Image Map Image Map
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: Anyone else here prefer pan and scan 4:3 movies?

  1. #1

    Default Anyone else here prefer pan and scan 4:3 movies?

    It's what I grew up with and I believe it gives a more intimate view on the characters. This pan and scan feels just like our natural eye movements as we look across a scene in real life. So 4:3 pan and scan movies and TV shows feel more real and immersive to me than widescreen movies that just look weird with their horizontal viewpoint look where the scene stays still at times, with no pan and scan. Anyone else feel this way?

  2. #2

    Default

    I don't have any nostalgia for pan-and-scan conversions of movies that were shot and intended to be viewed in wider aspect ratios - that's a pragmatic compromise at best. I do, however, miss 4:3 as a format for television.
    Computers: Amiga 1200, DEC VAXStation 4000/60, DEC MicroPDP-11/73
    Synthesizers: Roland JX-10/SH-09/MT-32/D-50, Yamaha DX7-II/V50/TX7/TG33/FB-01, Korg MS-20 Mini/ARP Odyssey/DW-8000/X5DR, Ensoniq SQ-80, E-mu Proteus/2, Moog Satellite, Oberheim SEM
    "'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling." - Bjarne Stroustrup

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    32,233
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    From my young days working as a projectionist, having to change out projector lenses for Cinemascope films, I never thought that the widescreen was worth the effort for most movies. The same goes for TV and video. You want the action to be concentrated in the area of central vision, not on the periphery. My (CRT) TV is sill the old aspect ratio and I don't notice any significant difference.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    1,640

    Default

    When I was a projectionist, there were two types of widescreen, depending on the film budget.

    The low budget movies used a "flat" lens designed for 4:3/5:4 or square framed movies, but they'd just cut off the top and bottom of the frame and use the curtain masking to cover the black areas up. These movies looked grainy or blurry and had lower detail since all of the frame wasn't used.

    Anamorphic wide screen used a "scoped" lens which was a stretched lens that looked like an oval to de-warp the frame. The frames were compressed to take up all of the available vertical space on the frame for a higher level of detail, and the lens would correct it back to its widescreen format.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    3,255

    Default

    I dunno, but these shortscreen TVs and monitors are getting insane. I fully expect down the road TVs/monitors will be a mile long and only a few inches high. Happened to obtain a new-ish DVD movie recently and it was almost impossible to watch on my 4:3 monitor as the video image was so short, and my DVD player does not really support cropping. (Of course the entire movie was garbage anyway).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    32,233
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGaBiTe View Post
    Anamorphic wide screen used a "scoped" lens which was a stretched lens that looked like an oval to de-warp the frame. The frames were compressed to take up all of the available vertical space on the frame for a higher level of detail, and the lens would correct it back to its widescreen format.
    The only "widescreen" I was exposed to more than a half-century ago, were the Cinemascope anamorphic lensed ones. Heavy things attached to the front of standard lenses (in my experience, the latter were usually made by Kollmorgen). If you forgot, things looked too tall and skinny and you noticed your error right away. But this was in the days of carbon-arc lamps, phototubes and sound systems that used 866A mercury-vapor rectifiers.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post
    I don't have any nostalgia for pan-and-scan conversions of movies that were shot and intended to be viewed in wider aspect ratios - that's a pragmatic compromise at best. I do, however, miss 4:3 as a format for television.
    What he said.
    I use my C128 because I am an ornery, stubborn, retro grouch. -- Bob Masse
    Machine room updated for 2019!: http://www.floodgap.com/etc/machines.html

  8. #8

    Default

    4:3 Usually doesn’t cut off anything you need to see, best example is the news.

    4:3 sets make the same image much larger on a smaller diagonal measurement.

    The current widescreen sets seem to be a failed gimmick that became a standard

    I keep my old 27” trinitron around so I can enjoy old gaming systems and formats,
    Twitch style games don’t work on lcd.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    3,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck(G) View Post
    If you forgot, things looked too tall and skinny and you noticed your error right away.
    What really blows my mind is that due to all the different short screen aspect ratios (short screen, really short screen, extra super short screen, bla bla bla), I often see people watching TV shows on their over-complicated "modern" TVs where they have it set wrong so it squishes things one way or another, and they just don't care at all.

  10. #10

    Default

    I never liked this 54:17 stuff. It just keeps getting worse. Sooner or later, TVs will have The Notch...

    What bothers me more than the aspect ratio though are the watermarks. The TV program my wife is currently watching has no less than 5 logos on the screen, which at 108:35 are extra-intrusive because they don't dare put them at the edges of the screen; the 4:3 users wouldn't see them!

    I still have yet to appreciate colour television. I'm content with black-and-white.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •