Talk:Pan and scan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Bias

I have rewritten part of a section of the widescreen/fullscreen ratio debate to remove such derogatory references to the practice of cutting widescreen movies to the standard ratio as "fool screen" (from "full screen") and "pan and scam" (from "pan-and-scan") even though I disagree with the practice of fitting a widescreen image to a standard TV screen. The sides of a film image are often interesting in themselves, and even a panning of the entire scene implies an unwelcome choppiness.

Some people still think that they are getting cheated when they see bars at the tops and bottoms of their screens and abhor widescreen versions of their movies, and we cannot discount their opinions. It's a matter of taste and of perception.

I strongly endorse the original screen ratio, and as an illustration of the principle, I suggest that the inverse practice of cutting a standard-frame movie to fit a widescreen television would be equally troublesome. It is my opinion that film directors adapted well to the constraints of a 4:3 screen ratio when such was all that was available and exploited widescreen imagery when it became available.--Paul from Michigan 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think there's quite a bit of bias on the line that "widescreen sells faster than full" (paraphrased). This is certainly not true of Wal-Mart, for example, where most shoppers are still on SD televisions and the belief that widescreen is a cropped picture is quite widespread. 209.153.128.248 13:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Varying TV formats

I would like to discuss the following statement of the article:

It is also a question of local culture; in Europe, where the PAL TV norm offers more vertical resolution to begin with, "pan and scan" broadcasts and "pan and scan" DVDs of movies originally shown in widescreen are both very rare.

I am European myself and I regard the above statement as not accurate. European TVs, apart from the increasingly popular widescreen TVs, have the exact same vertical resolution as American Tvs do, thus creating a 4:3 aspect ratio of the screen.

While I am not aware of the pan-and-scan status of European TV, the resolution statement is correct, although it's confusing. PAL offers better resolution, both vertically and horizontally, than NTSC. This is partially because the frame rate is 50i instead of 59.94i. The aspect ratio of both formats though, is 4:3. Whether or not the relatively small difference in vertical resolution in the PAL system is enough to make European broadcasters decide to letterbox films, I don't know. The rationale makes sense, since letterboxing obviously is a reduction only in vertical resolution, but I would imagine the technical matter to be largely of secondary benefit to the primary question of whether or not the broadcaster feels the right to alter the films' image composition. Girolamo Savonarola 12:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is it done?

I'd like more information about how Pan and Scan editing is done. There must be some video editing tools that are designed to make the task easier. It's unlikely that people edit videos frame-by-frame. What is the process? How can I do it myself?

[edit] DVD

Why has DVD with anamorphic wide screen made pan and scan obsolete? it doesn't make sense to me. Jorge Peixoto 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background, 4:3, 16:9

The first paragraph under "Background", as currently written, gives the impression that 4:3 and 16:9 are the same ratio. The first is 1.333 to 1, and the second is 1.777 to 1. (The fact that numbers in the larger ratio are the squares of the numbers in the smaller ratio might give someone that wrong impression.)

[edit] 16:9 panning & scanning

I've just started receiving HD channels, and I've noticed films that are at 2.35:1 or 2.39 are not letter boxed. They're panned and scanned at 1.78:1. So that means a new age of panning & scanning is starting, but the impact on the viewing experience is much less then films panned & scanned at 1.33. Mr.Smiley4 4:38 AM Sunday, March 30, 2008 (UTC)