Comments on: Comments on 7199

Post number 7199

feelinglistless — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:56:25 -0800

The 'truth' about letterboxing!?! And I quote: "Lettershlocking will end! Film censorship will be defeated! HDTV will become the Betamax of the late 90's. DVD disks with lettershlocking will become the 8-tracks of the late 90's. FULLSCREEN FOR ME! BAN THE BARS! CANCEL HDTV BEFORE IT BEGINS! LETTERSHLOCKING IS WRONG! IT WILL END!"

By: mapalm

mapalm — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:01:59 -0800

i thought the anamorphic process was supposed to solve this? please edumicate me!

By: TacoConsumer

TacoConsumer — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:06:48 -0800

I thought letterboxing showed more of the picture because you don't "pan-and-scan"

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:08:17 -0800

This reminds me of that anti-day running light web site--only more stupid and false.

By: CrayDrygu

CrayDrygu — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:09:16 -0800

Uh, yeah...this guy's either trolling, or an idiot. If you watch a movie on a (non-widescreen) TV, and the image doesn't have black bars on the top and bottom, then you're missing part of the picture. They usually do a decent job of it, though. I have no idea what this guy's spouting off about.

By: peebo

peebo — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:11:58 -0800

How someone can make the argument that a process whereby the complete film image is shown as intended, instead of being arbitrarily lopped of on either end as with pan and scan and/or "formatted to fit your screen" formats, is considered "censorship" is beyond me. It defies explanation.... Surely this site is a joke, right? No one could really be this stupid, right?

By: dfowler

dfowler — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:14:33 -0800

I love it when people start their hit counters at 00000000.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:15:45 -0800

It should be fun to watch the counter on that guy's web site go up. It was just at 145...

By: mrbula

mrbula — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:23:29 -0800

The counter is now at 620. Granted, I just spent the past two minutes hitting F5...

By: Mick

Mick — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:26:41 -0800

Give me letterbox or give me a book to read! I bought a LD player a few years back just so I could watch movies in the original aspect ratio...the next year they started releasing them on VHS :(

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:26:48 -0800

What's funny is that since July 27, 2000, this site has been in existence, but in the last 15 minutes, 99% of his hits were received... it's kind of an argument of guerrilla trolling to get e-mail addresses for some other purpose?

By: andrewraff

andrewraff — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:30:19 -0800

I *REALLY* hope this is a joke.... but people really are this stupid... Otherways, I know plenty of people who prefer the dreaded pan and scan to letterboxed. I can see why on a smaller tv, but the widescreen aspect ration looks so much better... you actually get to see the whole movie, as the director intended....

By: dincognito

dincognito — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:33:48 -0800

Quack. That's all I have to say really, this guy is a complete quack. Game on...

By: owillis

owillis — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:34:59 -0800

Counter is probably off, because I saw this site a looong time ago

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:35:49 -0800

Feelinglistless, just curious: how did you find (locate) this AOL web site?

By: anastasia

anastasia — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:36:34 -0800

Hit counter now at 717. Please, god, someone tell me this is a joke!! My roommate is a movie junkie and has made a special videotape of "full-screen" (i.e. "pan 'n' scan") scenes followed by their widescreen versions, which he from time to time shows to people who don't "get" why "full-screen" isn't better ... ... its amazing how many people out there don't realize they've been missing 50% of what the director shot.... Anastasia

By: dukejohnson

dukejohnson — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:37:02 -0800

gack ... wish i'd read the comments before wasting my time with that link and rolling the counter to 720 8(

By: anildash

anildash — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:37:43 -0800

I remember seeing this long ago, and I just assumed it was a parody. You guys don't actually think this guy (and it has to be a guy) believes this, do you?

By: anildash

anildash — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:38:17 -0800

Er, sorry, i meant satire, not parody. Did I mention English is my second language?

By: gluechunk

gluechunk — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:39:37 -0800

Yes, the text has been around for awhile. As for the counter, if you read the text it says xxx "...have visited this page since July 27, 2000." It doesn't say the site was created on that date. You'll find reference to an earlier date in a paragraph above that and this page linked to it in May of '00.

By: Dirjy

Dirjy — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:40:36 -0800

Not to worry. This is just another troll site trying to get some attention. These same arguments were floating around the alt.video.dvd newsgroup around a year (or two?) ago. So, yes, the 'letterschlocking is censorship' argument is a troll. However, I do find it distressing to hear how many people REALLY hate widescreen-only DVDs. They would rather 'fill the TV screen' than see the entire picture as the director shot it. Pan & scan has made me cringe since home video went mainstream in the 80s. Why don't people get it???

By: iceberg273

iceberg273 — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:41:02 -0800

Here's more info about the author.

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:44:11 -0800

In fact, he says "Email from lettershlockers is no longer answered, as of April 27, 1999". Apparently, it's been around for a while. Oh, yeah...811.

By: iceberg273

iceberg273 — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:50:35 -0800

I can trace it back to at least February of 1997. I remember laughing at this guy in college (well, at his web site. We've never met).

By: smeat

smeat — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:53:09 -0800

The pan-n-scan of Pulp Fiction converted me to letterbox. The part where Jules shoots "flock-of-seagulls"--it pans so fast I got dizzy. It was just wrong. Of course, the letterbox of that very scene has a hand waving around on the far left that I don't think was supposed to be there.

By: snowmelter

snowmelter — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:54:14 -0800

I remember seeing this spammed on usenet film groups in like 1996. I thought he was a troll, but he's apparently just stupid. Interesting (sort of) aside: movies' aspect ratios were originally the same as TV's, but in an effort to compete with the new medium, widescreen was developed by chopping off the top and bottom of the frame and simply projecting the image larger. The anamorphic lens developed later squished the image vertically into the square frame, to be expanded later in projection. So a non-anamorphic pan-and-scan film, by the time it gets to your TV, only shows the very centre of the film frame.

By: icathing

icathing — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:55:49 -0800

Decent article about anamorphic transfers and why they're good things.

By: rmannion

rmannion — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:59:09 -0800

The site is a troll. Something I found even more amusing: FlikFX Digital Recompositing!!!!@###

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:08:20 -0800

That shockbox guy is now aware of this thread...

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:11:52 -0800

This is the e-mail he just sent me: we are not trolling. we just don't agree with you. but then I guess you can't acknowledge the fact that someone could disagree with your "superior" wisdom. I have better things to do than debate you. Further email from you will be regarded as harassment, so don't contact us again.

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:23:30 -0800

889. Amazing. I actually found the page through Portal of Evil, which I must also recommend, since it also brought to my attention this (which I simply couldn't bare to save - is composting fun?). Thing is, some films don't actually get panned and scanned and you do get to see less of the frame on a widescreen edition. Before I get burned as a heretic, should say that widescreen is still better whatever. Let me explain. There was an illuminating article in Premiere some months ago about the filming of Titanic. Although the SFX shots were created in the widescreen frame, interiors, for example corridor scenes were shot using a square film stock. This meant that when the Cameron prepared the film for full screen for wider distribution video and TV versions he effectively had to re-edit the film again, going through shot by shot reframing everything for 4:3 - this meant that more of the scenery and costumes can be seen at the top and bottom of the frame. Trouble was of course that the SFX shots still had to be panned and scanned and some still look plain awful. This process seems to be in use all over Hollywood. Frankenheimer even explains (not too well) in his DVD commentary for Ronin how he shot using the square frame technique and then just cropped the bottom of the frame off for the theatrical release. Check the not too great film You've Got Mail. Compare some of the scenes in the making of doc which are in full frame against the film - and you can actually see more of the sets. Who decides the film maker or the studio? Still haven't worked this out, but it only seems to be commercial films so . . . The downside of all this is that in some case you really arn't getting what the film maker intended. So when you do see that microphone duck into shot on your rental video (Married to the Mob has a real howler) copy it's not because the film maker is incompetent - your just seeing more than he wanted you to see. Alex Cox is particularly pleased to be supervising the transfer of Repoman to DVD - those camera rails were never meant to be there, no matter how much film critics might wet themselves over Cox's post modernity. So now the thing is back in widescreen, we can all concentrate on Emilio Estevez performance. So yes, widescreen is better - whatever.

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:25:47 -0800

Just wondering - how did he find out about this 'thread'? Who told, hmm?

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:29:21 -0800

Did I violate the Mefi Prime Directive?

By: toddshot

toddshot — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:32:32 -0800

The *only* full-screen version of a widescreen film I've ever seen that was even adequate for viewing was A Bug's Life, and that's because the Pixar folks went back and actually re-composed most shots in the film to better fit into the 4x3 ratio. Another reason why those people are my heroes. Did you ever see the pan-and-scan Ghostbusters on cable? It's downright disgusting! *Todd hugs his Ghostbusters DVD*

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:32:59 -0800

I dunno. But I only posted an hour and a half ago and already the counters up to 904. Hate the think what it's going to be like tomorrow . . . bit worried to be honest . . .

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:36:35 -0800

Hey, look. For every five serious Mefi threads, there should at least be one silly one, no?

By: skallas

skallas — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:50:05 -0800

This reminds me of the time I was seriously considering selling strips of black plastic you can put on the top and bottom of your TV to get that letterbox look. Why? Just to see who would buy it. Also, I convinced myself that once letterbox makes it mainstream there will be ads running through those black bars, just like banner ads on the web. Now I want to sell this guy a gray plastic film with a large hole in the middle he can stick on the screen eliminating the letter box bars and making his TV look like the bulging round tubes of old.

By: CrayDrygu

CrayDrygu — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:59:18 -0800

"However, I do find it distressing to hear how many people REALLY hate widescreen-only DVDs." While I don't REALLY hate them (in fact, I prefer widescreen), it's very annoying on a 13" TV. The Matrix, which is ultra-widescreen (2.35:1, IIRC), is about 3.5 inches tall on the screen. And not much bigger on my 17" monitor, though the increased resolution makes up for it.

By: fooljay

fooljay — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:01:06 -0800

The rationale behind some people's dislike for letterbox is that the movie is too small. While I see their point, I've not been able to convince them that in some movies they are missing some very important parts of the movie which are purposely not centered on the screen and in other ones, they are riding a visual rollercoaster. Whatever. No need to overuse the clue-by-four... Oh, and one more thing, how would he know about this thread? Well, I think I'd notice the infinitely large percentage increase in traffic. Every server log I've seen has a referer. Copy, paste, read, reply. Ta dum...

By: fooljay

fooljay — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:02:07 -0800

Jinx, Craydrygu. You own me a coke...

By: rmannion

rmannion — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:04:57 -0800

skallas, There are many (such as I) who put stuff over the "black bars" on their TV/RPTV/FPTV to enhance the image. Known as mattes, they completely eliminate any trace of light on the "black bar" area and thus enhance the contrast in the existing image. Of course, one may think, "They're black bars. They're already black." Regardless of the "blackness" of the picture, the TV will still emit light. Simply look at a completely black picture in a dark room or during the night to verify this. Ryan

By: gluechunk

gluechunk — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:28:13 -0800

But ryan, could the cover to that Spinal Tap album be much more black?

By: jimw

jimw — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:55:15 -0800

i assume this guy is unhappy about the widescreen episodes of er (which were just something they played with during the november sweeps, and stuck with). or the widescreen episodes of babylon 5.

("rebel without a cause" was the movie that i first saw scenes in pan-and-scan vs. letterbox compared. whoever did the pan-and-scan on that movie should be ashamed of themselves.)

By: sugarfish

sugarfish — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:15:59 -0800

1052. maybe i should put up a troll on my site; i'd get some sick hits. anyway, i have a smallish tv, so if i have a choice i pick pan and scan. but i do hate when p&s is really friggin' obvious, like when they do it back and forth in a conversation. i'd rather just watch widescreen if it's gonna look like that.

By: me myself and i

me myself and i — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:48:48 -0800

"lettershlocking, the vilest evil of all time" Idiot... "lettershlocking" - nice word, idiot... Did you make that up yourself? Idiot... I can see why when DVDs are available why we would want to go back to 80s technology, idiot... idiot... I think he is suffering from brainshlocking

By: gpowers

gpowers — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:54:23 -0800

Another AOL web page written by an apparent moron. Wow. Shocking.

By: sj

sj — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:15:48 -0800

One of my film professors in school told me about one of his students who had written a final paper about how the two different modes of camera work in Chinatown reflected different attitudes towards the characters in the frame. One mode was slow, wide and paced; the other tight and jumpy, moving back and forth between characters outside of the frame. As you've probably guessed, this was entirely due to the pan and scan of the student's videotape. The prof. had a good laugh and worked with the student to get something out of it.

By: silusGROK

silusGROK — Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:55:45 -0800

A friend of mine purchased a DVD player at my behest, and returned it shortly thereafter because it was broken... you guessed it: the first movie(s) he rented was widescreen. I still can't convince him that widescreen isn't "broken". *sigh*

By: holgate

holgate — Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:36:23 -0800

See, this is why TV sells.

By: tomplus2

tomplus2 — Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:35:28 -0800

UGH. There is a problem with the transfer to video from film for both "letterbox" and 4:3. I've watched a handful of movies in both formats and you'll notice that you OFTEN see more in the vert direction in the 4:3 than on the letterbox. WHY??? the space is there, whats with the crop? and of course, you see more in the horizontal direction (no doubt) on letterbox than 4:3. Like someone said above, there's something fishy going on. watch matrix, in both modes, b/c you'll definately see a difference. X-men is a great example too! one we get ride of all 4:3 sets this might not be a problem. bottom line, which vert setting was the movie intended for? I want to see some pics... hmmm... looks like a task is at hand.. brb. :)

By: whuppy

whuppy — Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:38:08 -0800

The Sopranos is being simulcast on HBO and HBO-Plus in "normal" and "widescreen" formats. I'm pro-widescreen, but WTF?

By: rmannion

rmannion — Tue, 24 Apr 2001 07:54:23 -0800

Tomplus, There is no conspiracy. The phenomenon you describe is dependent on the format the filmmaker shot in. (all you film people correct me if I'm wrong with any of the following information:) Super35, for example, is shot in the 4:3 ratio, and bits of the top and bottom are matted off for the theatrical showing. When it comes time to present it on video, the filmmaker can apply the pan and scan process to the matted film, or simply present the film in "open matte", whereas the entire original frame is used. Note that in cases where visual effects work (particularly computer graphics) went into the film, you'll most likely see that scene pan and scanned as it would be needlessly costly to perform the VFX work on the matted areas. Popular example: Titanic. Another variation involves the film being shot with anamorphic lenses, with the proper aspect ratio being present without the need for matteing for the theatrical presentation. Ryan

By: rmannion

rmannion — Tue, 24 Apr 2001 07:55:27 -0800

You can also attribute "open matte" to why you may see a mic pop into a frame on video :). Ryan

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:08:20 -0800

2329 everyone. Ryan - thanks for backing up the small essay I wrote further up the thread . . .

By: tranquileye

tranquileye — Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:37:10 -0800

2670. End the madness.

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:16:00 -0800

3147. Perhaps we should start thinking about getting t-shirts printed . . .

By: Neale

Neale — Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:37:18 -0800

What, t-shirts like this one? Will we get to a point where every MeFi thread has its own t-shirt?

By: jimbogolfer

jimbogolfer — Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:39:48 -0800

The letterboxing snobs, er, supporters are absolutely correct. No dispute from me. One little problem, the letterboxed images on my 32" TV screen (25" wide) are at least twice as small as conventional images. I don't know which is worst, much smaller images or those black bars. I was surprised that HBO's Sopranos is mostly in letterbox. So HBO throws a bone to the letterbox crowd, smart move. HBO knows that wide spread letterboxing deployment would be suicidal. I am sure they and their competition have done the research. Letterboxing is saving me money, as I intend not to buy DVD and those over priced DVD movies. They must cost about $1 to manufacture and sell for $24.99, or thereabouts, plus tax. What really pisses me off is those TV screen logos, but that is an entirely different kettle of fish. Anybody who likes the TV logos should be shot, or worst.

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:55:46 -0800

Actually, I was thinking of a shirt more in the style of the one fashioned on the Linux code for DVDs. But then that might not be such a good idea if you happen to go to an art house cinema wearing it . . . (4015 by the way)

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:43:03 -0800

Of course, many of us in Europe don't suffer from these weird arguments since... we buy Widescreen TVs anyway! Problem solved. A good deal of regular TV channels are in widescreen now anyway (and quite a few programs are in Surround Sound too). The US can be a bit slow in picking up on new technologies (cellphones) and I'm not sure whether widescreen will take off there.. it seems you prefer HDTV (but since PAL is better res than NTSC anyway, that's never been a big deal here). However, widescreen is excellent stuff, and twinned up with a decent digital TV provider, crisp as crackers.

By: bregdan

bregdan — Thu, 26 Apr 2001 19:25:46 -0800

This is another well done spoof website which a lot of people thought was true (before it was hosted by the widescreen museum. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/flikfx/default.htm

By: riffola

riffola — Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:53:54 -0800

Hit counter at 13522

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:56:29 -0800

14556.....

By: feelinglistless

feelinglistless — Sun, 05 May 2002 10:02:44 -0800

Someone's broken the counter...