Blade Runner: Pan & Scan vs. Widescreen

[@wolftickets1969]

You'd never know what you were missing unless you had a rare-at-the-time widescreen tv.

[@FreeTruthShow]

really amazing how much you miss from this. thanks for showing.

[@deckofcards87]

Selling movies in pan and scan was one of the worst industry sins in history, it's amazing how many years people accepted it

[@MarkWhich]

It was better than nothing at all.

[@The_Husband_of_Jane_Lane]

I never did saw the Pan & Scan version, I only watched the widescreen version back in October 2017 when I watched it for the first time (which was The Final Cut on Blu-ray). Now looking at this, I can see the big difference.

[@wes788411]

It wouldn’t matter unless what you were watching had a widescreen format.

[@neonknights]

You're absolutely right. :-) If you look at Terminator II which was made in 1991 when Super 35 was only rarely used you can see that the CGI shots lose much more on the sides than the other ones.

[@Skiller444]

You can't just "broadcast in 16:9 only", there will always be legancy video in the archives. Pan Scan was or is mostly used in the USA, in Europe Letterboxing was used much more and was more accepted. Pan Scan CAN be a good thing for DVD menus for example or if something was shot with Pan Scan in mind and was transferred to DVD in it's original form (16:9) with the possiblity to watch it either in Letterbox or Pan Scan on 4:3 TVs. That's the only way everyone is happy.

[@FirebirdCamaro1220]

Actually, the big reason that Super 35 has gained preference over Anamorphic (CinemaScope) for 2.39:1 movies is because the majority of Cinematographers prefer spherical lenses to anamorphic ones, they are cheaper, more plentiful and easier to work with

[@Delpheno2K7]

This is probably the perfect example why widescreen is important, but at the same time, not necessary.

[@MattHrman-Cutis]

I've got this DVD off of eBay recently and received it in the post today 😎🤟

[@Skiller444]

@Skiller444 +Part 2+ (I mean *or* DVD-Player) The big benefit is if you have a 16:9 TV the static Pan Scan zoom is omited and you have a full screen picture as well - with the same broadcast or DVD. That's why I said it's the only way everyone's happy. It can be used for DVD-Menus as well for example. HDTV broadcast is 16:9 only yeah, but SD broadcast can and should switch between 4:3 and 16:9, forcing to either one is always a bad idea.

[@JayArgonaut]

To cater for 99% of the VHS watching population that didn't understand why a widescreen film would have black bars at the top and bottom of the picture and would complain that they were being "cheated" out of a filled screen... Laserdisc owners were considered smarter and nearly always had a widescreen version available.

[@Skiller444]

@Usul573 Well, like I've said in my first comment, Pan Scan *can* be a nice way to present video shot in 16:9 on a 4:3 screen IF the video was shot and produced with that in mind which pretty much implies that this never applies to cinematic stuff, rather only for TV. It works this way: the important stuff is always in the center area, never in the extreme sides. So it's not the classic "Pan" and Scan, but rather just a static zoom which is generated by the receiver of DVD-Player.

[@Delpheno2K7]

Like I said 11 months ago, widescreen is important, but at the same time not necessary. I watched the Pan & Scan version when it aired on TV, and I enjoyed it. Believe me, I get frustrated when someone prefers fullscreen over widescreen.

[@alphamone]

I am glad they never did that in Australia, though it did lead to the confusing lable of "widescreen edition" when there were never any full screen releases to begin with (though, many early region 4 releases were bare bones dispite there being extras on the region 1 release, it makes me wonder if the region 4 release was intended for south america region 4 countries, and Australia was just stuck with getting them and paying comparitively more for them)

[@Exitof99]

What about VHS vs DVD? All DVDs I've seen crop in on both widescreen and 4:3. I've been planning to make a few examples of how much the DVDs cropped in versus VHS. My best guess is that they crop in to reduce the amount of details shown so that they can compress it better. Some good examples I've seen are 'Total Recall','Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me','Kiss The Girls'.

[@Skiller444]

@Usul573 I'm not confusing them, my first sentence is referring to one of the "top comments" saying broadcasting should be 16:9 only. Naturally Pan Scan and aspect ratio are somewhat related to each other since PS is a way to convert video to a frame ratio different from the original one. I'm just saying that Pan Scan has it's uses, the problem is just that, as it seems, it is often stubbornly preferred over letterboxing where not appropriate, as shown in this video.

[@smith507]

@RMProdux2008 Directors may have taken in mind the Pan & Scan issue, but that dead space you see is mostly because of a photography composing technique called "the rule of thirds" in which you take an imaginary grid dividing the frame in thirds and the subject is placed in one of their intersections or... (bla bla bla), it a complex topic, better take a look at google. IMO, pan/scan is awful, I really love the unaltered/intended way of a movie. i don't mind black bars.

[@TrippingHawk]

Criticizes the butchering of aspect ratios. Uploads in 240p

[@AZITHEMLGPRO]

+Zaranyzerak lol hi

[@KevinStriker]

Uploaded on 7 May 2007

[@TrippingHawk]

No excuse

[@KevinStriker]

You're an idiot, then.

[@TrippingHawk]

u mad bruv

[@FunkMobbMack]

you miss so much action. yet i think directors were aware that their movies were eventually going to end up on home video chopped up pan scan so i think they purposefully left a lot of dead space on side to side on a lot of these shots. yet there is a lot of important information missed on pan scan. manufacturers should have released TVs on 16:9 from the beginning. at least its a middle ground.

[@Experimentalfilms123]

Very good comparison!

[@neonknights]

Widescreen looks great but only if it's used properly and for films that require it. For years it was a good custom to film action-packed and/or exotic, big budget films in anamorphic widescreen (2.39:1) and lower budget films (dramas, comedies) in normal spherical process (matted to 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 aspect ratio).

[@GnCFilms]

@Usul573 DVDs still get some FS releases, but thankfully BD dont. We have finally moved on! :)

[@TediusZanarukando]

When Blu-ray becomes the standard, fullscreen DVDs and 4-perf Super 35 will go the way of the dodo. Anamorphic lenses are making a comeback, since Blu-ray format is on its way to becoming the standard video format.

[@FM4ever]

They do broadcast most stuff in 16:9. Well in Holland at least.

[@AliG4life]

I guess you haven't seen the Blu-ray version yet? =)

[@alextan1478]

Thankfully, the sequel is open matte in IMAX.

[@ImHereFastPerson]

I remember the first movie I watched in widescreen was the abyss on VHS… from there is when it started, now I cannot watch full screen movies. There’s basically no point to me.

[@GnCFilms]

Thank FUCK we dont have to deal with this anymore with Blu-rays. It took three generations of home video viewing but we got there. No wonder I hated this movie when I saw it on TV years ago. Its my favorite film of all time now

[@xpez]

AS unorthodox as your opinion is about the wide screen (in this day and age) there is a sliver of truth in your argument that I will elucidate for you. First, the letter box aspect ratio, when compared to the original film frame negative is actually a lot less picture. Pan-scan is even less BUT..the TV aspect ratio 4:3 is actually closer to the aspect ratio of the original negative so TECHNICALLY speaking the TV aspect ratio if used that way, would yield visually more film frame real estate.

[@GnCFilms]

@Usul573 Well, naturally. 4:3 transfers of 4:3 films is fine!

[@OwensboroMusicMan07]

Yep, proof that widescreen is better. Especially considering that this was shot anamorphically.

[@xpez]

of course its much much bigger but in terms of proportions its close.

[@jshensley]

Actually, each shot varies as to how much you loose. Regular shots will loose about 20% on the sides and gain some at the top. In other shots, like ones that have CGI, you loose the same amount you loose in a regular widescreen to fullscreen transfer. The main reason Super35 and other open matte formats are used anymore is not so they can have a better transfer, but so boom mic operators will be able to see where the mic is in the frame. You loose the same amount almost either way.

[@kruum]

My VHS is like that.

[@xpez]

to further my point IMAX, the mother of all formats, is very close to the 4:3 aspect ratio.

[@ThunderZandor]

I use to love letterbox but realized that it looks tiny on my 4X3 TV, so i don't mind fullscreen. It's actually a more intimate experience. 16X9 is cool and 4X3 is nostalgic.

[@PiotrSzewczykPL]

Old video, now all have 16:9 TV LCD. But if you want watch BR - buy it on Blu-Ray!

[@BlackKnightKomms]

This is like what happened to DBZ when FUNimation put it in wide-screen you lost 20% on the horizontal frame and only gained 5% on the vertical frame other than the movies as those were meant for wide screen. This movie should be in 16:9 and DBZ should be 4:3. What I'm getting at is that things should be seen how they were meant not changing that and ruining it. I think if any company releases something it should be released how it was made.

[@masterstghm]

I know, but it's about time all screens and films were the same dimensions.

[@CedricLaurenty]

OUCH

[@CaulinNelsonAngelsea808]

@masterstghm yup i must agree

[@neonknights]

Today when Super 35 rules the widescreen scene they make every simple movie in Hollywood in 2.39:1 ratio. Comedies, low-budget dramas, everything because with Super 35 you don't lose 44% of the visuals in pan-and-scanning ("only" about 20%) and get a lot of "extra" image (about 30%) on the top and bottom (which makes the films look out-of-frame and idiotic but that's another thing...). Because of this many films are made in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio whose shouldn't be.

[@AGrandt]

I hate P&S! Calm and slow images are bad enough, but the panning part usually start and end abruptly. The worst though, are the panning on already panning footage, resulting in jumpy/jerky images, not unlike a badly deinterlaced 15fps video.

[@milovachan]

i have to say the excuse that it's too expensive is tired. hell, we're (Americans are, that is,) switching to digital broadcast in the middle of a recession. the real truth of the matter is that it's not a priority-- if it were, like with digital, we'dve had it 20 years ago like, as FM4ever says they have in Holland.

[@wsadhjuk]

Make me unsee it!

[@Tagmon]

I don't like Pan & Scan, if it's on a video game then it's not so big a deal, but on a movie, P&S makes it lose the drama of those amazing shots.

[@GnCFilms]

Four people still have CRT TVs.

[@XRontix]

not necessary!!? fuck yea it is

[@Evilhamster95]

@masterstghm Just like in sweden!

[@Sundona]

leave oxboobooxo alone. people these days got ADHD, those black lines are distracting him.

[@aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa]

i fucking hate pan-scan it ruins everything, nothing looks right, it looks claustrophobic, might as well stretch the whole image, it may look deformed, but it's better than lose, oh, i don't know, HALF THE IMAGE.

[@aceofspades627]

4x3 is a god aweful aspect ratio. I'm glad that it's dead for the most part.

[@masterstghm]

Manufacturers need to stop making 4:3 TVs, and all television should broadcast in 16:9.

[@ForestOfSleep]

wow this movie blows in fullscreen...

[@JoeNostalgiaReturns]

Blade Runner really has been butchered over the years.

[@SnapCraft316]

P&S, more like POS. Those who know, know.