sign in sign up
<<
Home , Letterboxing (filming)

Widescreen vs. 1

Too Wide to Please?

A Comparison of Audience Responses to vs. Pan and Scan Presentation

Kimberly A. Neuendorf [email protected]

Evan A. Lieberman [email protected]

Lingli Ying [email protected]

Pete Lindmark [email protected]

School of Communication Cleveland State University Cleveland, OH 44115

July 18, 2009

Paper to be presented to the Visual Communication Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication

Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 2

Too Wide to Please?

A Comparison of Audience Responses to Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan Presentation

Abstract

Motivated by film industry concerns over “pan and scanning” and a dearth of empirical research on audiences, an experiment was conducted. 71 subjects viewed sequences from four films presented in either widescreen or pan and scan format. Results show (a) audiences split in their preferences, (b) differences in viewers’ perceptual outcomes between formats, (c) different perceptual factors predict positive affect, (d) the specific film is highly predictive for both perceptual outcomes and positive affect. Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 3

Too Wide to Please?

A Comparison of Audience Responses to Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan Presentation

Introduction and Literature Review

Background

In 1997 the Danish Director’s Guild filed a lawsuit on behalf of American film director Sydney Pollack against a Danish television network, claiming that their 1991 broadcast of Three Days of the Condor had violated Pollack’s rights as an artist because the film was shown in the pan and scan format, cropped from its original 2.35:1 to fit the 4:3 ratio of television. The judge found in Pollack’s favor, writing in his verdict that:

The adjustment by pan scanning of the widescreen film to the television format has resulted in considerable cut away of the pictures, with the consequence that the composition of the picture must be considered mutilated, and that details of importance for the characterization are gone, resulting in disagreement between picture and dialogue (quoted in Jacobsen, 1997, p. 24)

A contract technicality kept Pollack from winning the case, but the principle that pan and scan violated not just the film but the artistic rights of its author(s) was clearly established – at least in Denmark. Jacobsen, who was chair of the Nordic section of SMPTE, states “this case should really have been prosecuted in the United States where the offensive pan-scan practice started, but hopefully the case against Danmarks Radio will result in a clear statement, that mutilation of film by pan-scanning offends the ‘Droit Morale' rights” (p. 23).

Outside of colorization, very few issues have roused the ire of both filmmakers and film scholars like pan and scan. Director Martin Scorsese in an interview with Entertainment

Weekly (Patterson, 2001) has called the pan and scan presentation of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001:

A Space Odyssey, “a great calamity. A disgrace. A great sin in a way,” referring to the Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 4 practice as a moral issue. Tashiro (1991) offers the standard academic assessment of pan and scan when he notes that “useful analysis of films on video cannot be performed when 43 percent of the image has been cropped, and certainly no one can claim to have seen(!) the film on video under such circumstances” (p. 15). Barr (1963), writing about the widescreen format contends that “The more open the frame, the greater the impression of depth; the image is more vivid, and involves us more directly” (p. 9). While this idea might be widely shared among scholars of film, the fact remains that Barr’s assumptions have never been empirically tested, and so the effect of the wider image on an audience is not known with any certainty, nor is the change in the impact of that image when it is cropped via pan and scan for television exhibition.

Aspect ratio, the dimensions of the image or of the exhibition screen measured as width-by-height, has long been a vexing problem for film scholars, filmmakers, and the moving image industries. At the root of the difficulty is the fact that there are many different aspect ratios in which the image might be produced, there are also quite a number of possible dimensions for the viewing screen, and there is no guarantee that an image produced in one aspect ratio will be exhibited in that same format, thus requiring some modification to the original image in order to get it to fit the screen. The original aspect ratio of motion pictures was standardized early in the development of the medium as 4:3 (or 1.33:1) producing an image that was only slightly wider than it was tall. For decades there were only occasional experiments with widescreen, notably French filmmaker Abel Gance’s Polyvision process that he utilized for selected sequences in his 1927 film Napolean as Seen by Abel Gance, which employed three cameras and three projectors to create an image with an aspect ratio of roughly

4:1. Gance could show his film in the Polyvision format only in specially equipped theaters and so prints of the film to be shown in regular theaters had to mask, or black out, the top and Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 5 bottom of the frame during the three-camera sequences, creating the first instance of letterboxing.

The problem really began with the advent of television and the Hollywood film industry’s not coincidentally concurrent development of various widescreen production and exhibition formats, beginning with in 1952 (similar to Polyvision in its three-camera, three projector initial version), continuing with various large gauge film formats such as Todd-

AO’s 65/70mm in 1955, and becoming standardized by the 1960s with ’s perfection of the CinemaScope anamorphic lens which distorted the image by squeezing the sides of the frame, which would then be elongated with a complementary lens on the projector,

1 creating an aspect ratio of 2.35:1. The various applications of this wide frame have been a source of interest to film scholars from technical and industrial perspectives (e.g., Deutelbaum,

2003; Edmonds, 2007). A complete detailing of the history of widescreen processes may be found in Belton’s seminal work, Widescreen Cinema (1992).

These widescreen technologies certainly helped differentiate Hollywood’s films from television programming with its classic 1.33:1 aspect ratio, but complications arose when widescreen films were sold for American television broadcast beginning in 1960.2 The first film to receive the pan and scan treatment in the U.S. was the 1953 film How to Marry a

Millionaire, for which 20th Century Fox developed an optical printing process in 1961 that used what became termed a “finder frame” in each shot to signal a computer that could aid in the tracking of the most dramatically significant portion of the frame (Belton, 1992, pp. 216-

217). In order to crop the 2.35:1 image to 1.33:1 without losing important narrative information, either the sides of the shot were simply cut off or the printer could pan within the image to find the salient action, or at times the single shot could be made into two separate shots so that the television audience could still see what had previously been the two sides of Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 6 the same frame. Though the result was a radical change in the composition of the image, and at times the editing rhythm of the film, few audience members complained and as the technology has improved substantially, the practice has become standardized for roughly the past fifty years.

In Belton’s essay “Pan and Scan Scandals” (1987), he provides a litany of pan and scan abuses of cinematic aesthetics, including John Wayne’s nose talking to Robert Stack’s ear in

The High and the Mighty (1954), the excising of two of the Three Stooges from It’s a Mad,

Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963), and the mutilation of stars’ names in the credits of Picnic, in which William Holden becomes William Ho (pp. 41-49; see also Kerbel, 1977). Despite the development of the “TV Safe” markings on the ground glass of the motion picture camera’s viewfinder in 1962 (Beyer, 1962), which according to Belton resulted in “filmmakers making two films instead of one” (1992, p. 224), the situation has only grown increasingly complex.

Not only is there a great variety of widescreen formats used today, including 1.66:1, referred to as European Widescreen, and 16:9, the standard for High Definition Television, when the aspect ratios of the wide array of available viewing devices which now include computer screens, cell phones, handheld video displays, video kiosks, as well as cinema screens and televisions (both standard 4:3 aspect ratio and the newer 16:9) are taken into account, the possible interactions become dizzying. Despite the widespread practices of pan and scan, letterboxing, which masks the top and bottom of the screen to preserve the widescreen aspect ratio on 4:3 screens, pillarboxing, which masks the sides of the image to maintain the 4:3 ratio on widescreen displays, and the various stretch and zoom functions that are common on widescreen televisions, there has been virtually no scholarly inquiry as to how the modifying of the image affects audience enjoyment, narrative comprehension, dramatic effect, and thematic understanding. This study seeks to begin answering such questions. Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 7

Review of Science/Behavioral Science Literature

Essentially no scientific or behavioral scientific literature addresses the notion of spectators’ responses to widescreen versus pan and scan filmic images; as Holmes (2004) contends, cinema studies tend to concentrate on industry and text, not audience (p. 145). What relevant literature does exist only tangentially investigates individuals’ perceptual responses to

“the frame,” examining viewers’ apprehension of mediated images through techniques appropriate to experimental psychology, visual science and physiological/medical research

(e.g., Sheth & Shimojo, 2001; Wagner, 1985).

First, research on eye movement and memory offers a mixed set of findings that might relate to how viewers respond to wider and squarer aspect ratios. Research from the

Psychonomic Society has examined the characteristics of scene representations, using eye tracking measures (Irwin & Zelinsky, 2002). Results indicate that even after 15 eye fixations on a scene, the subjects remembered the position of only about 78% of the objects in the scene, or the equivalent of about five objects-worth of information. Thus, we may find spectators less able to recall and report details from the more complex widescreen image; this might translate to a preference for a squarer image that represents a simpler set of stimuli.

Brockmole and Irwin (2005) explored the relationship between visual short term memory (VSTM) consolidation and maintenance and eye movements. It was concluded that the differences between static and dynamic displays were related to different encoding strategies; in the static case, VSTM was maintained in the same spatial location as that in which it was generated, while in the dynamic case, VSTM was generated in a location that did not overlap with previously viewed displays. This points out the complex manner in which the moving image might be perceived—that is, cognitive integration of information from a series Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 8 of shots might not be dependent on the actual location of the information as originally presented. Thus, the widescreen presentation affords greater opportunities for a variety of screen placements that can result in successful cognitive integration of information.

Second, literature on peripheral fields and panoramic scenes may be informative (Bock,

1993). Fortenbaugh, Hicks, Hao, and Turano (2007) examined how the peripheral visual field

(PVF) mediates the development of spatial representations. Their results suggested that PVF provides important global spatial information used in the development of spatial representations. Oliva, Wolfe and Arsenio (2004) used a panoramic search method to study the interaction of memory and vision in natural search behavior. In a panoramic search, observers see part of an unchanging scene larger than their current field of view. A target object can be visible, present in the display but hidden from view, or absent. The results of this study suggest that observers make a pragmatic choice between vision and memory, with a strong bias towards visual search even for memorized stimuli. These studies indicate that wider fields of vision (as in a widescreen film presentation) may result in different perceptions of the space represented, and that spectators may more actively search the additional visual information typically presented in widescreen aspect ratios.

Third, research that examines screen size, scene representation, and scene memory may be helpful. Reeves, Lang, Kim, and Tatar (1999) examined attention and arousal in response to different screen sizes. It was shown that the largest screen produced higher attention and greater arousal than the medium and small screens. Screen size also interacted with the emotional content of the stimuli such that the most arousing pictures showed the highest levels of arousal on the large screen compared to the medium and small screens.

Intraub and Richardson (1989) studied how individuals recall a static image, and how they may recall a greater expanse of a scene than that shown in a photograph—a phenomenon Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 9 called “boundary extension.” Subjects consistently extended pictures’ boundaries, including more of the scene than had been presented in the stimulus and in the recognition test; subjects’ rating of boundary placement and their pattern of boundary placement showed boundary extension, a finding confirmed by Gottesman and Intraub (1999). Intraub, Hoffman,

Wetherhold, and Stoehs (2006) examined scene memory, clarifying that it frequently includes unseen layout beyond a photograph’s boundaries, and determined that scene memory may be affected by a viewer’s plan to shift fixation near that boundary. The results of this study supported the idea that a layout that gives anticipatory cues to the viewer is adaptive, alerting the viewer to near-boundary critical information that may then be important to the process of boundary extension. This research clearly indicates that the way in which a boundary is drawn

(i.e., what constitutes a widescreen or panned and scanned frame) has vital implications for how the viewer will interpret what is in the frame, and importantly, what is just outside the frame.

Finally, the limited literature on the impact of reaction shots may shed additional light on the effect of excising characters from the film frame. Specifically, political debate research has found that in-frame reaction shots of the audience and the non-speaking candidate can influence spectator perceptions of both the nonverbal communicator (Seiter, Weger, Kinzer, &

Jensen, 2009) and the focal individual who is being reacted to (Scheufele, Kim, & Brossard,

2007).

Overall, these studies do not point to specific predictions when comparing widescreen and pan and scan filmic images. However, they provide baseline evidence that the size, shape, and specific layout of an image’s presentation will have a variety of implications for perception and meaning.

Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 10

Research Questions

Guided by these diverse findings and theoretic notions, our research questions are nonetheless practical in nature, spurred by the concerns of film professionals over the alteration of their works.

RQ1: Do spectators prefer the authentic widescreen film image over the reformatted pan and scan version? Does the authentic version generate greater positive affect?

RQ2: What are the differences in interpretive, affective, and perceptual responses to authentic widescreen film images vs. pan and scan versions of the same film?

RQ3: What factors predict positive responses to widescreen and pan and scan film images?

Methods

Experimental Stimuli

A comprehensive examination of several dozen widescreen films was conducted in order to identify critical differences in widescreen and pan and scan presentations. This process succeeded in helping the researchers generate key dimensions of differentiation, as well as identify films that might be used as experimental stimuli. Four stimulus films were selected for their (a) original reliance on widescreen photography, (b) variety of genre types and production styles, and (c) variety of ways in which a pan and scan presentation might change the original intent of the filmmaker. The films are After the Fox (D: Vittorio De Sica,

1966, Italy), The Big Lebowski (D: Joel & Ethan Coen, 1998, USA), The Bravados (D: Henry

King, 1958, USA), and One, Two, Three (D: Billy Wilder, 1961, USA).

From these films, clips were selected that emphasized expected aspects of differentiation between widescreen and pan and scan presentations: Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 11

1. From After the Fox, a sequence was used that shows several dozen defendants at a raucous Italian court hearing; several judges preside, but in the pan and scan version, not all defendants, nor all judges, can be seen.

2. The clip from The Big Lebowski shows a dream sequence, in which the main character imagines himself in a bowling-themed music video (to the song “Just Dropped In”); shot in Super-35, the film’s pan and scan version actually has more generally empty space at top and bottom frame, so the difference between the two presentation versions is largely one of pure composition.

3. The Bravados contributed a clip with a common difference between wide and pan and scan versions, that encountered in a two-character dialogue. In the clip, a couple enters a

Mexican cantina, and has drinks and conversation; in the widescreen version, the couple speaks entirely in a long-take two-shot; in the pan and scan version, edits cut back and forth between the speakers, with only one individual shown at a time, often paired with the hand of the other character holding a drink.

4. The sequence selected from One, Two, Three emphasizes the notion of missing characters in a pan and scan format, thus limiting the opportunity for in-frame reaction shots

(Seiter, Abraham, & Nakagama, 1998). Three Soviets seek to negotiate Coca-Cola sales rights with an American businessman. In the widescreen version, all four are typically in the frame; in the pan and scan version, one or two Russians are always deleted, yet their disembodied dialogue is heard.

Experimental Protocol

Subjects were recruited from Communication courses at a medium-sized urban university, Cleveland State University. The study was executed using Media Lab software, Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 12 with viewing on standard desktop computer screens with headsets providing sound.

Widescreen versions were letterboxed (i.e., black bars appeared at top and bottom frame); pan and scan versions were displayed full screen. In a posttest-only, repeated measures design, each subject viewed one version of each of the four stimulus film clips, with random assignment to the sequence of the four clips. Subjects assigned to sequence 1, for example, were shown the widescreen version of the One, Two, Three clip, followed by the widescreen version of the After the Fox sequence, followed by the clip from The Bravados in pan and scan, and finally a clip from The Big Lebowski in pan and scan.3 After each clip, subjects responded to a series of questions on the computer via Media Lab. The protocol and the measurement instrument were approved by the university’s IRB.

Measures

A background questionnaire was administered prior to the experimental manipulation.

This questionnaire included (a) measures of standard demographics (but also including near- sightedness and use of glasses/contacts; pilot work with static images led us to believe there might be a relationship between such variables and preference for a wider image); (b) exposure indicators for a variety of relevant media (hours of television viewing “yesterday,” number of

DVDs/videos viewed in the past month, number of movies watched at home in the last month, number of movies owned, number of movies seen at a theater in the last month, estimate of percentage of TV viewing done alone, whether or not one’s primary television is widescreen, number of IMAX/OmniMAX movies seen ever, number of 3D movies seen ever, and hours spent on the Internet weekly); (c) a number of viewing preference indicators, all measured on a

0-10 Likert-type response scale (whether they consider themselves a film buff, prefer movies on the big screen at the theater, prefer movies in widescreen at home, find the letterbox black Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 13 bars annoying, prefer a movie in its original shape, prefer no black bars on a TV screen, and don’t mind pan and scan), and (d) several psychometric indicators (whether they consider themselves an artistic individual, as well as standard scales of sensation-seeking (the Brief

Sensation Seeking Scale; Hoyle et al., 2002) and extroversion (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985)).

In the Media Lab posttest, open-ended and closed-ended questions tapped a range of concepts relevant to widescreen/pan and scan differentiation. An open-ended question asked respondents to describe what was going on in each video clip they viewed. A series of closed- ended items tapped five affective and perceptual dimensions extracted from pilot work. The expected dimensions, with a series of semantic differentials devised to tap each dimension

(each item measured on an 11-point -5 to 5 response scale), were:

1. Affect

Don’t like Like a lot

Negative Positive

Pleasant Unpleasant

2. Perceptual--Size/extent:

Narrow Wide

Tall Short

Big Little

Vast Limited

Open Closed

3. Perceptual--Complexity

Simple Complex

Balanced Unbalanced

Cluttered Spacious Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 14

Flat 3D

Ordered Chaotic

Free Trapped

4. Perceptual--Authenticity

Not distorted Distorted

Sharp Blurry

Choppy Smooth

Real Artificial

5. Perceptual--Dynamism

Dynamic Static

Slow-paced Fast-paced

Colorless Colorful

Dull Exciting

Warm Cold

Results

Sample Description

The sample of 71 undergraduates was 54.9% male, ranging in age from 18 to 41, with a mean of 23 years. Just under two-thirds of the sample was white/caucasian (65%), with 21% black/African-American, 6% Asian-American, and 9% other or mixed race. Over a third

(35.2%) reported being nearsighted, 12.7% farsighted, with 38.0% wearing glasses or contacts.

Only 35.2% of the subjects reported watching TV more than 2 hours “yesterday”

(M=2.26), 40% reported that they watched more than 10 movies at home in the past month

(M=10.26), 22.9% reported watching more than 10 DVDs/videos in the past month (M=8.66), Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 15 and 57.1% of the subjects own more than 25 movies on DVD, VHS, etc. (M=66.53). In contrast, 55.7% reported they watched only one or no movies at the theater in the past month

(M=1.61). With regard to the IMAX/OmniMAX movies, 52.1% reported that they’ve seen more than one (M=2.89); only 36.6% have watched more than one 3-D movie (M=1.44).

When asked to estimate the percentage of their TV viewing that is done alone, 42.3% reported watching alone more than half of the time (M=52%).

A majority (60%) of subjects typically watch television with a screen larger than 30 inches diagonal, and 38% watch on a 16 by 9 screen; nearly the same number of people most often watch on a 4 by 3 screen (35%). A bit under half of the subjects reported that the screen is high definition (43.7%). And, 59.2% spend 10 or more hours a week on the Internet

(M=15.45).

With a mean of 5.76 on the 0-10 Likert-type response scale, 53.5% of subjects agreed that they are film buffs (M=5.76). Most reported preferring to watch movies on the big screen at the theater (62% scoring above the midpoint on the agreement scale; M=6.63) and to watching movies in widescreen at home (60.6%, M=6.52). Nearly half did not find the black bars on the television annoying when they watch letterboxed movies (45.7%, M=5.16), and more than half agreed that they prefer it when a movie fills the entire screen and has no black bars at the top or at the sides (57.1%, M=6.49). Although more than half of the subjects say they prefer to watch a movie in its original shape (53.4%, M=6.62), a substantial number reported that they don’t mind watching films on TV that have been altered via pan and scan

(45.7%, M=5.27).

Several psychographic indicators were assessed. A majority of subjects consider themselves to be artistic (67.5%, M=6.35 on the 0-10 scale). Scores on the eight-item sensation-seeking scale ranged from 11 to 38, with a mean of 27.0 (SD=6.0) on the 8-40 Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 16 potential range. The Cronbach’s alpha for standardized items was .71. Scores on the six-item extroversion scale ranged from 21 to 57 with a mean of 39.8 (SD=8.5) on the potential 0-60 range, and a standardized Cronbach’s alpha of .71.

Findings Regarding Research Questions

The first research question asked whether spectators prefer the authentic widescreen film image over the reformatted pan and scan version. To assess whether the authentic version generates greater positive affect, ratings of liking were compared, with each subject’s average rating for the two pan and scan clips they viewed subtracted from their average rating for the two widescreen clips they viewed. The sample was split nearly evenly in their preferences, with 47.9% giving a higher average liking score to the widescreen clips, 46.5% giving a higher liking score to the pan and scan clips, and 5.6% giving identical scores to the two aspect ratios.

Thus, no across-the-board preference was discovered. The near-even split between those who prefer widescreen and those who prefer pan and scan mirrors reports from the home-video distribution industry, which for years has marketed two different versions of films to these separate constituencies (Clark, 2001).

The second research question queried the differences in interpretive and perceptual responses to authentic widescreen film images vs. pan and scan versions of the same film.

First, the open-ended item asked immediately after each film clip viewing, “Please describe what was going on the in video,” was coded in several ways. This coding scheme was emergent from the responses given, thus reflecting the key aspects of subjects’ responses to the film clips. Each response was coded for: (a) the number of words used, (b) the number of elements identified (i.e., persons, things, and activities mentioned), (c) whether an action verb was mentioned, (d) whether a character’s attitude or motivation was mentioned, (e) whether the Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 17 physical or geographic setting was mentioned, and (f) whether the number of characters was mentioned. All six interpretive responses were submitted to two-way ANOVA (Film x Aspect

Ratio), with controls for repeated measures. Main effects for Film were significant at p<.05 in all cases except number of words. Main effects for Aspect Ratio (Widescreen/Pan & Scan) were non-significant in all cases. Two significant interactions were found, for number of elements and for whether the number of characters was mentioned. Overall, this set of findings points to the primacy of the specific film clip in determining interpretive responses, and the nearly-null impact of the aspect ratio of the presentation.

The three affective measures (i.e., liking, positive, pleasant) and the 20 perceptual measures were submitted to a MANOVA analysis (with controls for repeated measures), due to intercorrelations among the 23 dependent variables. The two main effects—for Film and for

Aspect Ratio (Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan)—were both highly significant at p<.001 for all four MANOVA omnibus statistics (Pillai’s trace, Wilks’ lambda, Hotelling’s trace, and Roy’s largest root). The interaction term (Film x Aspect Ratio) was near significant at p=.08 for

Pillai’s, Wilks’, and Hotellings, and significant at p=.05 for Roy’s. Thus, we proceeded with

ANOVAs on the individual dependent variables.

A series of two-way ANOVA analyses (Film x Aspect Ratio), with controls for repeated measures, was conducted on the 23 affective and perceptual measures. The results are displayed in Table 1. Main effects for Film were significant at p<.01 for all 23 dependent measures except not distorted/distorted. Main effects for Aspect Ratio (Widescreen/Pan &

Scan) were significant at p<.05 for seven dependent variables: Narrow/Wide (Widescreen was judged wider); Open/Closed (WS was more open); Cluttered/Spacious (WS was more spacious); Free/Trapped (WS was more free); Not distorted/Distorted (WS was less distorted);

Choppy/Smooth (WS was smoother); and Colorless/Colorful (WS was more colorful). In Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 18 addition, two main effects for Aspect Ratio were near-significant at p<.10: Tall/Short (WS was shorter) and Vast/Limited (WS was more vast).

------Table 1 about here------

Two significant interactions were found among the 23 ANOVA analyses. Of particular interest is the interaction for the Negative/Positive semantic differential item. The details of this significant interaction are displayed in Figure 1. We may see that for two film clips, those from After the Fox and The Big Lebowski, the widescreen version garnered higher positive evaluations than did the pan and scan version. For the other two film clips, from The Bravados and One, Two, Three, the pan and scan versions were rated more positively.

------Figure 1 about here-----

Overall for the affective and perceptual measures, the critical importance of the particular film used as stimulus is once again highlighted. However, the impact of aspect ratio on basic perceptual responses is also indicated. It is noteworthy that the significant differences represent elements of all four of the perceptual dimensions (i.e., Size/extent, Complexity,

Authenticity, and Dynamism), but not the dimension of positive affect. That is, aspect ratio seems to impact a range of perceptual responses, but not positive affect.

The third research question asked what factors predict positive affect responses to widescreen and pan and scan film images. A hierarchical multiple regression was executed, with the “Don’t like/Like a lot” measure as the dependent variable. Multicollinearity diagnostics revealed no problematic systems among the predictor variables. Table 2 displays the results. A series of three blocks of control variables confirmed the non-significant, negligible role of demographics (R2 change = 2.8%, n.s.), media exposure (R2 change = 2.5%, n.s.) and format preferences and psychometrics (R2 change = 4.4%, n.s.) in predicting liking of a particular film clip. The fourth block contained 70 dummy indicators as control for the Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 19 repeated measures design. The fifth block, containing three effects codes representing the four films supplying the clips, was statistically significant at p<.01 (R2 change = 11.4%); the simple correlations reveal a positive impact of The Big Lebowski, but the partial beta weights do not indicate any significant unique contributors in the block. The sixth block assessed the incremental impact of Aspect Ratio (WS vs. P&S) on liking, and this was found to be essentially nil. Finally, the seventh block included the 20 perceptual response variables. This block was highly significant (p<.001), explaining 42.2% of the variance in liking. Significant unique contributors were Tall/Short (short was liked more), Big/Little (big was better liked),

Balanced/Unbalanced (balanced was preferred), Real/Artificial (real was liked more),

Dull/Exciting (exciting was preferred), and Warm/Cold (warm was better liked).

------Table 2 about here------

In sum, liking of film clips was most dependent on (a) the specific nature of the original full film from which they were taken, and (b) a variety of perceptual dimensions, (c) but not the aspect ratio of the presentation, (d) nor background factors such as demographics, media exposure, or viewing style preferences.

Discussion

Overall, our findings spotlight a rather surprising network of relationships—and non- relationships—among film aspect ratio, film substance, perceptual responses, and positive affect. We might diagram this set of relationships as follows:

------Figure 2 about here------

Thus, we see a system in which the particular film, with inherent content features such as characters, tone, production values, setting, genre, etc., is a powerful determinant of nearly all perceptual factors, and also of positive affect. The aspect ratio of the presentation is related Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 20 to a set of perceptual factors, but this set is completely different from another set of perceptual factors that predicts positive affect. A third set of perceptual factors is related to the specific film, but is unrelated to either aspect ratio or positive affect.

The three groupings of perceptual factors transcend the boundaries of the dimensions originally conceived, i.e., Size/extent, Complexity, Authenticity, and

Dynamism. Clearly, other organizing systems are at work in determining the role that perceptual factors play with regard to aspect ratio and positive affect.

Surprisingly, there seems to be no direct link between maintenance of original widescreen aspect ratio and positive affect. The seven perceptual factors in the study that show significant differences in spectator response to widescreen vs. pan and scan, including openness, distortion, color, spaciousness, and of course, width, are not generally predictive of positive audience affect. Six other factors show no difference in the experimental aspect ratio comparison, including balance, realism, and excitement, all of which appear to be positively correlated with audience appreciation.

Many of the assumptions that have been made by film scholars about the effects of widescreen presentation have been supported by the findings of this study, including the notion that widescreen adds perceptual depth to the image (Barr, 1963), but for the most important dimensions of spectator response, the results are not entirely as expected.

In terms of the most significant measure for commercial purposes, that of liking or positive affect, the pan and scan cropping of widescreen images appears to have no significant impact on overall spectator enjoyment. In fact, general audiences clearly prefer the pan and scan image to alternatives like letterboxing. This dovetails with Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 21 certain research findings on eye movement and memory (e.g., Irwin & Zelinsky, 2002), which hint at subjects’ limited ability to recall complex visual information.

In 2001, Video Business reported that as DVDs were becoming more mainstream, the demand for pan and scan versions increased dramatically, demonstrating the preference for pan and scan among the general public (Garrett, 2001). While a perceived need to fill up the screen and to avoid the black bars of letterboxing are clearly part of the explanation, there is also the fact that what the audience responds to most powerfully in a film appears not to be significantly affected by pan and scan cropping—i.e., the film’s narrative substance.

From an artistic perspective, there is no doubt that the pan and scan process profoundly changes a film’s form in terms of image composition, and also, as can be seen from the study, the spectator’s sense of the cinematic space. In this way the criticisms of

Martin Scorsese are accurate – the spectator of a pan and scan version indeed does see a different film than the one intended by the director. Visual relationships are changed, the cinematic space becomes more restricted, and the rhythm of the action is similarly affected. However, the creative integrity of the moving image work has never been a priority of the image industries. Rather, as Belton points out, the shape of the screen and the image on it is determined primarily by “the shape of money” (1992, p. 211). As a result, the audience driven market preference for pan and scan continues to spur the modification, or perhaps “mutilation” in the words of a Danish judge, of the cinematic image in order to fill the home video screen.

In the end, our study demonstrates that both sides of the pan and scan argument carry some validity. The process does change a film to the extent that its form is substantially different from that intended by its creators. The audience sees, feels, and Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 22 experiences something different than had they seen the widescreen version of the film.

But at the same time, those elements which the audience most highly values in a film are apparently not affected by the cropping of the image. From an economic perspective, it makes sense for the moving image industries to provide the public with the format of a film that they most want to see, and our data reveal why pan and scan remains popular.

At its base, the film’s the thing. In this study, it was the individual film, regardless of presentational system, that most closely determined positive or negative spectator response. Story, character, drama, these are the elements that the audience cares most about and these are the qualities of the film that pan and scan does not destroy. Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 23

References

Barr, C. (1963, Summer). CinemaScope: Before and after. Film Quarterly, 16(4), 9.

Belton, J. (1992). Widescreen cinema. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Belton, J. (1987). Pan and scan scandals. Perfect Vision, 1(3), 41-49.

Beyer, W. (1962, June). TV safe action limits for wide screen films. American

Cinematographer, 43(6), 381.

Bock, O. (1993). Localization of objects in the peripheral visual field. Behavioural Brain

Research, 56, 77-84.

Brockmole, J. R., & Irwin, D. E. (2005). Eye movements and the integration of visual memory

and visual perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(3), 495-512.

Clark, S. (2001, Sept. 3). There’s no kidding DVD fans. Video Business, 21(36), 3-4.

Deutelbaum, M. (2003). Basic principles of anamorphic composition. Film History, 15, 72-

80.

Edmonds, G. (2007). Amateur widescreen; or, some forgotten skirmishes in the battle of the

gauges. Film History, 19, 401-413.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural

science approach. New York & London: Plenum Press.

Fortenbaugh, F. C., Hicks, J. C., Hao, L., & Turano, K. A. (2007). Losing sight of the bigger

picture: Peripheral field loss compresses representations of space. Vision Research, 47,

2506-2520.

Garrett, D. (2001, June 18). DVD;s emerging picture: Pan-and-scans gaining. Video

Business, 21(25), 1-2. Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 24

Gottesman, C. V., & Intraub, H. (1999). Wide-angle memories of close-up scenes: A

demonstration of boundry extension. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,

and Computers, 31(1), 86-93.

Holmes, S. (2004). Looking at the wider picture on the small screen: Reconsidering

British television and widescreen cinema in the 1950s. Quarterly Review of Film

and Video, 21, 131-147.

Hoyle, R. H., Stephenson, M. T., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., & Donohew, R. L. (2002).

Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and

Individual Differences, 32, 401-414.

Intraub, H., Hoffman, J. E., Wetherhold, C. J., & Stoehs, S. A. (2006). More than meets the

eye: The effect of planned fixations on scene representation. Perception &

Psychophysics, 68, 759-769.

Intraub, H., & Richardson, M. (1989). Wide-angle memories of close-up scenes. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 179-187.

Irwin, D. E., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2002). Eye movements and scene perception: Memory for

things observed. Perception and Psychophysics, 64, 882-895.

Jacobsen, M. (1997, June). Copyright on trial in Denmark. Image Technology, 79(6),

22-24.

Kerbel, M. (1977, May-June). Edited for television. Film Comment, 13, 28-30.

Meusy, J.-J. (2003). Henri Chretien, Bernard Natan, and the hypergonar. Film History, 15,

11-31.

Oliva, A., Wolfe, J. M., & Arsenio, H. C. (2004). Panoramic search: The interaction of

memory and vision in search through a familiar scene. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 1132-1146. Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 25

Patterson, T. (2001, June 22). Wide-screen cinemaniac. Entertainment Weekly. Accessed

June 30, 2009, from http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,256033,00.html.

Reeves, B., Lang, A., Kim, E. Y., & Tatar, D. (1999). The effects of screen size and message

content on attention and arousal. Media Psychology, 1, 49-67.

Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Brossard, D. (2007). My friend’s enemy: How split-screen

debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates. Communication Research,

34, 3-24.

Seiter, J. S., Abraham, J. A., & Nakagama, B. T. (1998). Split-screen versus single-screen

formats in televised debates: Does access to an opponent's nonverbal behaviors affect

viewers' perceptions of a speaker's credibility? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 491-497.

Seiter, J. S., Weger, H. Jr., Kinzer, H. J., & Jensen, A. S. (2009). Impression management in

televised debates: The effect of background nonverbal behavior on audience perceptions

of debaters’ likeability. Communication Research Reports, 26, 1-11.

Sheth, B. R., & Shimojo, S. (2001). Compression of space in visual memory. Vision Research,

41, 329-341.

Tashiro, C. S. (1991). Videophilia: What happens when you wait for it on video. Film

Quarterly, 45(1), 7–17.

Wagner, M. (1985). The metric of visual space. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 483-495. Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 26

Table 1 Differences in Mean Perceptual Evaluations of Film Sequences

Film Condition Don’t Negative- Pleasant-- Narrow-- Tall-- Big-- Vast-- Open-- Simple-- Balanced Cluttered Flat-- Like-- Positive Unpleasant Wide Short Little Limited Closed Complex - -- 3D Like a Unbalanc Spacious Lot ed After the Fox 1-WS -.28 -.08 -.67 .78 .86 .17 .08 -1.36 -.39 .11 -1.67 -.42 2-P&S -1.00 -1.20 1.03 -.54 1.14 .57 .71 .17 -.86 .57 -2.74 -1.17 Total -.63 -.63 .17 .13 1.00 .37 .39 -.61 -.62 .34 -2.20 -.79 Big Lebowski 1-WS 1.78 2.03 -2.28 2.39 -1.33 -2.64 -2.25 -2.42 2.36 -1.25 1.53 2.39 2-P&S .63 .66 -1.91 .83 -2.54 -2.77 -2.11 -2.74 2.06 -.43 1.11 1.74 Total 1.21 1.35 -2.10 1.62 -1.93 -2.70 -2.18 -2.58 2.21 -.85 1.32 2.07 The Bravados 1-WS -1.49 .23 -.49 -.83 -.03 .77 1.09 -.29 -2.03 -.74 1.31 -.91 2-P&S -1.97 1.06 -.44 -.36 -.31 .53 1.61 .44 -2.33 -.58 .03 -.81 Total -1.73 .65 -.46 -.59 -.17 .65 1.35 .08 -2.18 -.66 .66 -.86 One, Two, Three 1-WS -1.77 -1.29 .80 .23 1.40 .80 1.14 -.31 -1.94 .60 -.43 -2.31 2-P&S -.25 -1.00 .28 -1.72 .47 1.33 2.03 .50 -2.25 .22 -.94 -1.64 Total -1.00 -1.14 .54 -.76 .93 1.07 1.59 .10 -2.10 .41 -.69 -1.97 Total 1-WS -.42 .23 -.67 .65 .22 -.24 .00 -1.11 -.48 -.32 .18 -.30 2-P&S -.65 -.12 -.26 -.46 -.30 -.07 .58 -.39 -.87 -.06 -.63 -.48 Total -.54 .06 -.46 .10 -.04 -.15 .29 -.75 -.67 -.19 -.23 -.39

Main Effect F(3, 206) 13.17 18.26 14.22 10.28 22.18 33.39 36.04 18.05 60.80 4.80 30.51 41.98 Film *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** Main Effect F(1, 206) 0.39 1.83 1.59 10.49 3.50 0.21 3.53 5.23 1.69 0.68 8.33 0.40 Aspect Ratio *** # # * ** Interaction F (3, 206) 1.53 4.67 1.53 2.36 0.41 0.41 0.18 1.87 0.61 0.41 0.38 0.75 Film X Aspect ** # Ratio # - p < .10; * - p < .05; ** - p < .01; *** - p < .001; NOTE: All analyses are n=284, controlling for ID/repeated measures design Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 27

Table 1, cont’d.

Film Condition Ordered-- Free-- Not Sharp-- Choppy-- Real-- Dynamic Slow- Colorless- Dull-- Warm-- Chaotic Trapped Distorted- Blurry Smooth Artificial --Static paced-- -Colorful Exciting Cold Distorted Fast- paced After the Fox 1-WS 1.86 .39 -.56 .06 -.56 -.03 -.75 .83 1.25 .47 -.25 2-P&S 2.43 1.97 .11 1.80 -1.74 .00 .60 1.31 -.43 -.60 .43 Total 2.14 1.17 -.23 .92 -1.14 -.01 -.08 1.07 .42 -.06 .08 The Big Lebowski 1-WS 1.06 -2.53 -1.72 -1.83 1.81 3.25 -2.75 1.39 3.22 2.53 -1.56 2-P&S 1.23 -2.66 .86 -1.89 .77 3.06 -2.57 1.54 3.34 1.63 -1.80 Total 1.14 -2.59 -.45 -1.86 1.30 3.15 -2.66 1.46 3.28 2.08 -1.68 The Bravados 1-WS -2.11 -.46 -.63 .11 .91 -.80 .66 -2.83 .71 -1.77 -.40 2-P&S -2.47 .69 -.53 .14 .31 -.53 .44 -2.97 -.08 -2.53 .11 Total -2.30 .13 -.58 .13 .61 -.66 .55 -2.90 .31 -2.15 -.14 One, Two, Three 1-WS -.74 1.14 .09 1.03 -.34 -.17 .63 -.63 -3.63 -2.14 1.03 2-P&S -1.31 1.50 .03 .58 -.78 -.06 1.03 .64 -3.97 -1.03 1.47 Total -1.03 1.32 .06 .80 -.56 -.11 .83 .01 -3.80 -1.58 1.25 Total 1-WS .04 -.37 -.71 -.17 .46 .58 -.57 -.29 .42 -.20 -.30 2-P&S -.06 .39 .11 .16 -.36 .61 -.11 .11 -.31 -.65 .06 Total -.01 .01 -.30 .00 .05 .59 -.34 -.09 .05 -.43 -.12

Main Effect F(3, 206) 44.51 36.37 0.78 23.85 18.38 31.71 36.61 47.28 114.85 39.77 15.07 Film *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Main Effect F(1, 206) 0.03 5.93 6.82 1.31 9.66 0.02 2.60 2.52 5.88 1.72 1.14 Aspect Ratio * ** ** * Interaction F (3, 206) 1.16 1.26 4.53 1.80 0.33 0.38 1.33 2.02 0.37 2.19 0.27 Film X Aspect ** # Ratio # - p < .10; * - p < .05; ** - p < .01; *** - p < .001 NOTE: All analyses are n=284, controlling for ID/repeated measures design Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 28

Table 2

Multiple Regression Predicting Positive Affect (“Liking”) of Film Sequences

r Beta R2 F change Female -.089 .045 Glasses .076 -.026 Block 1 Age .136* -.194** .028 1.550 Demographics Nonwhite -.046 .095 Nearsighted .050 -.048 TV yesterday .003 .054 DVDs/videos .031 .145 Movies at home .075 -.028 Block 2 Movies own .091 .106 Media Movies at theatre .054 .071 .025 .696 Exposure Internet -.035 -.087 View alone -.023 -.141 Widescreen TV -.021 .171 IMAX movies .043 -.008 3D movies .065 -.015 Film buff .096 .023 Prefer theater .014 -.167 Prefer WS at home .064 -.048 Black bars annoying -.037 -.011 Block 3 Prefer original shape .049 .329** .044 1.222 Background Prefer no black bars -.136* -.016 & Don't mind P&S -.042 .115 Preferences Artistic person .160** .098 Sensation-seeking .127* .077 Extroversion .081 -.017 Block 4 Controls for repeated .133 .807 Controls measures Effects code for Film 1 .042 -.069 Block 5 Effects code for Film 2 .253** .041 .114 11.782** Film Effects code for Film 3 -.084 -.049 Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 29

Table 2, cont’d.

r Beta R2 F change Block 6 Aspect Ratio .038 -.019 .001 0.325 Experimental (WS=1; P&S=0) Condition Narrow-Wide .321** .000 Tall-Short -.205** .188** Big-Little -.498** -.159* Vast-Limited -.392** .040 Block 7 Open-Closed -.431** -.102 Perceptual Simple-Complex .408** .112 .422 16.558** Responses Balanced-Unbalanced -.432** -.203** Cluttered-Spacious .269** .015 Flat-3D .367** -.051 Ordered-Chaotic .057 -.011 Free-Trapped -.428** -.013 NotDist-Distorted -.240** -.050 Sharp-Blurry -.293** -.001 Choppy-Smooth .311** -.085 Real-Artificial -.005 -.116* Dynamic-Static -.442** .109 Slowpaced-Fastpaced .411** .000 Colorless-Colorful .316** -.007 Dull-Exciting .742** .600** Warm-Cold -.510** -.138* 2 2 Total R =.768, Adjusted R =.649, F(93, 182) = 6.472** * - p<.05; ** - p<.01

Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 30

Figure 1 By-Film Differences in Positive Affect (“Negative/Positive”) (Response Scale = -5 to 5; Interaction significant at p<.001)

2.03 2.5 Widescreen 2 1.06 1.5 0.66 Pan & Scan 1 0.23 0.5 -0.08 0 -1.20 -1 -0.5 -1.29 -1 -1.5

After the Fox The Bravados The Big Lebowski One, Two, Three Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 31

Figure 2

Summary of Relationships among Specific Film, Aspect Ratio, Perceptual Factors, and Positive Affect

Specific Film

Perceptual Perceptual Aspect Ratio Factors: Factors: (Widescreen Positive Narrow/Wide Tall/Short Affect vs. Open/Closed Big/Little Pan & Scan) Cluttered/Spacious Balanced/Unbal. (Liking) Free/Trapped Real/Artificial Not dist./Distorted1 Dull/Exciting Choppy/Smooth Warm/Cold Colorless/Colorful

Perceptual Factors: Flat/3D Simple/Complex Dynamic/Static Ordered/Cchaotic Vast/Limited Slow-paced/Fast-paced Sharp/Blurry

1 – There is no significant main effect of Film on the Not distorted/distorted factor.

Widescreen vs. Pan and Scan 32

Endnotes

1 This anamorphic process is based on a series of experiments with the “hypergonar” system developed in

France by Henri Chretien in the 1920s and 1930s (Meusy, 2003).

2 As described by Holmes (2004), British television struggled with letterboxing, pan-and-scanning, and a compromise combination of the two when broadcasting widescreen movies on ITV during the 1950s, prior to the American foray into pan and scan.

3 The six experimental stimulus presentation sequences utilized represented a counter-balancing of film- by-format type, as well as film presentation order. The six sequences were:

Sequence 1 Sequence 2 Sequence 3 Sequence 4 Sequence 5 Sequence 6

OTT WS OTT P&S ATF WS TBL WS TBL P&S TB P&S

ATF WS TB WS TB P&S OTT P&S ATF P&S TBL WS

TB P&S ATF WS TBL WS ATF P&S OTT WS OTT WS

TBL P&S TBL P&S OTT P&S TB WS TB WS ATF P&S

KEY: ATF = After the Fox; TBL = The Big Lebowski; TB = The Bravados; OTT = One, Two, Three; P&S

= pan and scan version; WS = widescreen version