Let's take a brief moment to discuss "pan and scan" or "full screen" versus "widescreen" framing. They are two ways to present a single film. Most video stores will even offer both to their customers.
Here's the basic overview: movie screens and television screens are, traditionally, different shapes. (I say traditionally, since most new plasma screens are shaped like movie screens.) Basically, a television screen has this shape:
And a movie theater screen has this shape:
That's why when you're viewing a "widescreen movie" there are black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. Those bars preserve the true shape and integrity of the frame. A "full screen" version cuts off the left and right sides of the frame, thus "filling the frame."
We define these shapes by what we call "aspect ratios" - the ratio of screen width to screen height - but basically, as we can see from the above example, it means that if you're watching a theatrical movie on a television screen, you're missing about 1/3 of the picture. It's like buying a two hour DVD and only getting 80 minutes on the disk. You're getting less quantity, and therefore you're getting ripped off. That much is pretty much cut and dry.
But you're also getting robbed of the filmmakers' true intention. And if you're a film buff, that's more than a crime...It's a travesty.
Here's how the television network fits a movie theater screen-shaped picture on the television-shaped screen...They hire a guy to re-film it. The technician "scans in" - therefore cropping the edges off the picture, or, in an attempt to capture action on the far ends of the screen, he physically pans the camera left or right.
Panning and scanning does two things to a film. First, it creates movement on camera that the filmmakers' had no intention of creating. Imagine, a director of photography spends the better part of a day setting up a still shot to capture a sunset. Then, a year later, some guy decides that this still shot should pan from left to right in an effort to show two characters watching the sunset - one on each far side of the frame. This creates movement in a scene in which the stillness was crucial to the meaning being created. In this case, a still shot might be about waiting, while a moving shot panning from one side to the next is about not waiting.
Second, panning and scanning can change the very meaning of a frame by simply altering the composition of the frame; it can change what a shot is about. Look back at the the two frames from Poltergeist. The first shot is about two men talking. The next shot, however, is about two men talking about selling the empty lots of a half-finished subdivision. If you've seen Poltergeist, you realize that the crux of the film's conflict is the fact that the real estate developers didn't remove the bodies from the old cemetery before they started building. The first shot - the "full screen" shot - is about talking. The second shot - the "widescreen" shot - is about being surrounded by ghosts. Which do you think is a scarier idea?
Now look at this shot from Cool Hand Luke. It's about a prisoner spending a "night in the box" for back-sassing.
Now look at the widescreen version of the same shot - the way it was meant to be seen.
This shot is about a prisoner getting into a confined space, surrounded by sky and light and fresh air. The first shot is about what's inside the box. The second shot is about what's outside the box. The entire meaning of the shot has not only been changed, it's been totally reversed.
Here's another one more from Cool Hand Luke. This full screen shot is about Luke betting a dollar in a poker game.
But the shot was intended to be about Luke's fellow inmates watching him bet a dollar in a poker game.
Which of the two is about a larger-than-life character whose fellow inmates can't help but to follow and worship? Which shot actually demonstrates that "sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand"? See, the widescreen shot invokes the theme of the entire movie, while the full screen shot just shows a guy betting a dollar.
One more example. This one is from Pulp Fiction.
Vince's mobster boss Marsellus Wallace has asked Vince (John Travolta) to take out Marsellus' wife Mia (Uma Thurman) while Marsellus is out of town - just for "good company." Vince, meanwhile, has heard horror stories about how a man supposedly gave Mia a foot massage and got thrown out a window by Marsellus for the effort. In the shot above, Vincent and Mia are sitting in the front seat of Vincent's car, outside a restaurant. There is tension. Vincent knows he must follow Marsellus' request to be "good company" to Mia, but he also knows that if he crosses an murky line, he'll get violently punished. Therefore, placing both characters in the same frame creates tension for the audience. We know it's dangerous for Vincent to get this close to Mia.
Now, here's the size of the frame for a regular television set:
There's not a lot of tension created by a guy sitting in his own car by himself. Maybe we could show this instead...
Nope. Still not a lot of tension. This shot isn't about two people being dangerously close. This shot is about a woman smoking and deciding what she wants for dinner. Maybe we could split the difference...
Well, now this scene is about, I don't know, two people who lost half of their heads or something. There's no denying something has been lost. But we still have one more option. We could just scrunch them up like a sponge and shove them into the same frame...
The bottom line is this: if you have the option, opt for the "widescreen" version of a film over the "full screen."
Thankfully, it looks like this is the direction we're headed, anyways. As I mentioned earlier, most new televisions are already being built to the movie theater aspect ratio, and many television series are even being filmed and broadcast in wide screen (24 and True Blood come to mind, although there are plenty of others.) If you notice, even television ads for theatrical movies are being boradcast in widescreen, with the film title either on the top or bottom of the screen, over the black bars. (I first noticed this on an ad for Twilight, but it seems to be all the rage lately.)
With any luck, this entire discussion will be moot in a few years. Any thoughts?
What are your thoughts regarding widescreen films? Have you ever had any disapointing experiences with one or the other?
ReplyDeleteTo my recollection, I've had no disappointing experiences with either widescreen or fullscreen films. However, when shooting photography, I have definitely noticed a difference and shoot with the widescreen (16:9) aspect ratio. Now that I've been shooting in that ratio, it's drawn more attention to movies, but even then it seems I don't feel I'm missing out on anything.
ReplyDeleteI've watched movies with people who fight over whether to watch full, or wide. Majority wants full, because the black bars on the top and bottom bother them. I prefer wide because you can see the full shot, and not distorted images. I cannot recall the titles, but I am sure I have been disappointed with full screen because the images did not look... right? Not sure if I got my point across. But in general I prefer widescreen.
ReplyDeleteWidescreen is obviusly the way to go, as evidenced by more and more of filmsand tv shows being filmed in widescreen. However, in my experience full screen is always a great way to watch a really bad movie that I never really cared about. I don't mean a movie that i just didn't like but I mean the movies in $5 bins at Wal-Greens and Target. These type of films become quite hilarious in obviously the wrong aspects, leaving an already garbled message of a film even less meaningful.
ReplyDeleteIf it's bad movies you want, remind me to someday explain to you Busey's Law. (The quality of a film is inversely related to the amount of time Gary Busey is in it.)
ReplyDeleteI would much rather prefer widescreen, no doubt. When I would watch movies a few years ago when widescreen became popular, I always thought that full screen was the way to go...boy was I wrong.I realized that I would miss the details of many surroundings because they were simply...cut off.I used to be annoyed by the black bars. But now as I have watched many more movies I have realized that widescreen is definitely the way to go.
ReplyDeleteI do like widescreen alot because of the wide view you get. I dislike full screen because scenes always seem smaller with the black border on the sides. wide screen is the best for movie viewing.
ReplyDeletecompleted
ReplyDeleteI believe full-screen doesn't capture drama like wide-screen does. I haven't really had a problem before, but I guess I watch a lot of TV, and the thing with television is not a lot of drama is necessary. Things can't build up in 30 minutes like they can in 2 hours. Also, sometimes full screen cuts the scene off, which I don't really like either.
ReplyDeleteI'm completely pro wide-screen. I always find myself stuck with people who prefer watching a movie full-screen. Why? I have no idea. We're in the 21st century, where televisions screens can take up an entire wall. Wide-screen makes you feel as though you're getting the movie theater quality that you deserve in your basement or living room, or wherever. The panoramic view emphasizes the quality and emotion of the movie. 30 minute cheesy shows on T.V are meant to be viewed in full-screen, but full-length movies are best when watched wide-screen because you can then appreciate the art of cinematography.
ReplyDeleteI think that widescreen is okay at a movie theater but when I'm watching a DVD on my TV at home it distracts me. I guess it makes the movie seem more movie theater- authentic.
ReplyDeleteOwen Moynihan. I think widescreen is better for all of the reasons that you mentioned and it also makes it seem like you are more in a movie theater. When you are watching movies at home you always try and create the feeling that you are at the movie theater which is why widescreen is better it makes you feel like you are at the movies.
ReplyDeleteI think widescreen films are better because it allows for the audience to see all the details the way they were intended to be seen. Before I would always rent movies in fullscreen because I didn't like the black bars on the top and bottom, but that was before I realized how much of the movie was I was missing. Overall, I think with widescreen films, you get a whole lot more out of the experience. It's like watching a movie in a theater in your living room and you get to see all the scenes the way that the director wanted it to be seen.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Kaszuba:
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have not noticed that the movies for TV sets were scrunched up until now. And now that I see the difference, the widescreen does look a lot better and more interesting. I have watched movies in both the TV set size and widescreen but I was never sure of the reason to why they had widescreen, even though almost all my movies are in widescreen. Now I actually want to watch a movie in both versions and see the difference. I'll be sure to look out for that.
personally i have never noticed if i am watching full screen or wide screen because im to interseted in the movie. But if i have to choose from full screen or wide screen i would reccommend wide screen because you never know what scenes are being cut off it could be a guy waving at us but we don’t notice because it is full screen. The only time i would reccommend full screen is in fighting movies because u get a full shot at the fight. Despite all the advantages and disadvantages it is hardly noticeable because u just want to watch the movie.
ReplyDeleteI do personally think that choosing to use widescreen expresses more about your shot composition. If each human had one eye, I think it would make sense to have a perfectly square screen, but since we have two eyes mounted side by side, I believe that it is natural to see in a widescreen format. I prefer to shoot all the movies that I make in widescreen due to the more amount of space that can be used.
ReplyDeleteWill Campbell said...
ReplyDeleteI really have never had any problems with either form of screen display except that sometimes with movies that are very widescreen they have two big black rectangles on top and on the bottom of the screen and they sometimes distract me from the film. All in all, as long as the widescreen display is not to streched out it doesn't really matter to me whether widescreen or full screen.
carolyn nash:
ReplyDeletei have never really noticed the difference but sometimes in a widescreen movie the black on the top and bottom bother me.
That's pretty shocking to see the difference between the two formats. In the COOL HAND LUKE photos it almost looks like a whole different shot because of the full screen
ReplyDeleteBrandon Stark
ReplyDeleteI myself am totally for widescreen. Full screen ruins the shot that the director filmed in widescreen. The director films the scenes in that specific way to show you things that he/she wants to show you. I like widescreen because you get to see more that part of the movie, while full-screen cuts out on a lot and you miss on a lot of details. It's annoying in a way actually. I agree with everything you explained. Wide screen gives you that movie theater experience and lets you enjoy the film without being bothered. It helps make the films powerful and the cinematic experience extraordinary