DVD: Fullscreen -v- widescreen

[GulPlum]

"caliburncy" <caliburncy at y...> wrote:

<snip lengthy pan & scan explanation - not exactly germane to the 
narrow subject under discussion :-) >

> Then there is Super 35, which I believe is the type of film that 
was 
> used for Harry Potter.  

Yup.

<snip Super 35 explanation>

> But with Columbus, it is entirely possible that he is the exception 
> to the rule (we don't know without talking to him), 

He's not entirely the exception to the rule - James Cameron (Aliens, 
Terminator & T2, Titanic) has alweays maintained that *for HIS films* 
(all shot on Super 35), the "full screen version" is his preference 
for home viewing. He took this into account during filming, and it is 
very deliberate on his part.

Of course, there are people (like me) who prefer the *experience* of 
watching a widescreen picture, regardless of whether or not it has 
more detail (incidentally, my main TV is not currently a widescreen 
one - I'm waiting for 50" Plasma screens to come down to my price 
range) :-) and so "authorial intent" isn't really the first priority. 

My purpose in doing the comparisons and setting up the page was to 
decide (primarily for myself) what Columbus's intentions might have 
been, considering he's never said anything on this subject himself.

> GulPlum shots show that several scenes were designed to display 
> particularly well in the "full screen" version (even at the slight 
> expense of the widescreen version).  Of course, there are many 
shots 
> that are clearly intended to display better in widescreen, as well, 
> but as GulPlum notes, these seem a tad less frequent (although when 
> they display better, they display *much* better, like the 
> invisibility cloak screenshot).

I wouldn't use the term "tad" in these circumstances. :-) To give you 
some kind of idea, in numerical terms, I started off with well over 
200 shots (almost all from different scenes) where the full screen 
composition was (IMO, at least) superior to the widescreen one, 
whereas I had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find the reverse.

It all boils down to a personal opinion of what is more important to 
you, both in terms of the "movie-watching experience", and in terms 
of the straightfroward information on screen. As far as I'm 
concerned, the first category is the most important and I'll therfore 
always go for widescreen, given the choice. As for the second 
category, Fluffy The Two-And-A-Half Headed Dog and the chess board 
with only four pawns per player were enough to turn me off the full 
screen version. A few other moments (such as the Invisibility Cloak 
scene, Hedwig's excision in the Leaky Couldron or - Dean Thomas's 
frequent excision from frame edges) helped.

I accept that other people's opinion might be different, which is why 
I refuse to be judgmental about those who might prefer the full 
screen version. I do, however, remain judgmental about Columbus, who 
quite simply is incapable of making his mind up about what format 
he's filming. Either one or the other (or both, as is the case with 
Cameron) is fine with me, but his "point the camera in the general 
vicinity of the action and fix the composotion in editing" pisses me 
off tremendously.

I was tempted to create a third section of pictures, namely those 
that simply DO NOT WORK in widescreen - Columbus seems to seek out 
reasons to introduce vertical elements into the widescreen frame to 
visually cut off (and emphasise) visual data he considers to be 
spurious. Examples of this are the first entrance into the Great 
Hall, where he uses the opening doors as such an element; also 
Dumbledore sitting in his chair/throne, which has vivid sides cutting 
it off from what's on either side of it; very noticeably, any scene 
which includes pillars is shot in such a way that their positions 
scream out "don't bother looking either side of us".

> So, anyway, we film enthusiasts are still most certainly going to 
buy 
> the widescreen version, if for no other reason than to dissuade 
home 
> video distribution companies from perpetuating this nonsense 
> with "full screen" stuff in the first place.  

I agree with you 100% on that. I've been given to understand that Wal-
Mart in the USA, for reasons of its own, discourages its shops from 
stocking widescreen VHS/DVDs and they need to be shown to be wrong.

> But I can understand 
> why, for the less film-obsessive, the decision would be less clear, 
> since there is no matter of principle to be upheld.  For these, 
> people, you can get whatever looks better to you, I suppose.  But 
if 
> you want what you saw in the theatre, that's the widescreen 
version.  
> The "full screen" version may be better or it may be worse, but 
> either way it *is* different.

Which is exactly the source of my own ambivalence. It is *very* 
different, and more often than not, I prefer the composition of the 
full-screen picture, which it's very difficult for me to admit. 
People have been lynched in Widescreen advocacy circles for making 
such comments in the past. :-) 

> The only other distinction I am aware of between the two versions 
> besides what GulPlum's site has shown you is that, supposedly, the 
> master and/or transfer used for the widescreen version has a 
cleaner-
> looking picture.  Apparently, neither transfer is quite up to the 
> best of DVD reference quality standards, but the widescreen 
transfer 
> is allegedly better in this regard.  I don't know to what extent, 
> probably not too terribly much.

Well, on my DVD player and TV set (both decent quality) I couldn't 
tell any difference (I watched both pictures side-by-side, then 
separately - in the space of two days, I'd seen the whole film four 
times, and then extended chunks three times more!). One comment I 
will make, though, is that the full-screen version appears to have 
been distroed quite severely at various points to make as much of the 
picture fit the screen as was the case.

> Good luck!  And I hope that actually made some sense, but knowing 
my 
> meagre explanatory skills, it probably didn't.

Well, it make sense to me, but then I already understood all the ins 
and outs of your explanation. :-)

-- 
GulPlum AKA Richard