Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before 16:9 TVs came out, I'm surprised how much Hollywood pan and scanned movies back in the day. Why did they even bother since it's a lot of work to reframe, and recut all the movies. I mean even if they were shown on a 4:3 TV, audiences still want to see the movies and would still rent them and watch them anyway.
Quite simply, because on a wide screen that had no expected limitations (i.e., the whole audience could see all of it all the time), the action and speaking role might be anywhere on the frame. If you just center the image and let it roll (which was done fairly often in older TV days), you'd get half a sweeping vista, or only part of the action traveling across the screen, or a speaker who was half cut off or entirely out of frame. Sometimes two of the latter, if they were meant to be speaking across a distance.
So moving the frame to better center the action was necessary to keep many movies watchable and not unintended Monty Python sketches.
Most viewers of the time hate-hate-hated letterboxing, so it was rarely done except for very special films and with tons of bumpers at commercial breaks to explain that there was nothing wrong with your TV.
Oh sorry, what I meant was, why didn't they letterbox everything? Even if people were not use to it, they would still rent the movies cause they would want to see them.
Oh sorry, what I meant was, why didn't they letterbox everything? Even if people were not use to it, they would still rent the movies cause they would want to see them.
These decisions were made when movies were seen on broadcast TV in syndication, not via video rentals.
Because most people really hated letterboxing. For one thing, the average living-room TV size (4:3) was about 25 inches, and when you reduce the image to 2/3 of that, it got really teeny. Go to a bedroom 19-inch, and it was microscopic.
There were also people (a sibling of mine was/is one of them) who were deeply bothered by the black bars - they couldn't get past the idea that there was something was wrong with the TV, the film or both. I lost count of the times someone said something like "I hate it when they chop off the top and bottom!"
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,583 posts, read 15,652,632 times
Reputation: 14049
I remember, in the 80's and early 90's, not liking letterboxing and my friends would tease me by reminding me about the "black bars" every ten minutes.
I don't know why televisions were 4:3 in the past -- perhaps it was something to do with the limitations of the electron guns.
Because most people really hated letterboxing. For one thing, the average living-room TV size (4:3) was about 25 inches, and when you reduce the image to 2/3 of that, it got really teeny. Go to a bedroom 19-inch, and it was microscopic.
There were also people (a sibling of mine was/is one of them) who were deeply bothered by the black bars - they couldn't get past the idea that there was something was wrong with the TV, the film or both. I lost count of the times someone said something like "I hate it when they chop off the top and bottom!"
Yeah but why did so many people look at it the wrong way? The picture is not being chopped off, you are actually seeing the whole thing.
That's like parking your car in your garage and then being mad, because the car doesn't fill up the space of the entire garage literally.
People were not watching on personal phone screens. It was a community screen so placed in the same spot giant home screens are now and they were too small to see details the center of the action. Letter boxing made them smaller, while you saw things on the edges the face of the actor was smaller to accommodate action on his left and right.
Pan and scan was needed particularly on Cinerama films that were basically 2.6/1 ratio. There was Marty's "smilebox" but it was not commonly used. There were other kludges, like anamorpic shinking of the far left and right, but P&S worked best in conversational settings.
This is basic stuff.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
