Talk:Pan and scan

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)

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)

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?

.....

Why would you want to do it? Can't you think of better things to do with your time, money, and talent than to chop up a feature film? Pan-and-scan editing is to some the equivalent of painting mustaches onto portraits of women.

There are ways, and the illustration of an example in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers in the main article show how it can be done in an action sequence. In my opinion that example shows a disaster of a process. Although the dancing woman is the legitimate focus of attention, characters on the sides cut away interact. The stationary image is easier to watch, which explains why the cinematic experience is almost always superior to a pan-and-scan version on television.

With computer-animated films it is often possible to contract or compress the background and move animated characters to accommodate the reduced scope while losing none of the characters.

Pan-and-scan is not a simple process. It entails removing data from a scene selectively, and any such selective removal is a compromise with the original. An alternative is to add material so that a widescreen image is expanded without loss, but that would be spurious. How interesting are floors, skies, and ceilings, anyway?

I do not say that a 4:3 image isn't unacceptable in principle. Many feature films and TV shows have been filmed in 4:3 before widescreen images were available, and such a director as Stanley Kubrick usually preferred to film in 4:3 even to the latest part of his career (Eyes Wide Shut) But such was Kubrick's choice, and I wouldn't argue with the choices of a master of cinematic staging. I wouldn't dispute the choices that such directors as Hitchcock or Kurosawa made when they used widescreen any more than I would lop off parts of Rope or Seven Samurai to accommodate viewers who insist upon a spurious widescreen image not available when Rope and Seven Samurai were made, and neither would I insist upon adding spurious material to the sides.

Here is one possible compromise: allow the addition of patterns, arguably of the viewer's choosing, that fill the pillar boxes at the side when Academy Standard images are shown on widescreen televisions, or replace the "black boxes" that appear with widescreen images on standard televisions (surely those will disappear) with time or when an image with an unusually-long image appears on a "normal" widescreen TV. NBC News has used a device of giving a mirrored image distorted into unintellegibility along the sides of a news image photographed in a 4:3 image when it broadcasts the NBC Evening News on a widescreen signal. But whatever the technique, blank, white, or gray bars should be a reasonable option for a viewer of cinema on television.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Pan-and-scan is an editing technique that attempts to get the best picture possible out of an original widescreen image to fit a 4:3 screen. Sides may be cut off the sides of the film, but action, sound, and image are possible from those sides. That someone might talk or make some other noise from off screen is always possible, which could be upsetting to viewers. It can force the addition of an illusion of a moving camera in a scene in which the motion picture camera was stationary; that motion necessary for following motion within a scene can make the image choppy and less enjoyable to watch. Paradoxically the stationary camera spot usually allows more creative exercise by the director. Visual distances are easier to depict with a widescreen image.

Note well that in most instances, floors, ceilings, and skies are ordinarily uninteresting. Who wants to look at shoes? Skies and ceilings usually have much blank space and monotonous pattern. (I might think of some exceptions).

In any event the original aspect ratio that the director chose for the visual composition is more likely to be right than is the one altered from a film that might have been shown in widescreen. Just as it is barbarous to trim a painting to make it fit a frame, it is suspect to cut a film's visual image to fit a TV set. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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.)

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)

---

This is actually not entirely accurate. Most films are shot on 35mm film, which has a native aspect ratio closer to 4x3 (1.33) than it does to 16x9 (1.78). Most films are shot with the intent to project the picture at a particular aspect ratio (typically 1.78, 1.85, 2.35 or 2.40). During production the filmmakers will look at a specific section of the film frame that has been isolated on a monitor as the projected aspect ratio, but more image is caught on film than this aspect ratio. When they go back in post production to create this 4x3 Pan and Scan version they will use considerably more of the vertical image caught on the film (I have seen up to 25% more used for a 4x3) than was used for the original 2.35 version. This is a very common misconception for consumers who were told for years that they should be purchasing the "Letterboxed" version of films on DVD because you would get "more picture" when in actuality you may get more picture on the 4x3 "Full Frame" version. The correct description would be that a "Letterboxed" version should be considered the filmmakers original projected aspect ratio, or more simply put you would be purchasing the film on DVD displayed as the filmmakers intended.

---

Film -> 4:3 -> Letterbox

I'm sure I recall seeing something utterly dreadful, namely a two-stage process which destroyed almost all the original scene! First, the film version was converted to 4:3. Then, the 4:3 version was converted to letterbox. Ugh! But I can't remember where I saw this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is easily done. One watches a pan-and-scan (4:3, equivalent to 12:9) version of a widescreen film (a loss of 25% of the image to begin with) and then on a 16:9 screen, this time with the screen set to spread the image to lose the side bars. One loses another 25% of what is left and eds up with only 56.25% of the original image. That is a huge loss. The only justification is that one wants to see detail in unusual closeness -- perhaps to catch onto such a detailed goof such as people having zippers, velcro, or plastic buttons on garments associated with a time in which such innovations did not exist. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Title: Fullscreen

I believe this article should be called full screen and pan and scan should be explained within this article. --75.74.147.34 (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Does not discuss the "Pan and Scan" options of many playback devices which simply crop the image

Many DVD players, Digital boxes, TV's, etc have their own aspect ratio settings often including a "Pan and Scan" option. This is different to what is described here because it doesn't take into account the content of the movie and just crops the image. (obviously clearly inferior).

Should there be a mention of the two different meanings of "pan/scan", ie. one without the "pan" bit? Fowl2 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ruled in favor of the defendant on a technicality

What was the technicality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.238 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am so tired of hearing about this non-issue..I prefer the original too..so what..in a world filled with war and starvation people think this is important. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ghostbusters

Has anybody ever noticed how the movie Ghostbusters is a great example of really, really bad pan and scan? :| Bad to the point where its downright uncomfortable to watch? Its the worst case I've seen. Should a few of such titles be mentioned in the article? --76.115.67.114 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Math error

The lead states "The most extreme examples remove up to 75% of the original picture on such aspect ratios as 2.76". The math doesn't seem right. 2.76:1 is 8.28:3. Reducing to 4:3 by cropping off the extra 4.28 removes half, not 75%. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I agree, I think a lot of the math in the article is wrong. If you had a 2.76 image it might have a height of 100 pixels and a width of 276 pixels. If you cut this to 4:3 it might now have a height of 100 pixels and a width of only 133 pixels. So the area has shrunk by (1 - ((133*100) / (276*100)))*100 = 51.8%. 82.39.9.253 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

“Reverse” pan and scan?

Should this article mention the methods used to present something originally shot in 4:3 in the “modern” 16:9 format? There was considerable discussion about the way The Simpsons, for example, was edited to fit HD screens, cutting off the top and bottom of the picture (and occasionally ruining gags in the process): see here, for example.

Similarly, this 2001 article from American Cinematographer mentions that the decision to air Star Trek: Enterprise in 16:9 was made halfway through filming of the show’s first season, which meant that “Episodes filmed previous to that decision will be re-telecined where necessary to have the wider picture extracted from the high-definition master via pan-and-scan methods; these shows will then be aired in letterboxed form.”

I don’t feel that I’m knowledgeable enough about cinematography to add this to the article in a constructive manner, but I feel it ought to be included. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)