Why don't all DVDs have a choice of FS/WS?

[Cougar]

Originally posted by: y2kc

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
I would definitely buy widescreen if I had a widescreen TV, but I didn't buy this 27" TV to use only 16" of it.

i agree with you. i can live without seeing the extras standing on the side or scenery... i'd rather have a full screen.

Sadly, there's more to wide screen than just extras standing on the side or scenery. Watch Castaway if you'd like proof of that statement.

Also, I can almost guarantee you that Master & Commander will be sorely lacking if you view it on Pan and Scan. First of all the ship itself takes up nearly the entire screen width, and there's one scene that will most likely lose it's impact. The scene in question is an ultra wide shot of the 2 ships with one on each side of the screen. I've got a feeling that when that scene gets converted to Pan & Scan that the only thing you'll see is the empty ocean.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
I would definitely buy widescreen if I had a widescreen TV, but I didn't buy this 27" TV to use only 16" of it.

OK... you'd rather see only half of the movie than only use a portion of your TV? I only have a 19" TV and I still always buy widescreen. I'd rather see the movie the way the director intended.

 

[Kelemvor]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
I would definitely buy widescreen if I had a widescreen TV, but I didn't buy this 27" TV to use only 16" of it.

27" is more than enough to still have a good picture in widescreen. Try sitting closer than 10 feet away from the TV and it'll look fine.

Main reason is if they cram 2 versions of the movie on one DVD, then they have to compress the video down and it won't look as good.

But, some movies do it and some don't. Ah well.

 

[bernse]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon

Originally posted by: bernse

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
I would definitely buy widescreen if I had a widescreen TV, but I didn't buy this 27" TV to use only 16" of it.

It'll suck 5 years from now and everyone has a widescreen TV and your "fullscreen" DVDs will then have those annoying black bars on the sides and you'll be buying them again in Widescreen so they fill your screen properly.

Umm... I don't see that happening any time soon and definitely not in the next 5 years. Some people still watch regular TV stations (how many stations do you see that say "This station presented in widescreen format for 16x9 widescreen televisions"?) and not everyone has a huge bigscreen TV. In fact, many people still have =< 32" CRT TVs. And if they do have a bigscreen, there are still a lot of people with 4:3 bigscreens(6 of my friends that have projection TVs that I can think of offhand all have 4:3 TVs, none have 16x9).

Whatever. That was just a number I pulled out of my a$$. The point is the same though. When you upgrade your TV you're going to want to replace your DVD library because you'll just end up getting your "annoying" black bars on the sides that you hate so much.

Widescreen=the way it should be. Live with it for the time being. Unless you're watching a 14" TV, its not that bad anyway.

 

[vi edit]

Whatever. That was just a number I pulled out of my a$$. The point is the same though. When you upgrade your TV you're going to want to replace your DVD library because you'll just end up getting your "annoying" black bars on the sides that you hate so much.

Even with a widescreen TV I still have black bars on the top and bottom with many WS movies.

 

[Dedpuhl]

P&S gives me a headache sometimes. I only buy WS for my 27" TV.

 

[MegaloManiaK]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
Man it pisses me off... Theres a bunch of DVDs I'd like to buy but almost all the time they're only offerred in widescreen here. It would make so much more sense to just have a choice of which to play. :|

Pan & Scan sucks, even on 4:3 TVs. I curse Blockbuster for having some titles in ONLY pan and scan, why would you want to cut out half the movie again?

Edit: I'd rather watch WS than FS on my 19" monitor or my 27" TV, mainly because that's how the director intended the movie to be shown.

Blah blah blah

You're better than him because you only watch widescreen, we've heard it before and nobody cares about your opinion, the original post said nothing about which is better.

It's an old argument that comes down to what you like as a consumer. Some like WS some like FS, get over it. You don't have to convert everyone to your ways.

As to the original question, I would say its to make more money. Its a shame really because it just makes the whole process more complicated for joe blow consumer. I guess in this day and age if you aren't an internet regular you have no way of learning it all. READ: Those who buy "wide screen" tv's and complain about the black bars.

 

[MegaloManiaK]

Originally posted by: EngenZerO
I hope lightning strikes you down. WS is the way to go.

If they fit both FS and WS the image quality would suffer drastically.

Yup and im sure your eagle eye would be so tormented by it.

 

[Rufio]

Originally posted by: brigden
I'm sorry, but anyone who prefers fullscreen over widescreen is an idiot.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Screen format preferences aside, the answer is that you need enough bit storage on the disc to make both versions available. Bonus features mean less free space, so you can opt for multiple aspect versions or features. I'd rather have a single aspect ratio presentation and things like director's commentary or a DTS audio track, personally (but I also hate non-OAR presentations).

 

[ddwbi0]

Originally posted by: Rufio

Originally posted by: brigden
I'm sorry, but anyone who prefers fullscreen over widescreen is an idiot.

I think all those ppl who automatically think that fullscreen is bad are idiots. OAR ppl, i get mine in OAR wether that be wide or full.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: brigden
I'm sorry, but anyone who prefers fullscreen over widescreen is an idiot.

People who claim that everything must be presented in widescreen sound ignorant of what original aspect ratio is.

 

[Amused]

First, widescreen is presenting the movie as it was intended to be seen.

Secondly, they do not offer both versions on the same disc because each DVD has only a finite amount of data it can store. Having both on one DVD cuts in half the amount of room they can use, therefore they must dramatically compress the data to make it all fit. The result? BOTH the WS and FS versions have terrible image quality.

Some companies have been offering both in two disc sets. But this forces the FS buyer to buy a WS and vice-versa.

Finally, flippers (two sided discs) fell out of favor because they are confusing to consumers and more easily damaged.

Not a single disc in my collection strays from the original aspec ratio unless it's part of a 2 disc set or a flipper. P&S or "full screen" is akin to cutting off the sides of a classic painting to make it fit a frame you have. It's just wrong.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Rufio

Originally posted by: brigden
I'm sorry, but anyone who prefers fullscreen over widescreen is an idiot.

And anyone that "prefers" 800x600 screen resolution over 1600x1200 is an idiot too by that same thought right?

It's been repeated ad nauseum here...but a vast majority of TV sets are still 19"-32" tubes with viewing distances much further than what they should probably be. With your average person who really could give a flying fsck about screen aspects and cutting off parts of the screen, all that matters is that the picture is bigger and it's easier to see. The sound remains intact, the plot of the movie is still there, you just lose the edges. For most people...whoopdeefrickingdoo. The part that's important is that you can see more picture on your TV.

A little roadster with gobs of power is a blast to drive and hardly nobody would turn one down, but it just doesn't make a practical car for a family of 4. Widescreen is that roadster. It's unrivavled at what it does, but it's just not practical or necessary for most.

 

[HonkeyDonk]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Rufio

Originally posted by: brigden
I'm sorry, but anyone who prefers fullscreen over widescreen is an idiot.

And anyone that "prefers" 800x600 screen resolution over 1600x1200 is an idiot too by that same thought right?

it is? 800x600 = 4:3 ratio as is 1600x1200 = 4:3 ratio. I fail to see your point.

 

[HonkeyDonk]

For all those who think Pan & Scan is just "chopping off the sides", you are partially correct but not entirely.

Yes they have to chop off the sides so it fits a 4:3 standard ratio, but it's not always the middle of the picture they're keeping. They pan and scan the movie finding out which areas of the picture are most important and then chop off the sides in respect to that picture.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what P&S is generally.

 

[vi edit]

it is? 800x600 = 4:3 ratio as is 1600x1200 = 4:3 ratio. I fail to see your point.

The point is you fit more on the screen at once at the tradeoff easiness to read.

 

[Dedpuhl]

Originally posted by: HonkeyDonk
For all those who think Pan & Scan is just "chopping off the sides", you are partially correct but not entirely.

Yes they have to chop off the sides so it fits a 4:3 standard ratio, but it's not always the middle of the picture they're keeping. They pan and scan the movie finding out which areas of the picture are most important and then chop off the sides in respect to that picture.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what P&S is generally.

The transition is very annoying...

 

[0roo0roo]

dvd barely has the space for one movie, let alone two copies. look at how we have superbit dvds.

 

[Rufio]

Widescreen vs P&S

 

[notfred]

There's really no reason a widescreen DVD shouldn't be able to play as both widescreen and full screen. Add 4 bytes of information per frame. That's less than a megabyte for a 3 hour movie.

Now, what do these four bytes do? They're 2 16-bit integers. one is "left side crop" and the other is "right side crop". They give a width, in pixels, that each frame should be cropped for display in widescreen mode.

Now, when someone goes to play the movie in widescreen, these numbers are ignored and black bars are displayed at the top and bottom of the screen.
When someone chooses to play the movie in full screen, the picture is enlarged so that no black bars are visible, and these numbers are used to select what part of the original picture is displayed on the screen.

I should be consulted before the next big video media format is finalized

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: notfred
There's really no reason a widescreen DVD shouldn't be able to play as both widescreen and full screen. Add 4 bytes of information per frame. That's less than a megabyte for a 3 hour movie.

Now, what do these four bytes do? They're 2 16-bit integers. one is "left side crop" and the other is "right side crop". They give a width, in pixels, that each frame should be cropped for display in widescreen mode.

Now, when someone goes to play the movie in widescreen, these numbers are ignored and black bars are displayed at the top and bottom of the screen.
When someone chooses to play the movie in full screen, the picture is enlarged so that no black bars are visible, and these numbers are used to select what part of the original picture is displayed on the screen.

I should be consulted before the next big video media format is finalized

What do you need 16 bits for? Play in binary and that's 64K pixels per side. 16 bits total, 255 clip per side max, which is plenty. I just doubled your efficiency.

- M4H

 

[Thraxen]

Pan & Scam sucks! OAR!!!

 

[Linux23]

Originally posted by: notfred
There's really no reason a widescreen DVD shouldn't be able to play as both widescreen and full screen. Add 4 bytes of information per frame. That's less than a megabyte for a 3 hour movie.

Now, what do these four bytes do? They're 2 16-bit integers. one is "left side crop" and the other is "right side crop". They give a width, in pixels, that each frame should be cropped for display in widescreen mode.

Now, when someone goes to play the movie in widescreen, these numbers are ignored and black bars are displayed at the top and bottom of the screen.
When someone chooses to play the movie in full screen, the picture is enlarged so that no black bars are visible, and these numbers are used to select what part of the original picture is displayed on the screen.

I should be consulted before the next big video media format is finalized

actually all players have that capability, but for some reason the studios never released a compatible disc.

 

[Amorphus]

Originally posted by: Linux23

Originally posted by: notfred
There's really no reason a widescreen DVD shouldn't be able to play as both widescreen and full screen. Add 4 bytes of information per frame. That's less than a megabyte for a 3 hour movie.

Now, what do these four bytes do? They're 2 16-bit integers. one is "left side crop" and the other is "right side crop". They give a width, in pixels, that each frame should be cropped for display in widescreen mode.

Now, when someone goes to play the movie in widescreen, these numbers are ignored and black bars are displayed at the top and bottom of the screen.
When someone chooses to play the movie in full screen, the picture is enlarged so that no black bars are visible, and these numbers are used to select what part of the original picture is displayed on the screen.

I should be consulted before the next big video media format is finalized

actually all players have that capability, but for some reason the studios never released a compatible disc.

plus the fact that the action takes place on the side of the screen, sometimes....

:wine: