I am a firm believer in widescreen videos. Pan-N-Scan is somewhat the bane of my existance(to use a tired cliche). DVD's of couse dispense this problem into a shreder. But then the problem of widescreen movies on T.V. comes up.
As for my personal favorite aspect ratio, it is the 2.35:1 panoramic.
What do you, the viewers at home think?

I agree nothing makes me angry like watch a bad pan-and-scan cut of movie. The worse are when to see the screen scan across the orginal frame of the scene.

And I also enjoy the 2.35:1 (or is it the other way around) aspect. Megawide screen.

Add me to the list of people that like widescreen over pan-and-scan. Look at it this way, how would you like it if every movie you watch just stopped half way thru it. Thats what you get with pan-and-scan, *HALF* your movie is missing because they cut off the sides. Then they act like not only is nothing wrong but that they're doing you a favor by "reformatting" the film. >:(

It loses a lot of the director's orginial vision for the film when you Pan-and-Scan a movie.

Best example of a bad pan-and-scan reformatting:
-Tootie. I said it on TNT a few monthes ago and I could see several times where the pan-and-scan frame panned in the nearly opposite direction the camea orginially went.

One series of movies, however manages to pan-n-scan quite well. The James Bond movies. I don't know why.

I'm forced to agree about Bond. Prehaps they shoot the orignal in the format that allows you to grab a 4:3 or 2.35:1 image for the master. I've only seen one Bond film on the widescreen so my opinion is very jadded, but I don't remember an ovious pan-and-scans across the screen.

There is a pretty bad one in The Spy Who Loved Me.

Most movies today are filmed with the video release in mind. The viewpiece of the cameras contain markings for the theatrical and video framing. So many (not all, mind you) films today adapt pretty well to video, since most of the action is contained in the center of the screen. Older movies suffers the worst.

The most recent P&S video that I've seen (most of my movies are on LD or DVD) was Multiplicity, which completely ruined the effect of seeing four Michael Keatons interacting with each other.

There is a few bad pan-and-scan across "The Ghostbusters". It was the first time I noticed one in any movie. I caught it on Comedy Central's version; it's probably on the videotape as well.

Ah, yes I recall quite a few in Ghostbusters as well.

The worst was Star Wars. *TRY* to read the beginning text on P&S. Then _read_ it on widescreen.

What about those old westerns from the fifties like How the West Was Won? Horrrible Panning Horrrible Scannig. I cringe Just thinking about it. But here's a new question. Should they show Wiescreen movies on T.V. There are so many people that are totally aversed to it, an those who simply think that a movie should fill the screen and don't care about some "director's vision." Their opinions are to be respected,aren't they. But don't they care that in some cases that they are missing HALF the picture? I mean, how can you not care? HALF! Thats 2/4! 3/6! I just on't unerstand it. Enlighten me, my fellow film fans!
I would also like to hear some people's Pan-N-Scan Lover's Arguments.

I'm a supporter of Widescreen on Television. I loved when AMC showed the Planet of the Apes films in Letterbox. I added quite a bit. And hopefully in the future when 16x9 Televisions become the norm it will be a dead issue. And actually I think in Pan-N-Scan you get about 40% of the picture.

Hugh - How the West Was Won is a poor example of a western from the 50's. It's from the 60's.

Harold Ramis' comment on the DVD of Ghostbusters notes that on the P&S version he is cut out of their introduction scene completely.

I heard that Blockbuster doesn't carry many widescreen movies because the lowest common denominator does not understand how they work. They kept getting complaints from people who see the black bands at the top and bottom of the screen and think they are missing part of the picture. They think the bands are COVERING UP part of the scene, and don't understand that the wide image actually has to be shrunk a bit to fit the sides in and retain the proportions.

I think DVD's are great. Now people can actually choose the format and we aren't dependent on the video store to stock the versions we want. Maybe the unenlightened will try both versions and decide they like seeing the entire movie instead!

Well, I think that the fact that most DVDs are just Widescreen helps to promote the widescreen cause, as for the Ghosterbuster's DVD doesn't have somekind of video commentary?

The Ghostbusters DVD has an alternate track (video & audio, or audio only) done in the MST3K style. I recommend watching the movie without this first, as you can barely hear the movie dialogue under the comments. Watching the movie again with the comments is another great experience. And there's a lot of additions at the end of the disc that make this one worthwhile.

Not to mention the extremely clear picure of the wiescreen image that DVD's deliver. When I put 2001: A Space Odessy(SP?) in, whic was the first DVD I watche upon recieving a player for my birthday, I was AMAZED. Later I Compare it to a T.V. Wiescreen version. I can't belive the difference.
I agree with Amos. I'm in the 8th Grade, and we had a sub the other day. He was a young guy. He seemmed to have a general interest in movies, but nothing that I would call a WIDESCREEN devotee upon appearance. Then he ran own a list of DVD's that he owns. There were several in the list which I have, The Matrix comes to mind, that are in widescreen format *only*. This means that he doesn't really mind the bars at all, or he would have bought on videocasette. Quite interesting, eh?

Yeah, while 2001 isn't the best looking DVD every (that is Contact on my list) it is still impressive. As for quiet commentary tracks. I wish they took the commentary and the original soundtracks and faded out the orginal soundtrack while the guys speak then turn the volume back up until they had something to say again. There are always a lot of dead space in the commentaries I have.

As a major widescreen supporter, I feel I should mention that TNT showed Contact in letterbox on thier network tonight. I'm glad to see the networks start to realize that pan-and-scan is murder to a motion picture. Hooray for TNT.

Pan and scan is like buying a work of art (say, the Mona Lisa) and cropping it to fit the wrong size frame because that's all you had.

A good example of a scene that is ruined by (no)pan&scan. Just saw The Iron Giant last night (wonderful animation!). Watched the widescreen side of course. But in the promos/special features at the end they show everything P&S (now they're calling it full-frame, an oxymoron at best).

There's a scene where Hogarth is riding on IG's shoulder as it walks down the street. In the widescreen version, a school bus appears on the left side of the frame and Hogarth turns & shouts "Watch out for the bus!". In the P&S frame, you never see the bus, so it makes no sense until the next shot from ground level. Another is the "Rock? Tree!" scene, where you only see one at a time when you should see both.

Also, comparing the P&S to wide versions, the P&S scenes are just too close! It's difficult to tell what's even going on in some scenes.

I love my DVD! I hope all discs come out with the choice of wide or P&S (I'll never buy a NON-wide disc!)

Yeah, Wider is Better. I hate to see the plot of the movie chopped up by converting to Pan&Scan.

On a side note, after TNT showed Contact in letterbox the first two times, they switched to the Pan&Scan version. Guess reaction wasn't that great, very disappointing. If the networks decided to show all movies in letterbox then there wouldn't be people complaining, it just that the ignorant masses have become complacant to the idea that movies fix their TV. I believe public anouncements, and posters at video stores could help to make Widescreen main stream, and DVD is doing that already.

Was just watching Star Wars Episode 1 today. It was my friends copy (I don't think I'd ever buy that horrible movie, there are but three good parts) and it was of course, Pan&Scan. Towards the end, during the big fight scene, Obi-wan kind of shoves his head towards Maul, who is pushed back by the force. When watching on PS, you just see Obi-wan jerk his head, for apparently no reason. It looks REALLY odd.

I bought the Widescreen "Collectors Edition" VHS (d*mn Lucas) but haven't had the time to watch it yet. If I'm going to have to suffer with VHS it's going to at least be letterboxed.

If you understand the simple geometry of a television screen and most movie screens, there is no logical reason to prefer Pan&Scan videos over Widescreen or Letterboxed videos. The typical movie screen is proportionately wider than the typical television screen. Therefore, in order to fit an entire theatrical image on a television screen, the image must be reduced in size, so that its entire width will fit on the television screen. This is why there is what some would call a "black bar" across the top of the television screen and across the bottom of the television screen when one watches a widescreen or letterboxed video. The "black bars" are not hiding part of the theatrical image. Conversely, Pan&Scan videos are in effect hiding a large part of the theatrical image, some of the image from the left extreme toward center and/or some of the image from the right extreme toward center.

Up to 40% of the theatrical image can be obscured in Pan&Scan videos. Because of this fact, the producers of Pan&Scan videos must, in effect, re-shoot the film (using the existing complete theatrical image) in order to try to get the "most important part" of each theatrical frame in view for each video. This approach is doomed at the conceptual level, because directors typically don't include things in a shot with the mindset that some of this stuff doesn't need to be there and could later be eliminated with no directorial objection. In many cases, the cinematographic vision of the filmmakers is ruined or unrecognizable.

Many people understand these facts, but still reject widescreen or letterboxed videos on the grounds that the television image "isn't big enough" or is "too small". That complaint owes primarily to the size of the television screen on which one is watching the video. If you are watching a video on a smaller size television set, such as 19" or less, then the reduced magnification of the widescreen or letterboxed image might be undesirable to you. However, the percentage of the television screen that is used for the complete theatrical image in widescreen or letterboxed format is constant. Therefore, if the widescreen or letterboxed image is too small for your taste, then you probably need a bigger television set for watching videos of any format.

Has anyone seen a league of thier own in pan and scan. I noticed the camera panning more than i noticed the moive.

I like that in one of the mall near to me, a Sam Goody store has a seperate section for the letterbox movies. If i;m looking for a moive I alway go there first hoping that it will be in letter box. I'd rather pay a little more and see the whole thing than save $5.00 or so, a hate that half of the movie is missing.

Yeah, A League of Their Own is the worst Pan&Scan movie I've ever seen. But it really shows that sports don't make the conversion from Widescreen to 4:3.

What bugs me is -- why should we have to pay more for widescreen movies? Should real, avid movie watchers be penalized because we respect the original director's vision more than the average Joe Six-Pack does? Sure, we're getting more screen image, but not more screen size. I should think these factors would even out so both versions should be the same price.

Witness "The Phantom Menace". Only available in widescreen in the special, more expensive version. (I don't know what extras are included). Just for spite, I will not buy it until it comes out on DVD.

What's great about DVD's is that a lot of them have both versions of the movie, thus negating the necessity of a choice by format and price.

I chickened out and bought the Widescreen VHS version. has a film cel, a art booklet, and big box.

The sad part about paying more for Widescreen is that is actually costs less to produce the Pan N' Scan. This may have been mentioned before, but when a movie is put onto video with PnS they have to re-edit the whole movie. We should be paying more for Pan N' Scan, and less for Widescreen. But the studios or distributors, in their infinite greed, charge more. And the masses, in their infinite ignorance, think it's justified.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that not all “full frame” movies are Pan Scan. First of all, all 35mm film frames are 4:3; old movies were shot in that ratio (i.e. Gone With the Wind will never have a wide screen letterbox version because it was shot in 4:3) That is why TVs were made with a ratio of 4:3, to be like movies. When movies were worried about loosing their audience to TV they came up with the idea of Wide screen as something that TV couldn’t offer. Cinemascope designed a process called anamorphic (commonly called Scope). A Scope lens will take that 8:16 Lawrence of Arabia style image and squeeze it to fit on a 4:3 frame of film. When the film is played back the projector’s scope lens widens the picture back out to give you the wide epic picture that was originally shot.

During the early days of wide screen films some people came up with a somewhat simpler approach to filling up a wide screen. They simply blow up the picture until the left and right edges line up with the sides of the screen, than put an aperture plate inside of the projector that blocks light above and below what will hit the top and bottom of the screen. This format is commonly called Flat. With a flat movie you are not seeing everything that the movie camera put onto the film.

Both formats are still in use today. Scope is known for greater depth of field and a wider picture, but is harder to focus. Flat is easier to work with and easier to transfer to TV. Scope is generally thought of as a more “cinematic” and is used by directors like Brian DePalma, and Roman Polanski. In fact when John Carpenter shot Halloween he shot it in Scope because he did not want it to be thought of as a low budget movie. He wanted Halloween to be judged simply as a move, and thought that if it was in Scope people would think that they had a bigger budget. Of the movies released today Flat is the more popular version by about 70% to 30% scope.

When making a scope movie fill a 4:3 TV screen the only choices are to Pan Scan it or letterbox it. On the other hand there are more ways to transfer a flat movie to TV. One way is to use the entire 4:3 frame. The problem with many movies shot during the 60s-90s is that the filmmakers only concentrated on what would be in the part of the frame that would be displayed in the theater. If you tried to transfer the whole thing to a TV screen you would see a perhaps a crewmember at the bottom of the frame with a boom mike or the place where the set wall ends above the actor’s head. The only way to keep that stuff off the TV version is to crop the top and bottom of the frame before you scan it. Which leaves you with a wide screen picture and leads right back to the choice of Pan Scan vs. Letterbox. But recently filmmakers have been watching what goes into those top/bottom areas of the film that will not be seen in theaters. When they shoot with this in mind the entire frame can simply be used for the TV version. If done this way the “full screen” version does show more of the picture than the letterboxed version or the theater version. On the down side frequently this extra space is can appear extraneous. Idle Hands and Ronin were shot with this in mind; their DVDs have the option of Wide screen or Full screen. Particularly apparent in the Full Screen version of Idle Hands is the fact that the actors always have all this empty space above their heads with nothing but wall above them.

Of course the practice of Super 35 has not yet been discussed. Jimmy Cameron is absolutely agog with it, and it's used in many action oriented movies. Everything I know about it was learned from the T2:The Ultimate Edition DVD, and www.widescreen.org. It bassicaly involves filming a movie on an entire negative, similar to the very common "open matte" processused in most modern movies. There are various technical things associated with it that I don't know enough about to sufficiently explain; things involving resolution and sound quality. In pre-production, the director and the DP decide what aspect ratio (usually 2.35:1) they want to see on the theater screens and fil accordingly, presumably the director's vision. Fine. Whatever floats your directorial boat. So why use Super 35 instead of Panavision, or some other widescreen process? Well the big reason to use Super 35 is that in filming what in essentially a square, you are not consigned to the wide rectangle when you enter the pan and scan process. Excuse me? Ok fine. Try to get as much of your vision to the unwashed masses as possible so they can enjoy the movie, by having the director play around with all that he filmed Alright, but in Super 35, widescreen is NOT widescreen. It's cutscreen, and that's OK with me as log as it's what the director had in mind. The director's vision is very important to me. But then when ILM decides to do all visual effects fro T2 in the 2.21:1 instead of taking the time to fill upthe whole square, Jimmy Bob Joe Cammeron gets really pissed off because now he'll have to pan and scan his special effects. So what's his vision? I don't have a dammn clue. The same goes with American Beauty. On the commentarry with Alan Ball and Sam Mendes, who seems like a jerk anyway, Sam says something about filming in Super 35 instead of the widescreen format so that he could get all the conners of a room in this specifc shot or something like that. So I sit on my couch with a look on my face as if to say, "Why the Hell did I just pay out 20 dollars? For a widescreen version of a movie that not only isn't widescreen, but not what the director intended?" Then I looked at the storyboard presentation with Sam Mendes and his odd, backwoods speaking (and looking if I remember the Featurette correctly) Director of Photography, and I saw that the storyboards were drawn with widescreen in mind. So what am I to believe; the director's spoken word, or the storyboards drawn by his OWN DAMNED HAND? Oh the tribulations of a film buff!The only use of Super 35 that doesn't bother me would have to be Ridley Scott's use in Gladiator. I realize that the way he filmed it, it would have been impossible to pan-n-scan and be enjoyable, although I don't care about joe moron's opinion of great movies, or how they look. Judging from Ridley's comments on the commentary, he had very specific shots in mind. However I am ultiately against this process, as it might give people the wrong impression of widescreen, and confuses me as to what the diretor's vision is. I'm done now.

Actualy both versions are the director's vision. They storyboarded it for wide screen. Their monitor has two overlaping grids on it, one for widescreen on for fullscreen. When they shot the movie they made sure that everything important was in the widescreen part of the frame. The rest of the frame they made sure that nothing objectionable was in it, by objectionable I mean boom mics, lights, crew members. What he ment by leaving his vision in the fullscreen version was that in the fullscreen version you are seeing everything that he wanted you to see and some stuff that he could not care less weather or not you see it.

BTW if you want to find out more than you ever wanted to know about film formats check out my film formats page.
http://geocities.com/hollywood/makeup/4303/aspect.html

Re: "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" in widescreen VHS (theatrical aspect ratio)

The widescreen release on VHS didn't cost more than the pan & scan (sliced & diced) release because it was in "widescreen". The widescreen release cost more because of the so-called "extras" included with the package. I bought the widescreen release back in March 2000, when it first hit stores, and though I was happy to have the film on VHS in widescreen, I could have done without the "extras" which bumped the price up from around $15 to around $30. The "extras" were (1) a 48-page book called "The Art of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" and (2) a 35-mm film strip with 5 frames from the movie. The book is interesting, but the 35-mm film strip isn't. And although the book is interesting, I would never have bought it separately, for $15 or $5. Buyers should have had the additional option of purchasing the movie on VHS in widescreen WITHOUT the "extras", for $15.

The film is now available on DVD (released October 2001), in widescreen, for $19-$23. The DVD does have plenty of good extras that the widescreen VHS tape does not. Last I checked (late February 2002), the widescreen VHS version now sells for $15 or less in stores.

Re: Films shot in the 4:3 aspect ratio, intended to be shown in theaters in widescreen format (matted), but intended to be shown on 4:3 televisions in the 4:3 aspect ratio (unmatted). A well-known example of this is several of Stanley Kubrick's films (e.g. "The Shining", "Full Metal Jacket", "Eyes Wide Shut").

The big question is: How should these films be formatted for TV viewing to best preserve the director's original vision of the film? For me, the answer depends on what you are looking for when you watch an originally theatrically-released film on your TV. If you want to see the film in the way as close as possible to how the director meant for you to see the film in a theater, then the matted widescreen format is the format for you. On the other hand, if you want to see the film in the way as close as possible to how the director meant for you to see the film on your television, then the unmatted (4:3) format is the format for you.

I prefer to see a film on a 4:3 TV screen in its theatrical aspect ratio, even if the director shot the film in 4:3 with future television viewings in mind. I figure that directors who originally exhibit their films in theaters make these films first and foremost to be shown in theaters, the way they are shown in theaters, even though they are aware that their films may have a long viewing life on television after their original theatrical run.

When a director shoots a film in 4:3, with the intent that theater viewers see it in a matted widescreen format, and with the intent that TV viewers see it in the unmatted 4:3 format, clearly his intent is not to penalize theater viewers by allowing them to see less image material than seen by TV viewers, or to reward TV viewers by allowing them to see more image material than seen by theater viewers. Rather, his intent is to keep TV viewers from being penalized by the pan & scan process, which takes away 20 to 50 percent of the image seen by theater viewers (depending on the theatrical aspect ratio), in order to fit a wider than 4:3 image on a 4:3 TV screen. This is why when a director shoots a film in 4:3, with the intent that theater viewers see it in a matted widescreen format, and with the intent that TV viewers see it in the unmatted 4:3 format, the director almost never includes a shot or scene where the viewer's eye is supposed to be drawn to something in the top fifth or bottom fifth of the 4:3 image seen on television. That would be an area generally not seen by theater viewers watching the film in the matted widescreen format, so a theater viewer in such a case would miss something of which the director wants him to take special notice. The extra image material in the unmatted 4:3 format pretty much adds the same thing to a film as being able to see the people in the 10th row of a basketball game while watching it on TV, rather than just being able to see the people in the 5th row while watching the same game on TV. Rarely have I seen the ball end up in the 10th row. And now that theatrically-widescreen movies are, more frequently than ever, being offered for TV viewing in their theatrical aspect ratio, as opposed to exclusively in the awful pan & scan format, directors need not worry that their films will be butchered beyond recognition for TV viewing if they don't shoot the film in a 4:3 aspect ratio (for matted widescreen viewing in theaters) and have the whole 4:3 image transferred to DVD or VHS. Directors who did this in the past, for that purpose, probably wouldn't have done so if they had known that there would eventually be a sizeable demand to see films on TV screens in their original theatrical aspect ratios.

This is what you miss when a widescreen film (wider than 4:3) is shown in pan&scan format on a 4:3 television:

Original Aspect Ratio, Original Image Hacked Off

1.37:1 (Academy Ratio), 2.68 percent
1.66:1, 19.68 percent
1.78:1 (16:9), 25.09 percent
1.85:1, 27.93 percent
2.35:1, 43.26 percent
2.76:1, 51.69 percent

Other items:

When a 1.85:1 film is shown in 16:9 (1.78:1), the portion of the original image hacked off is 3.78 percent. I mention that because many 1.85:1 films have been (and still are) transferred to DVD for showing in the 1.78:1 (16:9) format. I presume this is done because the DVD producers want to market the DVDs to people who will watch them on 16:9 TVs, but they are still trying to placate those 16:9 TV viewers who don't understand "aspect ratios", would still object to those "black bars" that would take up 3.78 percent of their 16:9 TV screen, and who only bought the 16:9 TV because it's the latest thing and they had the cash. Those same DVD producers wouldn't crop a 2.35:1 film for showing in the 1.78:1 format, because that would remove 24.26 percent of the theatrical image, which would be very noticeable, and which would cause an uproar among people who bought the widescreen DVD thinking they were getting the theatrical image. However, they figure that with only 3.78 percent of a 1.85:1 image lost in cropping it to a 1.78:1 format, it's not that noticeable (most people don't know a given picture's exact aspect ratio), so they can get away with it. By the way, the Internet Movie Database website (http://www.imdb.com) lists aspect ratios for almost all films in the database.

Also note that I listed films shot in the 1.37:1 aspect ratio and the percentage of image hacked off for showing on a 4:3 television. As a preliminary matter, these are most films shot through the early 1950s, and I doubt that these films were put through the pan&scan process for 4:3 format viewing. Given that only 2.68 percent of the original image is removed for 4:3 formatting, a typical 1.37:1 formatted film could probably have just had the same bit sliced off from one or both sides of the frame all the way through the film, without it being noticeable (except during opening titles and credits, where cropping is noticeable on many of these films). That said, where possible (because this is primarily old, decaying films I'm talking about), it would be nice if future DVD releases of these films restored the 1.37:1 image. This would probably only noticeably improve opening titles and credits sequences in many of these movies (you'd see, "Photography by...William Bartholemew," instead of "hotography by...William Bartholeme"). But still, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, it would be nice to see.

I remember Ebert talking about problems where some early movies were edited to be wide screen when they just cut off the top and bottom of the screen, because the DVD collectors "demand" letterbox. (although I remember a reviewer complaining about the Batman Beyond movie not being in Letterbox when it was direct to video, it was made to be on a TV)

I don't remember Roger Ebert mentioning that various 1.37:1 aspect ratio (Academy ratio) movies were being transferred to DVD in widescreen format by removing parts of the image from the top and bottom. However, I do remember Roger Ebert mentioning that he'd gone to some film society screening of "An American in Paris" (1951), where the film, shot in the 1.37:1 aspect ratio, was shown on the screen as a widescreen movie, by enlarging the image and letting some of the top and bottom of the image run off the screen. Ebert noted that during parts of the film's dance sequences, you couldn't see Gene Kelly's feet. In addition, there were probably parts of the film where actors had the tops of their heads run off the screen.

Regarding DVD collectors who demand "widescreen" or "letterbox" formats for all movies:

Anyone who demands that all films be shown in "widescreen" or "letterbox" format is missing the point that not all films are shot in widescreen or letterbox format. For example, "The Wizard of Oz" (1939) was shot in the 1.37:1 aspect ratio. It is not possible to show that movie in a wider aspect ratio (such as 1.85:1 or 2.35:1) while maintaining the full original theatrical image. The whole point of seeing particular movies in "widescreen" or "letterbox" format is to see those movies in their theatrical aspect ratio, which for almost all U.S. theatrical releases since the mid-1950s has been a ratio wider than that of a 4:3 television screen. If the theatrical aspect ratio of a particular movie is 4:3, then one should have no complaint about the absence of "black bars" on the screen while watching the movie on a 4:3 television screen. The movie has not been panned & scanned. Note, however, that 4:3 is not quite as wide as 1.37:1. I addressed this in an earlier post.

Ryan,

most serious DVD collectors who demand widescreen and letterbox understand that films that predate the 1950's were in a 1.37 ratio. In fact, most seriously collectors like the use the term OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) in their demands to help get the right message across.

There is a bit of controversy among serious collectors sp to what to do with old 1.37 films. Do you show them 'fullscreen' on the disc nonanamorphic form, or do you windowbox it to into a 16x9 anamorphic format to get more resolution. The second option is great if you have a widescreen tv or are future minded. But is ackward to watch on a 4:3 tv.

Is anamorphic considered to be better than non-anamorphic? Is it better than 70mm?

Hold it there are 2 definitions of anamorphic.

When talking about film an anamorphic lens is used to compress an image of 2.35x1 onto a 1.37x1 frame, that's how all 2.35x1` films are shown in theaters (i.e. Star Wars & Die Hard) Actualy an anamorphic lens can compress an image of any shape to fit a frame of any shape but 2.35x1 for a 1.37x1 frame is the most common.

When talking about an anamorphic DVD you are talking about being enhanced for 16x9 TV's.

DVD's for 4x3 TVs have a resolution of 720x540 pixels. That means that the actual picture on a letterboxed 1.85x1 movie is only made up of 720x389 pixels. If you were to take that image and blow it up to fill a 16x9 TV it wouldn't look that sharp.

DVD's for 16x9 TVs are 960x540 pixels. That means that the actual picture area for a 1.85x1 movie is made up of 960x519 pixels. With a 21 pixel diference you almost can't see the bar since most TVs have a "safe" area around the edges of the screen that gets cut off.

DVD's that say "anamorphicly enhanced" or "enhanced for 16x9 TVs" are in that 960x540 format. When you set your DVD player for a 4x3 TV letterboxed output it takes that 16x9 image and reduces it and adds the black bars so that you see the correct aspect ratio on your TV set. If you set your DVD player for full 16x9 playback and try to play it on a 4x3 TV it will fill the screen but since the picture is supposed to be 16x9 (not 4x3) it will look like someone squashed the picture together (i.e. everything will look too tall and skinny) because your TV isn't wide enought to display the full 960x540 correctly. That's why they call it anamorphic, because it looks like the image has been squeesed (left to right) with an anamorphic lens.

On high end 4x3 TVs (and computer monitors) this "anamorphic" still looks better because of the increased resolution, on lower end TVs you can't really tell because the TV's picture isn't that good anyway. But in the future if you get a better TV (or a 16x9 HDTV) your DVD collection isn't going to look dated on your high end TV.

In answer to the origional question. Anamorphicly enhanced DVDs are better than non-anamorphic ones (960x540 vs. 720x540 you do the math) unless the movie/program was shot at 1.37x1 (or 4x3, i.e. Star Trek: The Next Generation) in which case it doesn't matter since the image is 540 pixels tall no matter what.

As for the 70mm question. 70mm film is beter than DVD in any format (video still hasn't gotten that good) and it is better than 35mm in any format (the actual film frame is bigger the picture is sharper and richer, check out Terminator 2: 3D at Universal studios or Roger Ebert's overlooked film festival where he has been known to do special screenings of 70mm prints of films, becuse he (rightly) considers 70mm an overlooked format my most people).

Of course you can also do 70mm anamorphic. Ben Hur was shot on 70mm film (70mm frames have a ratio of 2.20x1) using an anamorphic lens to compress a 2.76x1 image onto those 2.20x1 frames. This makes Ben Hur (and Raintree County, the only 2 films ever shot in that process) the widest single strip films ever released, and it looks like "you're watching ribbon vision" when they letterboxed it for TV.

Is that a long enough answer to a 1 line question? Luigi, the compitition is on dude.

AWESOME explanation! Thanks!

...The extra image material in the unmatted 4:3 format pretty much adds the same thing to a film as being able to see the people in the 10th row of a basketball game while watching it on TV, rather than just being able to see the people in the 5th row while watching the same game on TV. Rarely have I seen the ball end up in the 10th row. ...

However, it now appears evident that players may end up in the 10th row, as demonstrated by the Pacers/Pistons NBA brawl of 2004, and by Bulls forward Antonio Davis' journey into the stands during the 2005-2006 NBA season, when Davis' attention was drawn to a heated verbal altercation there between his wife and a nearby fan.

I used to dislike widescreen/letterbox but nowadays I prefer widescreen. I watch DVDs on my computer and can actaly resize the window I am viewing in. I still ultra wide aspect ratios (still pretty uncommon) to be a bit annoying.