Frame By Frame: Pan and Scan

University of Nebraska-Lincoln FIlm Studies professor Wheeler Winston Dixon sizes up the different aspect ratios of film and television, and offers his recommendation on the best format for watching a movie on TV.

[@MarkHevingham]

A great featurette - but that's not Omar Sharif thats being edited out - Sharif is actually that dot on the horizon in the shot used! The other man was the character shot by Sharif moments later.

[@Daniel-Rosa.]

I'm going through like 8 "Frame by Frame" videos, and I assure you that I know more about cinema after each one of them. Uhm, just thought it must be great for any teacher hearing something like this.

[@dpsamu2000]

My previous post was inacurate and incomplete. The screen area used in letterboxing is half or less than pan and scan. The resolution of letterboxing is a quarter or less than the resoulution of pan and scan.

[@baileycrawly]

dpsamu2000 again, you’re 100% wrong. Letterboxing shows the ENTIRE image, pan and scan only shows a PIECE of it. Pan and scan cuts the image by at least 40% every single frame, as this video makes it clear. It’s not up for debate, unless the movie was shot in 4:3 (like the wizard of oz) then pan and scan is not how it should ever be viewed.

[@dpsamu2000]

This explanation is incomplete. The problem with letterboxing is that it reduces resolution by half or more. If you want a sharp, detailed picture use pan and scan. If you want to see the whole frame use letterboxing. Pan and scan doesn't "blow up" the image. It reduces it less than letterboxing.

[@baileycrawly]

dpsamu2000 letterboxing shows more than pan and scan, so it’s not reducing the frame a single iota. What causes an issue is pan and scan, because it absolutely DOES zoom and focus in on a certain part of the frame, and that causes mild image distortion because it’s not meant to be shown in the way that it’s being shown. 4:3 is never the correct way to view a cinematic film that came out after 16:9 took over the industry. Absolutely never ever.