The Great Pan-and-Scan Debate

Posted by Ryan Jerz 08/28/2009. Permalink | Shortlink | Tweet it!

I read this post on widescreen vs. pan-and-scan a few weeks ago and couldn’t believe it. Why is this still even a debate?

I remember once, when I worked in television, hearing that the reason letterboxing was unpopular was because people who bought big TVs thought that they paid to have those TV screens be filled with picture. I laughed, as even before I learned anything about shot composition and framing, I understood that things were the way they were for a reason. That reason: the artistic vision of the person who makes the movie!

A lot of you know me as someone who puts together goofy movies that seem to have no point and you might think they’re a joke. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they’re not. But every time there is a lot of thought that goes into making them. The camera has to go here and has to be pointed in this direction. I have to shoot some test footage to make sure it looks exactly how I want it to look (I’m always looking for assistants to make this go faster, by the way). I have to check to make sure there aren’t things in the shot that I don’t like. Etc., etc., etc. I can’t imagine what it would be like if after all of that, including what is done in the editing process, someone decided to change up what I had worked on to “re-format” it to fit your television screen.

This video has some premier directors explaining why pan-and-scan is bad for the viewing experience. I think it’s a brilliant couple of minutes if you have ever thought to yourself, “who cares?” They care, and as a person who appreciates the work they do, you should care, too.

Ryan JerzRyan Jerz is an all-around good guy who shoots photos and video, builds websites, and works in athletics at the University of Nevada, Reno. He received a Masters Degree in 2007 from the University of Nevada, Reno's Reynolds School of Journalism.

Comments

Mike McDowell wrote:

I kind of find myself asking, “what’s the debate?” too. That short video was actually very good at helping to explain things, though. Pan-and-scan is only telling part of the story. In video or photography, the focal point is not always going to tell the whole story effectively. I did find it a bit ironic that this video wasn’t done entirely in letterbox – the interviews we’re all square. I suppose that may have been to illustrate the contrast even more. I don’t know.

Sep 2, 12:37 AM


Ryan Jerz wrote:

That video was likely shot in 4×3, as was just about all TV studio stuff until HD started creeping in. You’re right. It could be to show contrast with what the subject is, too, but I think it was just because studio cameras are, or were, 4×3. Film is where you get the super wide stuff.

Sep 2, 09:32 AM


Commenting is closed for this article.