Widescreen

[cpt_azad]

not necessarily. that is true of "pan & scan" full screens. but some full screen movies are "open matte" (or "full frame") versions. in the case of open matte versions, you often see more than the director intended. if you have any mgm dvds with two versions of a movie on 'um, take a look at both sides and compare... there's a good chance that the full screen side is open matte.

example from anatomy of a murder:

widescreen (as shown in cinemas): http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/anatomy/1.jpg

open matte (usually seen on tv or vhs):
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...2.28.10-r1.jpg

usually the area covered by mattes doesn't really contain anything interesting or important, and removing 'um can make a scene look a bit too wide-open and empty. but james cameron for example has said that he actually prefers the open matte versions of his movies "aliens" and "the abyss," instead of the widescreen versions.

all that shows is that in the open matte version, u see the clock that u normally wouldnt in widescreen. but "widescreen" is natural to our senses due to periphral vision, is it not?

[3RA1N1AC]

"widescreen" is natural to our senses due to periphral vision, is it not?

yeah of course. peripheral vision... a wide cinema screen creates a more immersive experience, a good movie director/cinematographer arranges his scenes so they look best with widescreen matting, etc.

my point was just that people often believe that ALL full screen movies are pan & scans, with bits chopped off, but a lot of 'um are actually open mattes which show more than the matted widescreen versions do.