Can someone explain the logic behind widescreen ?

[Mikey]

Can someone explain the logic behind widescreen or letterbox for newer televisons ?

When movies were/are made in letterbox, it was to make the picture larger then the usual movie square ... Giving you more movie (in the theatre) for your buck.
You had to make the screen wider because movie theatres weren't going to blow holes in their rooves to make the screen big and square.

I understand that and I like it.

But why do this to a televison ?

I can't help but think letterbox shaped TV's seem to rob us of the top and bottom of the picture.
Even if you say it's not robbing us of anything because there is no top and bottom --- It should be there (if it was filmed regular camera)

I heard in Japan, Star Trek The Original Series has been "letterboxed" and 1/3 of the upper and lower part of the show has been removed.
Is this really progress ?
Cut off parts a show just to make it fit neat in your new TV ?

For the people who say, new shows are filmed in letterbox to let us see more --- I say, why not keep the TV screen square and film with a regular camera and let us even see more on the top and bottom of the screen ?

To me letterbox TV seems like a rip-off that the world swallowed without a second thought because they were told it's superior.

How can less be better ?

Anybody else understand my meaning ?

[StrangeVisitor]

I heard in Japan, Star Trek The Original Series has been "letterboxed" and 1/3 of the upper and lower part of the show has been removed.
Is this really progress ?
Cut off parts a show just to make it fit neat in your new TV ?

How can less be better ?

Anybody else understand my meaning ?

I don't understand why, in Japan, they wouldn't be pillarboxing TOS on widescreen TVs to preserve the whole image. If they are doing what you say T1K, wouldn't they be chopping off the actor's heads in some shots?

I try to set my TV up to see the full image of what was shot, letterbox or full frame. You're right that if it was shot in 4:3 aspect ratio (traditional for TV) nothing should be lost even if viewed on a widescreen TV.

[Werewolf]

Chopping the sides off widescreen movies into pan and scan is bad. Chopping the top and bottom off of fullscreen movies and TV shows is also bad. Movies and TV shows are obviously alway best in their original aspect ratio.

New shows filmed in widescreen are not losing any image on the top or bottom. They are just getting more image on the sides. Widescreen TVs still let you watch Full frame movies and TV shows without stretching them into a fake widescreen. You just get back bars on the sides.

[Werewolf]

I forgot to add that with a widescreen TV you are still getting a large fullscreen image. But to fit a widescreen movie on full screen TV you have to make the image very small to fit the entire movie on the screen.

Fullscreen TVs do widescreen poorly. But a widescreen TV is still giving you the same large full screen image because it doesn't have to be shrunk it to fit. You are not losing any of the fullscreen size when you get more space on the sides. Just making a fullscreen TV larger still has the problem of shrinking the widescreen image to fit.

[Vortigern99]

Well, my widescreen HDTV has several picture formats, including 4x3 (standard TV ratio or "full screen"), 1:85 to 1 (for "partial widescreen" like the Stargate TV series) and 2:35 to 1 (for "true widescreen" films like Star Wars, etc.). That way, all my bases are covered. Nothing is lost, missed or cut off.

This is the most logical way to make TVs, and any format that does cut off part of the picture is doing a disservice, IMO, both to audiences AND to the creators of the show/movie it's botching.

[Mikey]

New shows filmed in widescreen are not losing any image on the top or bottom. They are just getting more image on the sides.

I don't buy that.
If the same program was filmed with a regular camera, they would GAIN more on the top and bottom...

So, they are losing something, correct ?

When you squint your eyes you give yourself a kind of letterbox vision.... but do you actually see more ?

Of course not

[Werewolf]

New shows filmed in widescreen are not losing any image on the top or bottom. They are just getting more image on the sides.

I don't buy that.
If the same program was filmed with a regular camera, they would GAIN more on the top and bottom...

So, they are losing something, correct ?

When you squint your eyes you give yourself a kind of letterbox vision.... but do you actually see more ?

Of course not

Filming a TV show in fullscreen does not gain anymore at the top or bottom. If fullscreen gained more on the top and bottom, it would change it into a vertical widescreen.

Think of it this way, if a TV show is filmed in widescreen you don't lose any of the fullscreen image in the center. The top and bottom is staying the same but you are getting more on the sides.

[HardyGirl]

I don't have a large screen TV, but I do have letterbox or widescreen videos (like my Star Trek movies box set). I've watched the first 7 Star Trek films in Widescreen and Pan & Scan, and I gotta say Widescreen is better. The lines at the top & bottom of the screen take some getting used to, but widescreen means you're watching it the way you would in a theatre; everyone who is supposed to be in the shot when the movie was filmed is there. But Pan & Scan means that all of those people aren't going to fit on your TV screen, (well at least not mine, I don't have a big screen), so the camera pans alternately pans over the people who were all supposed to be in the shot together. After getting used to Widescreen, Pan & Scan is a little distracting.

[thunderbolt]

Even here in muckbucket FLA, the full screen versions of movies are left to rot on shelves and the 2 for 10 dollar bins. And this is at the Walmart that had a sign printed up under Pan's Labyrinth that said "In Mexican" under it. I've passed on several movies that don't get released in widescreen since it is removing a good chunk of the picture when in the pan and scan mode.

[fallensaviour]

After getting used to widescreen,I will not watch any movies(dvd's) that are not widescreen versions you just miss way to much of the film.
T1K you are just an old fuddy-duddy get used to it man!!!
You must adapt to widescreen....You will be assimilated!!!
Resistance is futile!!!

[The Bat]

The real reason? They want us ALL to buy new TV's!!

[Hotfoot]

Wide-screen vs. 4:3 - Ultimate HDTV buying guide - HDTV World - CNET.com

[Mikey]

Some of you people are missing my point.

I'm NOT talking about theatrical movies that were filmed in letterbox.

I hate when these movies are turned into pan-and-scan for TV too.

I'm talking about NEW televison shows that are filmed in letterbox.

[Dave Mc]

You're thinking backwards Mike. TV shows and movies, anything that is filmed, is usually done so in a widescreen format. It's the nature of the medium. Most TV shows are filmed (or in today's case shot in HD) so it's native format truly is widescreen. In most cases, you ARE seeing the top and bottom of the picture, whether you are watching 4x3 or 16x9. What would happen in the TV world (even back in the day) is a TV show would be shot widescreen, but they would frame everything in the center of the screen because they knew they were going to crop off the sides. Then in post production, the sides get cropped and the show would get mastered in a square, even though the original film was actually widescreen.

Now, what does happen with older shows is since they were mastered with those sides cropped off, they go back and crop off a little of the top and bottom to make it letterboxed. That happened early on in the transition to anamorphic widescreen, but it doesn't happen much anymore.

For the most part you have to think of it this way. Standard def's 4x3 image has robbed us of part of our picture for years, and I'm talking TV shows, not films here. We are now just getting it back. Most of the older shows I've purchased don't come letterboxed because they were never mastered that way. But in the case of all new shows, it is the 4x3 format that is cropping off the sides, not the 16x9 format cropping off the top and bottom.

[cjefferys]

Chopping the sides off widescreen movies into pan and scan is bad. Chopping the top and bottom off of fullscreen movies and TV shows is also bad. Movies and TV shows are obviously alway best in their original aspect ratio.

New shows filmed in widescreen are not losing any image on the top or bottom. They are just getting more image on the sides. Widescreen TVs still let you watch Full frame movies and TV shows without stretching them into a fake widescreen. You just get back bars on the sides.

Yep. The original aspect ratio, what the movie or TV show's director intended for the audience to see, is what is important. As long as the OAR is respected, I'm happy. Most shows are still shot 4x3 and 16x9 safe, just so nothing important is missed (or nothing that isn't meant to be seen isn't, eg. boom mikes) in either format, just to cover the bases, but whichever one the director thinks is the true ratio (ie. the shots are composed with that ratio in mind) is the one I want to watch. This includes new TV shows that are shot for widescreen.

I'm one of those people who refuses to watch full screen movies, and refuses to stretch 4x3 material to fit a widescreen TV. Letterboxing and pillarboxing don't bother me at all.