Poll: Widescreen or Fullscreen?
- Thread starter shadowstriker86
- Start date
On square screens, you do get the whole image, they just stretch out the vertical side. That's how my old black giant of a TV worked. Now I have a slick and thin widescreen.Julianking93 said:
I don't really care, so long as I can get the aspect ratio right for playback (don't like squashed or stretched picture). Personally though I think all movies should be shot at 16:9 just for consistency (my monitor is 16:10).
The only screens i can find these days are widescreen so naturally almost everything i have doesn't have problems with playing widescreen.
Kind of annoyed me really, i play a lot of old games on my PC that don't support widescreen. Couldn't find a regular sized screen when i wanted one :/
Kind of annoyed me really, i play a lot of old games on my PC that don't support widescreen. Couldn't find a regular sized screen when i wanted one :/
Depends I guess. If it's 16:9 then I'd go with the borders, but over 2:1 it looks freaking tiny so I zoom in a bit. Also, if i'm watching 4:3 on a widescreen tv I'll zoom it a small bit, big black bars at the side look ugly as hell.
Widescreen and fullscreen aren't the same.
Wide screen is 16:10, 16:9 or something similar, where the screen is wider than 4:3 or 5:4. Fullscreen means the video is fit to the borders.
Also, widescreen for me. If a movie is foreign (other than Spanish or English), I want subtitles. But heck, I know languages that are being used in half of the world, so only Japanese or generally Asian movies require those black bars.
Wide screen is 16:10, 16:9 or something similar, where the screen is wider than 4:3 or 5:4. Fullscreen means the video is fit to the borders.
Also, widescreen for me. If a movie is foreign (other than Spanish or English), I want subtitles. But heck, I know languages that are being used in half of the world, so only Japanese or generally Asian movies require those black bars.
I bought my 22" for about $250 last summer. Or two years ago, I can't remember... Two years I think. Right now they would cost about what you would pay.starfox444 said:
Widescreen, of course. To get a film into a 4:3 area -- usually even a 16:9 area -- there has to be one of a few compromises made. The most obvious one, and the one that does nothing to alter the image, is to letter box it. This allows the entire image as seen in theaters to make it to home TV sets. Full screen movies do one of two things instead; they either crop it down, cutting off about half of the image, or open up the matte, adding things we were never supposed to see -- such as boom mikes. There's also the option of anamorphically squeezing it, but that looks so terrible that it hasn't been used since the very early days of VHS.
There's some good example images of what I'm talking about at This page [http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml], along with further discussion of the issue starting here [http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen.shtml]. Pay special attention to the pictures from Labyrinth -- at least two of the cropped images have scene critical characters cropped right out.
There's some good example images of what I'm talking about at This page [http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml], along with further discussion of the issue starting here [http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen.shtml]. Pay special attention to the pictures from Labyrinth -- at least two of the cropped images have scene critical characters cropped right out.
I'll always go for the right aspect ratio, with the whole image shown, so totally widescreen for movies.
Conversely when I'm watch 4:3 shows, or playing 4:3 games on my 16:9 TV, or 16:10 PC, I always set it with black bars at the side. I go for correct aspect ratio, over filling the screen or distorting the picture EVERY time.
Conversely when I'm watch 4:3 shows, or playing 4:3 games on my 16:9 TV, or 16:10 PC, I always set it with black bars at the side. I go for correct aspect ratio, over filling the screen or distorting the picture EVERY time.