The Real Napsta
Member
It's weird to think they exist. Are they worth anything to collectors or as a novelty?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Are fullscreen (4:3) DVDs worth anything?
- Thread starter The Real Napsta
- Start date
Straight Edge
Member
Only as fuel for a fire.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
I own many full screen dvds. Of course, 4:3 was their original aspect ratio, so of course I wanted the full screen versions.
OAR or bust!
OAR or bust!
sixteen-bit
Member
Make an art installation featuring obsolete media
Fancy Clown
Member
"Hey here's that movie you like but with the sides chopped off"
PhoncipleBone
Banned
For many movies. But for other things it was the correct presentation.
DaBargainHunta
Member
Movies where 4:3 is the OAR: Probably not, but maybe - depending on what it is.
Movies where 4:3 isn't the OAR: Definitely not.
Edit: Aren't there a couple of 4:3 non-OAR movies that show more nudity or something because the top and bottom have been "opened up"? I could swear I remember reading that years ago, but I have no idea which movies. Suppose that would be useful for novelty purposes with the "Mr. Skin" crowd.
Movies where 4:3 isn't the OAR: Definitely not.
Edit: Aren't there a couple of 4:3 non-OAR movies that show more nudity or something because the top and bottom have been "opened up"? I could swear I remember reading that years ago, but I have no idea which movies. Suppose that would be useful for novelty purposes with the "Mr. Skin" crowd.
Fancy Clown
Member
I don't think that's what the thread is about tho. It's for the dumb ones that say "fullscreen" on the top to try and sucker people into buying them for a "better" experience, not movies that were shot in 4:3 and then released on DVD.
The answer is no.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
I know what op was getting at, but since he didn't specify, I ran with it.
SDCowboy
Member
Pretty much what I was going to say. Most DVD's, period, are near worthless. I'm sure there are some that are worth something, though.
Probably not relevant to the OP, but there are a tiny handful of titles that
-were shown in widescreen in theaters
-were cropped to fullscreen in all official home releases (so far)
-sell for better-than-nothing prices due to low supply/high demand (Fright Night Part 2 and Gotham (the 1980s film, not the TV show), to name two)
-were shown in widescreen in theaters
-were cropped to fullscreen in all official home releases (so far)
-sell for better-than-nothing prices due to low supply/high demand (Fright Night Part 2 and Gotham (the 1980s film, not the TV show), to name two)
Clockwork
Member
What? No.
You don't get to define these things. Don't conflate "standard" with the current norm/typical resolution we now see.
Dbz funimation style
Clockwork
Member
I'll never forget the time we had a guest over and he had set the tv to do that for all 480 content while I was in another room.
I walked in and he was like "Hey man, I fixed your tv settings. Everything looks good now and you don't have those black bars!" All I could do was silently rage.
Needless to say he never stepped foot in our house again. (He was my gf's friend's boyfriend)
Fox Mulder
Member
Your dvd copy of National Treasure isn't worth anything. There's still lots of interesting out of print stuff that never got a bluray release and can be worth money.
Most people are stupid with this stuff. I worked for dish network and people would get the SD shit package with huge TVs they got hanging on the wall. Blurry as fuck but they're happy.
UncleSporky
Member
Are widescreen DVDs still 480p for the whole image? Like, is the letterboxing on a 4:3 TV an embedded part of the 480p video, or is that something done automatically by the player?
Because if the actual video is technically less than 480p due to the letterboxing, then I could see fullscreen being desirable for being higher resolution, in spite of the other drawbacks. But I don't know if that's the case.
Because if the actual video is technically less than 480p due to the letterboxing, then I could see fullscreen being desirable for being higher resolution, in spite of the other drawbacks. But I don't know if that's the case.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
If the original aspect ratio was 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 (latter had such tiny bars overscan would hide them usually), then any anamorphic (or enhanced for 16x9) widescreen dvd was encoded at the full 480p. The pixels were just misshapen. The TV then in full mode would stretch the pixels back out and correct the picture to fill the 16:9 tv. That is why if you set your player to say you have a 16:9 tv then play it through a 4:3 tv, the picture always looked squashed.
If you were using a 4:3 TV and told the player you were using a 4:3 TV, the player itself would correct the image then add the bars to the output image so the image would be correct.
If the film was higher than 1.85:1 for the aspect ratio, like 2.35:1, then the black bars were hard encoded on the image, but it was still anamorphic. Unless it is a release which never got an anamorphic release, like The Abyss or True Lies.
And no altering of the original aspect ratio is desirable. Who gives a fuck about losing a few lines of resolution to black bars when you can see the entire image as the filmmakers intended?
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
I think the fullscreen ver of The Phantom Menace is worth a few pennies more than the blu ray.
DVD is worth $50
Edit: Full Screen $19.99 / Widescreen $49.99
DVD is worth $50
Edit: Full Screen $19.99 / Widescreen $49.99
It's not always that simple though. For example, there are also some 4:3 releases of movies shot using Super 35 format that add back the missing picture information from the top and bottom of the frame.
^^ Actually from a TV broadcast, but it illustrates the different viewing experiences in cases like these.
Fancy Clown
Member
It's not always that simple though. For example, there are also some 4:3 releases of movies shot using Super 35 format that add back the missing picture information from the top and bottom of the frame.
^^ Actually from a TV broadcast, but it illustrates the different viewing experiences in cases like these.
That is interesting and a similar method used for The Wire's recent bluray release, but my point still stands that if you change the aspect ratio the film was shot for simply to fill up someone's tv screens then it's dumb, whether you're adding information that was shot for safety but not framed for, cropping it, or doing pan and scan. The information is "missing" for a reason.
Beer Monkey
Member
Wow, the composition in many of those 'tall' frames is ruined.
NekoFever
Member
It's not always that simple though. For example, there are also some 4:3 releases of movies shot using Super 35 format that add back the missing picture information from the top and bottom of the frame.
^^ Actually from a TV broadcast, but it illustrates the different viewing experiences in cases like these.
It is that simple because the movies were shot to be seen in their original aspect ratio. It's not about getting the most picture possible (although that does happen most of the time); it's about seeing what the director intended.
Not to mention the fact that opening up the matte like that frequently uncovers things that weren't meant to be seen, like boom microphones, the edges of sets and costumes, modern things in period/fantasy films, etc. Effects shots are usually cropped as well, since studios don't spend the money to render them into unseen parts of the frame.
LegendOfGood
Member
Why is this worth so much?
PhoncipleBone
Banned
It was the first Star Wars DVD ever.
And the documentary is damn good.
zephervack
Member
It's not always that simple though. For example, there are also some 4:3 releases of movies shot using Super 35 format that add back the missing picture information from the top and bottom of the frame.
^^ Actually from a TV broadcast, but it illustrates the different viewing experiences in cases like these.
Wait what, the way the heads of the actors get cut off at 16:9 is awful here, is that how all the widescreen releases look like?
Does that mean they shot the Matrix in 4x3? Like for TV?
Fancy Clown
Member
The Matrix wasn't shot for 16:9 but 2:35:1 widescreen, so the top images are cropped too. But you don't need to leave headroom for a closeup otherwise they look like floating heads, so it's common to give a "haircut" for better framing in tight shots.
Barkley's Justice
Member
Hear! Hear!
Beer Monkey
Member
I mean, Kubrick hated pan-and-scan so he shot many of his films with a protected Academy Ratio frame but he still composed for a matted widescreen inside of that frame. That doesn't make it better than the theatrical presentation, though it does make it better than pan-and-scan.