OAR - Are We Winning the War? (1 Viewer)

[ThomasC]

I don't understand why the studios don't just put a prompt at the beginning of the DVD asking the viewer whether they want to watch the film in OAR or full frame.

 

[Yee-Ming]

But now we're getting "zoomboxed" WS.

Sorry to drag up this old chestnut again, case in point: Babylon 5. Regardless of what JMS claims was his original intention, it is pretty clear that Season One was NOT framed with 16:9 in mind.

 

[CharlesD]

Agreed about widescreen winning rather than OAR. Many DVDs of 1.85 movies are actually cropped to 1.78. OF course this is not really that egregious a modification but it still goes against the principle of having OAR. Still given that most people still have 1.33 screens are preferring to watch even 2.35 films in OAR is a very encouraging sign . But we mustn't let our guard down the studio marketing departments can and will trying ans screw everything up. In a few years we will be fighting the same battle again only this time it will be MARing 1.33 and 2.35 (and even 1.85) to 1.78.

 

[AllanN]

I don't understand why the studios don't just put a prompt at the beginning of the DVD asking the viewer whether they want to watch the film in OAR or full frame.

I for one don't want a Pan & Scan copy of a movie takeing up precious storage space on a DVD that could be used for higher bitrate video, DTS, commentary, or other special features.

 

[Chad A Wright]

While widescreen is outselling fullscreen by a lot, I would imagine that the fullscreen numbers are still high enough to make them a lot of money.

 

[BryanZ]

As the saying goes, "OAR or bust!"

 

[Lev-S]

I once knew a lady who bought a HUGE big-screen TV (4:3) and a DVD player back in '99. She got it set up and immediately started to complain about the letterbox on a 2.35:1 movie. To this it was suggested that she could zoom in to fill the screen. After doing this, she then complained of another problem: She couldn't see all of the characters/action on-screen! I think she went back to VHS after that...

Some people have eyes, but cannot see.

 

[ThomasC]

I for one don't want a Pan & Scan copy of a movie takeing up precious storage space on a DVD that could be used for higher bitrate video, DTS, commentary, or other special features.

Oops, that's not what I meant. The OAR version would be the only version on there, but if the user selected full frame, it would tell the DVD player to zoom in. Is that possible?

 

[MattThiel]

I flipped on Encore today and they showed Pearl Harbor in widescreen, 2.35:1 format! It wasn't the credits, either. It was in the middle of the film.
I also flipped on the Action West channel, and 633 Squadron was shown in OAR!
Both channels are owned ny Starz! I am shocked that these channels would actually show films in widescreen (not 16:9).

 

[nolesrule]

I know that the plan is to eventually release the episodes on disk in all their widescreen/surround-sound glory, but when that might be is anyone's guess. Heck, I'll be first in line at the video store....

jms

Source of quotes was JMSNews.com

 

[ThomasC]

I flipped on Encore today and they showed Pearl Harbor in widescreen, 2.35:1 format! It wasn't the credits, either. It was in the middle of the film.

That doesn't surprise me. None of Michael Bay's films are available in 4:3 on DVD.

 

[Lew Crippen]

The OAR version would be the only version on there, but if the user selected full frame, it would tell the DVD player to zoom in. Is that possible?

It seems to me that there the DVD specs did have provision for P&S at the user’s option. But I don’t think that anyone ever produced any DVDs with that feature (or if any wre it was only a very few).

The problem is that P&S is not a simple zoom. Think about what you would see in a case like this where the camera shows two people facing each other engaged in dialogue. A side-on shot in 2.35:1 shows both people in profile, looking at each other, talking, with perhaps, no camera movement at all. A P&S version will show each person in the 4:3 frame as they talk—so the camera appears to move back and forth between the two people as they talk (either that, or there are what appear to be cuts between the two as they talk). If there were just a zoom, all you would see would be the empty space between the two people (ar just a portion of their faces). Actually, if you look at some quickly done fullscreen versions of movies, you will see a lot of this—it is not uncommon for a movie on TV in Asia to be shown this way.

Believe me, the results are not satisfactory.

 

[wally]

I'm a middle-school science teacher, and I show my 7th graders "The Andromeda Strain" every year after we finish the chapter on viruses and bacteria

Wow Jim*F I wish you were my science teacher in middle-school.

Do you think Dr. Crichton had any idea his work would remain so timely 30+ years later?

 

[Mark Zimmer]

If there were just a zoom, all you would see would be the empty space between the two people (ar just a portion of their faces). Actually, if you look at some quickly done fullscreen versions of movies, you will see a lot of this—it is not uncommon for a movie on TV in Asia to be shown this way.

The P&S version of Ghostbusters that I've seen on TV a couple times does exactly this. When Ayroyd and Hudson are in the Ghostbustermobile talking about the End Days, all you see is the back seat and their noses when they turn towards each other! It's the best argument for OAR I've ever seen.

 

[Jim*F]

Thanks, wally!

I'm sure Crichton knows the value of The Andromeda Strain. Simply put, it is perhaps the best "pure science" film ever. The entire film accurately portrays all aspects of the scientific method (which is not a very entertaining topic, to put it mildly), yet still keeps the viewer engaged in the mystery (without $100 million of special effects, car chases, etc.!!).

After the film, I tell the students that just about everything they've just seen is scientifically correct aside from the fact that an extraterrestrial virus has not yet landed on Earth -- at least as far as we know!!

 

[Aaryn Chan]

In Asia, everyone watches WS movies at home. There is no FS DVDs.

 

[Yee-Ming]

In Asia, everyone watches WS movies at home. There is no FS DVDs.

Come to think of it, Asian movies have ALWAYS been broadcast letterboxed on TV. Hence, even in my early ignorance (as a kid), I had no problem accepting the concept of letterboxing for widescreen movies. If anything, when I once saw A Better Tomorrow pan-&-scammed on a VCD, it was very surprising (and horrifying) to me.

 

[AllanN]

Oops, that's not what I meant. The OAR version would be the only version on there, but if the user selected full frame, it would tell the DVD player to zoom in. Is that possible?

As Lew C stated in post #32, the DVD spec does support on-the-fly pan and scanning and a static zoom would mess up the frameing even worse. However on-the-fly P&S is rarely used if at all. I have also heard that the space the P&S flagging takes up is almost equal to the space it would take to add another cut of the movie.

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Quote (from post 32): "Believe me, the results are not satisfactory."

But I'm pretty sure most people here would agree that no zoomed or panned version is "satisfactory", even though this is even worse.

I tend to think that the majority of people who would care about this, would also be able to at least accept OAR/WS (with "black bars"). Or am I very mistaken...? Couldn't "we" (or "they") simply let the people who can't stand "black bars" (or rather unused screen space) push a button and fill the screen with the center portion of the image? Wouldn't this be a useful 70% (or so) solution?

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Just pointing out I wrote the letter Ebert published.