appears on many fullscreen DVDs (and VHS tapes when they were relevant) is the original image the camera captured before it was cropped by the film makers into a widescreen aspect ratio. Assuming that this is what he was going on about, that would me that the widescreen DVD does in fact contain the proper aspect ratio as intended by the director.
shareI think Kubrick did this for 'The Shining' - for example - because he was so particular about his films and didn't want his films "pan and scanned" on a standard 1.33:1 ration TV. So the widescreen version was actually cropped and you gained more image on the top and bottom when watching "full screen".
In other cases, I don't know if it was deliberately done or because of the lens that was used and they just happened to have a "full screen" image. In any event, the one poster already nailed it on the head - the filmmakers would have filmed with a widescreen ratio in mind since that is how it is released in theaters. The image that is "gained" with fullscreen would be negligible and add nothing to the film. In the case of 'The Shining' I believe you can even see a goof with the added screen image - the shadow of the helicopter (on which they were shooting the overhead footage at the beginning of the movie) can be seen on the bottom of the screen.
Now that 1.33:1 television are a thing of the past and almost everyone has a 1.85:1 ratio TV, it's not really an issue. Who would want to view a non-HD full screen image on widescreen HD TV anyway? Just for a little bit more image on the screen that adds nothing?
I suppose it could be a legitimate point when discussing some older films that were actually filmed in a 1.33:1 ratio - some theaters back in the 20s, 30s, 40s were actually in a 1.33:1 ratio. In those cases, cropping the image for widescreen truly might affect how a filmmaker composited the shots.
As what HeathenMaiden said, they crop the sides to fit to on the screen when released on VHS.
So you lose the sides but not the top and bottom.
What could have happened is they destroyed or lost all the widescreen footage and only have the cropped VHS versions.
So when they adjusted the screen for widescreen, they zoomed in the image, losing the top and bottom.
As I Hustle In The City, For A Paper Stack, Lord Knows I Got The Devil On My Back
i rather watch a cropped widescreen than a 4:3 version simply cause it feels more cinematic with widescreen, plus i dont have to see black bars on the side of the tv, somehow i find black bars on the sides more anoying than top bottom black bars, i wonder why that is
shareI've noticed this in every widescreen film I've ever watched. I completely agree.
share