I've done some comparisons between the 4x3 and 16x9 versions when both are
offered on the same DVD, usually on the flip side, sometimes on the same
side via a menu selection. For example Annie Hall and Rocky 3. Look at
Woody's monolog at the start of the film. You can see 2-3 buttons on his
shirt with the 4x3 version, but barely 1 button with the 16x9 version. You
don't lose anything significant with the 4x3 version, which is slightly
cropped on the sides, but very little. Maybe only about 5-10% of the width
of the 4x3 version is cropped off. However the tops of people's heads are
typically cut off with the 16x9 versions. I estimate that at least 25% of
the vertical heighth is cropped to make it into a 16x9 image.
So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those areas
were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more real
content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.
I think that what we have here is a big promotion to buy the new expensive
16x9 televisions that cost over $1,000. To provide them with something to
watch in the same size, films are being hacked to death to fit that size
artificially. It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to fit
the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.
The 7:3 versions (usually called 2.35:1) are another ballgame entirely.
> So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
> bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those areas
> were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more real
> content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.
>
> I think that what we have here is a big promotion to buy the new expensive
> 16x9 televisions that cost over $1,000. To provide them with something to
> watch in the same size, films are being hacked to death to fit that size
> artificially. It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to fit
> the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
> beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.
I believe you are referring to 4x3 movies that have
been "matted" (or whatever the phrase is) to 16x9
in which case you are probably correct.
Video that was shot widescreen is what the whole move
to 16x9 tvs and having more than 4:3 is all about.
"def456" <def456@none.none> wrote in message
news:__8qi.51$jo5.28@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> I've done some comparisons between the 4x3 and 16x9 versions when both are
> offered on the same DVD, usually on the flip side, sometimes on the same
> side via a menu selection. For example Annie Hall and Rocky 3. Look at
> Woody's monolog at the start of the film. You can see 2-3 buttons on his
> shirt with the 4x3 version, but barely 1 button with the 16x9 version. You
> don't lose anything significant with the 4x3 version, which is slightly
> cropped on the sides, but very little. Maybe only about 5-10% of the width
> of the 4x3 version is cropped off. However the tops of people's heads are
> typically cut off with the 16x9 versions. I estimate that at least 25% of
> the vertical heighth is cropped to make it into a 16x9 image.
>
> So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
> bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those
> areas were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more
> real content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.
>
> I think that what we have here is a big promotion to buy the new expensive
> 16x9 televisions that cost over $1,000. To provide them with something to
> watch in the same size, films are being hacked to death to fit that size
> artificially. It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to
> fit the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
> beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.
>
> The 7:3 versions (usually called 2.35:1) are another ballgame entirely.
>
What you need to do is look at a DVD that has the notation anamorphic on it
and then do a comparison to a 4;3 release. Sometimes so called 16:9 releases
are either cropped 4:3 or the original film was deliberately framed for
cinema cropping, so called widescreen releases in the 1950's and later.
There is a full description and historical account of this sorry state at http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
>I believe you are referring to 4x3 movies that have
>been "matted" (or whatever the phrase is) to 16x9
>in which case you are probably correct.
>
>Video that was shot widescreen is what the whole move
>to 16x9 tvs and having more than 4:3 is all about.
>
>Just my 2 cents...
Yes. Most of the recent movies (past 30 years or so I think) were
shot in 16x9 format and for those movies, often time the sides were
chopped off to fit a 4x3 TV. A few movies were done both with release
to TV in mind. A good example is Harry Potter movies.
In the first movie, in 4x3 mode you can see the whole letter Harry was
reading about acceptance to Hogswart. in 16x9 (which appeared in
movie theater) you can't see the bottom part of the letter. But there
are a lot of scenes where 16x9 would be better than 4x3 like showing
more of the crowd and landscape
It's a matter of preference but considering 4x3 TV are about to be
extinct when NTSC standard is discontinued next year, chances are
people would be forced to get wide screen TV for their next purchase.
By then, basic wide screen TV should be much cheaper.
I do pity those who invested a lot in 4x3 only DVDs, it won't look
good on wide screen TV. The picture could be centered with black bars
on the sides, the picture could be stretched and look ugly, there
could be "smart" stretching where the center area is correct
proportion but edges are pulled. People with sharp eyes would notice
distortion. Finally the TV could enlarge the picture to eliminate
blank side by chopping off top and bottom and you'd lose a lot of
viewing area compared to actual wide screen movies.
When possible I bought the wide screen version so I can view it as it
appeared in movie theaters.
============================
"def456" <def456@none.none> wrote in message
news:__8qi.51$jo5.28@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> I've done some comparisons between the 4x3 and 16x9 versions when both are
> offered on the same DVD, usually on the flip side, sometimes on the same
> side via a menu selection. For example Annie Hall and Rocky 3. Look at
> Woody's monolog at the start of the film. You can see 2-3 buttons on his
> shirt with the 4x3 version, but barely 1 button with the 16x9 version. You
> don't lose anything significant with the 4x3 version, which is slightly
> cropped on the sides, but very little. Maybe only about 5-10% of the width
> of the 4x3 version is cropped off. However the tops of people's heads are
> typically cut off with the 16x9 versions. I estimate that at least 25% of
> the vertical heighth is cropped to make it into a 16x9 image.
>
> So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
> bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those
> areas were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more
> real content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.
>
> I think that what we have here is a big promotion to buy the new expensive
> 16x9 televisions that cost over $1,000. To provide them with something to
> watch in the same size, films are being hacked to death to fit that size
> artificially. It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to
> fit the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
> beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.
>
> The 7:3 versions (usually called 2.35:1) are another ballgame entirely.
>
"Stuart" <stuart€@whodunnit8.com> wrote in message
news:yicqi.12442$4A1.3312@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> What you need to do is look at a DVD that has the notation anamorphic on
> it and then do a comparison to a 4;3 release. Sometimes so called 16:9
> releases are either cropped 4:3 or the original film was deliberately
> framed for cinema cropping, so called widescreen releases in the 1950's
> and later. There is a full description and historical account of this
> sorry state at http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
===================
WRONG!
So wrong, I do not know where to start.
Anamorphic DVDs and Anamorphic lenses for filming
are similar in concept, but are not the same thing.
> It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to fit
>the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
>beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.
You are talking about the "open matte" transfers to home video of films
that were shot full frame but intended to be matted (have the top and
bottom blocked) to widescreen dimensions for exhibition. The most famous
example is Pee Wee's Big Adventure, where the open matte transfer
absolutely ruins some shots.
Of course, there are a few films that actually look better in open matte
transfers. The Secret of NIMH comes to mind. And I haven't seen the 4:3 DVD
of the Monkees' movie "Head", but the letterboxed version on TCM looked
very wrong in many scenes.
On Jul 26, 3:11 pm, "def456" <def...@none.none> wrote:
> So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
> bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those areas
> were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more real
> content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.
Really? Here are some screen grabs from "Pink Panther Strikes Again",
one of my favorite flicks.
"def456" <def456@none.none> wrote in message
news:__8qi.51$jo5.28@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> I've done some comparisons between the 4x3 and 16x9 versions when both are
> offered on the same DVD, usually on the flip side, sometimes on the same
> side via a menu selection. For example Annie Hall and Rocky 3. Look at
> Woody's monolog at the start of the film. You can see 2-3 buttons on his
> shirt with the 4x3 version, but barely 1 button with the 16x9 version. You
> don't lose anything significant with the 4x3 version, which is slightly
> cropped on the sides, but very little. Maybe only about 5-10% of the width
> of the 4x3 version is cropped off. However the tops of people's heads are
> typically cut off with the 16x9 versions. I estimate that at least 25% of
> the vertical heighth is cropped to make it into a 16x9 image.
>
> So the old adage and complaint about the blank/black areas at the top and
> bottom of widescreen versions is a good one, because it's true. Those
> areas were indeed cropped and removed from the film. You get a lot more
> real content, and the picture looks more normal, with 4x3.
>
> I think that what we have here is a big promotion to buy the new expensive
> 16x9 televisions that cost over $1,000. To provide them with something to
> watch in the same size, films are being hacked to death to fit that size
> artificially. It is actually the 16x9 version which is modified most to
> fit the screen, not the 4x3 versions - contrary to the announcement at the
> beginning of 4x3 films to that effect.
>
> The 7:3 versions (usually called 2.35:1) are another ballgame entirely.
That's an interesting link. I waded through it, but it's a bit too
complicated and technical for my wee old brain.
I just look at the picture and if the tops of their heads are cut off,
then I know it should have been burned onto the DVD in 4x3 instead of 16x9.
This happens frequently. I don't know exactly what percentage to put on it -
but maybe 50% of the time. In other words, I believe that about half of the
16x9 movies out there are artificial hack jobs, and should really be 4x3.
Again I won't comment on the 7x3 (2.35:1) format, which is an entirely
different situation. However they can occasionally be hack jobs too, really
4x3,
artificially cropped down to a horizontal sliver. You can call it matting or
matte process, if you want, but I call it cropping. The edges are cut off
and discarded.
Will I ever have a widescreen TV, or a HD TV? Maybe, but they'll have to get
a lot cheaper! I've never spent more than $200 for a TV and don't expect
to, in the future. Yes, I archive the widescreen versions of films too, when
available, considering that possible eventuality. In the meantime my Curtis
Mathis 25" 4x3 TV still works fine and might continue for many more years.
4x3 is better than 16x9 ! 
Linear Mode
