Watching movies letterbox/wrong aspect ratios. (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Gallagher]

I think we all hated letterboxing until televisions became widescreen

After all these years, the black bars have become a second thought. I actually appreciate seeing a letterboxed feature -- even on a projected screen -- knowing I am seeing more information, or as the film was intended to be seen.

I don't think the general public gives it a second thought anymore, either.

Wow! Quite an assumption on this forum to think "we all" hated letterboxing. FWIW - my twelve year old self back in prehistoric times realized something was amiss when the opening credits of some movies on programs like NBC's Saturday Night at the Movies were shown with elaborate drawings above and below them (early "letterboxing" as I learned at some point.) I'm curious who came up with the dumb term "full screen"; decidedly not "full screen" when half the movie was missing - a definite truth back when movies were actually filmed with anamorphic lenses or in Techniscope; much more muddled now when most "scope" films are filmed "open matte" and multiple aspect ratio versions are out in the wild and the version one sees dependent upon the theater where one sees it - or the decision by the company releasing the BluRay or the streaming service showing the movie. ("Enhanced for IMAX" - anyone? - in theaters or on Disney+. Interesting how the 1.43 IMAX version - something akin to the old "full screen" TV ratio - has now become the one with the greatest impact; full circle from the days when the wider films were always more impressive.)

 

[Indy Guy]

1.43 IMAX is not really more impactful unless you define that word as meaning "bigger".
Scope formats more closely duplicate the world we live in. That world is not framed in a cube. Cubic formats are remnants from the limitations of early film and vintage TV's cramped by the circumference of circular tubes.
Viewing a scope film in a state of the art widescreen theater is the ultimate way of recreating the world around us.
Uber-gamers are moving to ultra wide gaming monitors that can surpass Cinerama with their ability to create expansive ultra wide worlds.
Where immersion is critical, as it is in gaming performance, you don't see products that advertise the virtues of square formats.

 

[Worth]

1.43 IMAX is not really more impactful unless you define that word as meaning "bigger".
Scope formats more closely duplicate the world we live in. That world is not framed in a cube. Cubic formats are remnants from the limitations of early film and vintage TV's cramped by the circumference of circular tubes.
Viewing a scope film in a state of the art widescreen theater is the ultimate way of recreating the world around us.
Uber-gamers are moving to ultra wide gaming monitors that can surpass Cinerama with their ability to create expansive ultra wide worlds.
Where immersion is critical, as it is in gaming performance, you don't see products that advertise the virtues of square formats.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that the world is somehow in scope. The field of human vision seems to be about 200 degrees in width by 135 degrees in height, which is very nearly a 4:3 ratio.

I’d also argue that the appeal and marketing of scope was always about size, not shape, in the same same way the IMAX is today. The problem with scope these days is that the majority of screens are constant width rather than constant height, so scope isn’t wider anymore, just shorter.

 

[JoshZ]

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that the world is somehow in scope. The field of human vision seems to be about 200 degrees in width by 135 degrees in height, which is very nearly a 4:3 ratio.

Only if you're missing an eye. Most people have two, side by side on their face.

 

[Indy Guy]

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that the world is somehow in scope. The field of human vision seems to be about 200 degrees in width by 135 degrees in height, which is very nearly a 4:3 ratio.

I’d also argue that the appeal and marketing of scope was always about size, not shape, in the same same way the IMAX is today. The problem with scope these days is that the majority of screens are constant width rather than constant height, so scope isn’t wider anymore, just shorter.

How often do you look side to side to take in your surroundings vs up and down to view, say the Eiffel Tower?
An easy way to define the scope nature of what eyes see is to put on a pair of glasses. Glasses allow a "pair" of eyes to combine the images seen by each eye to create a natural scope image. You can easily measure the difference of field by wearing glasses.
Just close one eye while you have them on to see the horizontal world you are viewing shift from a natural scope vista to something approximating 4:3 when seen through a "single" eye.

 

[Sam Posten]

And please take the eye measurements to another thread too

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think we all hated letterboxing until televisions became widescreen

Uh, no.

I got into LDs back in 1991 because of letterboxing.

Even on a 15" tube TV, I was excited to see movies OAR.

Surprised by this statement because HTF has always advocated OAR and "widescreen TVs" weren't the norm until the site had been around for a good chunk of years.

 

[Worth]

Uh, no.

I got into LDs back in 1991 because of letterboxing.

Even on a 15" tube TV, I was excited to see movies OAR.

Surprised by this statement because HTF has always advocated OAR and "widescreen TVs" weren't the norm until the site had been around for a good chunk of years.

Both things can be true. Letterboxing was a better compromise than pan-and-scan, but hardly satisfying. Didn't David Lean say something about having his large canvas shrunk to a postage stamp upon seeing the letterboxed transfer of Lawrence of Arabia?

 

[Indy Guy]

Letterboxing wasn't the problem...the limitations imposed by the CRT tube was.
I remember going to CES back in the 80''s when Yves Faroudja would demonstrate his $14,000 scan doubler at the Faroudja booth using Laser Disc for the demo.
At the time, the images presented on his CRT monitors looked like video perfection, at a price that made obtaining it virtually impossible!
In the next decade his miraculous device would be reduced to the size of a chip that now upscales content for virtually every player, panel and projection device.
I wonder what David Lean would think today if he knew people would viewing LoA in virtual perfection on the 6" screen of their phone or attached to the back of coach seats on airplanes?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Surprised by this statement because HTF has always advocated OAR and "widescreen TVs" weren't the norm until the site had been around for a good chunk of years.

Good memory, Colin. We were a little late to the game on that.

 

[Christian D66]

I remember how cool it was to get the first official letterboxed film on VHS: MANHATTAN. Even the INNERSPACE VHS made a point of showing why the black bars were on the frame to those unawares (sometimes people would complain to me at Tower Video until I explained).
Like I said, I was aware of aspect ratios since a wee TV kid and I hated pan and scan. I was ready for the widescreen revolution.

I believe SCTV made the first aspect ratio joke ever in the brilliant "Rome, Italian Style" parody (that looks like what we used to see on PBS) and I laughed out loud when I first saw it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Both things can be true. Letterboxing was a better compromise than pan-and-scan, but hardly satisfying. Didn't David Lean say something about having his large canvas shrunk to a postage stamp upon seeing the letterboxed transfer of Lawrence of Arabia?

But my point is that Ron claimed everyone hated letterboxing on 4X3 TVs, so no, both things can't be true.

If you wanna claim that I hated letterboxing until 2008 when I got a 16X9 TV, go for it.

But you'll be wrong. I loved letterboxing from the minute I got a laserdisc player in 1991.

I was satisfied - and that went for movies like "LOA" especially.

 

[Worth]

But my point is that Ron claimed everyone hated letterboxing on 4X3 TVs, so no, both things can't be true.

If you wanna claim that I hated letterboxing until 2008 when I got a 16X9 TV, go for it.

But you'll be wrong. I loved letterboxing from the minute I got a laserdisc player in 1991.

I was satisfied - and that went for movies like "LOA" especially.

Fair enough. My point was simply that one could both prefer it and be underwhelmed by it at the same time. It's less like watching a film in the cinema and more like watching a drive-in from the highway.

 

[bujaki]

My first exposure to widescreen films on TV happened during the very early '60s, when the Public TV station in Puerto Rico showed The 400 Blows in 'Scope, and L'avventura in 1.85. I did not quite understand the black bars above and below the image, but I subliminally understood that I was watching the films the way they would have been shown in the theater. I liked it, and hated pan-and-scan ever since.

 

[Robert Harris]

Both things can be true. Letterboxing was a better compromise than pan-and-scan, but hardly satisfying. Didn't David Lean say something about having his large canvas shrunk to a postage stamp upon seeing the letterboxed transfer of Lawrence of Arabia?

It was his, and my, preference. Fortunately, he spoke. The studio listened. That was 1988, and as I recall, the only other film handled in that manner at the time was Manhattan. I believe this pre-dated Criterion’s VistaScope or whatever it was called.

Six years later, my assistant Joanne and I were slowly annotating MFL for a CBS network Easter broadcast in 1.33. Panning and scanning each shot.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

My subconscious realization about how much was lost to 1.33:1 cropping came with "Jaws", "Die Hard" and "CE3K".

As much as I liked them theatrically, their 1.33:1 VHS versions left me uninspired.

When I got 2.35:1 LDs, I loved them again.

Nothing that I could point at and say that I specifically had lost in the 1.33:1, but the altered composition simply made them less effective.

I remember circa 1991 I watched a 2.35:1 movie whose title escapes me cropped to 1.33:1 and it was ridiculous.

No one actually panned/scanned. They just set the "camera" to the middle of the screen for the whole movie.

So in a scene where 2 characters sat on each side of the screen and faced each other, all you saw were 2 noses and a lot of dead space.

That was the best argument for OAR I ever witnessed! Wish I could remember the movie.

 

[Thomas T]

The first time I saw a letterboxed wide screen presentation was a revelation. It was the Criterion laser disc of Blade Runner. The die was cast. I still have a few full screen and P&S films on DVD but that is only because they are unavailable in wide screen. Actually the black bar syndrome never bothered me because I knew I was watching the film the way it was shown in theatres.

 

[84lion]

Oh, my! (Salute to Dick Enberg, RIP) I’ve been through it all. VHS, SVHS, Laserdisc, DVD, Blu-Ray, UHD. CRT TVs, then an ED flatscreen, then FHD TVs, now UHD TVs. And h.265 via Plex.

I remember my first “videophile” CRT TV, a Sony 27” XBR. Glorious picture. I got it at the local electronic store “outlet” on a Saturday. I forget what I paid for that “floor model” but I am sure that even back in the late 1980s it was more than the average 55” UHD set costs today. Took it home in the front seat of my car. It weighed well over 100 pounds. I remember eventually getting into Laserdisc, and seeing the chariot race scene in Ben-Hur, where they “pulled out” to reveal the full width of the picture. It was just a sliver on the TV.

I still have a Sony 13” Trinitron downstairs that I haven’t fired up in years and intend to get rid of. The XBR and its stablemate, a 32” XBR2 (at the time, the closest Sony had to “flat screen”) are most likely in a dump somewhere. One of my favorite “TV stories” is when I had the EDTV up on the entertainment center, above the 32” XBR2. I had on the SEC Championship game that year and tried for quite a while to replicate the distinctive yellow on the LSU helmets as shown on the EDTV on the 32” XBR2. I could not do it. The CRT simply did not have the color range and fidelity of the EDTV. It was about then that I realized that CRTs were passe.

As far as AR goes, I prefer seeing the OAR and not “missing anything.” Now, color is a different story. I grew up with black and white TV and suffered with it until the mid-1970s when my folks got our first 19” color set (a Zenith). I know many people gnash their teeth at “colorized” movies, but I loved it when Ted Turner colorized some of the classic movies like Casablanca and Maltese Falcon. One of my prized possessions is a colorized DVD copy of “Miracle on 34th Street.” Yes, I also have the colorized version of “It’s A Wonderful Life,” in Blu-Ray, no less. Watching a black and white movies is like looking at something dead.

These days I am into AI upscaling software which makes DVD content very watchable on a 70” UHD set, and makes Blu-Ray content look pristine. If someone could come up with AI software that would do a decent job colorizing B&W TV shows and movies, I’d buy it in a heartbeat.

 

[Wes Candela]

Uh, no.

I got into LDs back in 1991 because of letterboxing.

Even on a 15" tube TV, I was excited to see movies OAR.

Surprised by this statement because HTF has always advocated OAR and "widescreen TVs" weren't the norm until the site had been around for a good chunk of years.

Same here.
as soon as I realized there was a way to see Superman The Movie Emoire Strikes Back Blade Runner and Die Hard in their original aspect ratio at home

I had a laser disc player a year later (1990 at 16 years old).
and it was watching the films with the black bars on top and bottom on a tube television that taught me how to frame and compose a photograph when I got older and started to take pictures.

 

[Thomas T]

Now, color is a different story. I grew up with black and white TV and suffered with it until the mid-1970s when my folks got our first 19” color set (a Zenith). I know many people gnash their teeth at “colorized” movies, but I loved it when Ted Turner colorized some of the classic movies like Casablanca and Maltese Falcon. One of my prized possessions is a colorized DVD copy of “Miracle on 34th Street.” Yes, I also have the colorized version of “It’s A Wonderful Life,” in Blu-Ray, no less. Watching a black and white movies is like looking at something dead.

I love B&W films. B&W cinematography is an art form in itself. I wish more films were made in B&W. Curious that you want to see a film the way it was intended by its film makers regarding aspect ratios but have no respect for the cinematographers careful detail on B&W cinematography. But if you want to look at B&W movies as a coloring book for your prospective palette, enjoy yourself!