OAR of a film to its finished product ..,, what are the True DVD specifications??

Discussion in 'DVD' started by widescreenforever, Jul 1, 2009.

  1. widescreenforever

    widescreenforever Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    arthurjulius
    hello, what are the abc's of what a studio will do for the OAR of a film to its finished product set onto DVD.. ??
    If a film is shot in 1:85 and the box states 1:85 but because it is "enhanced" 16 x 9- the new ratio is now 1:78..
    What I need to know is
    : Is the DVD program still in 1:85, thru coaxial or RCA video output..?/ BUT thru HDMI/component to widescreen TV the technology takes the 1:85 image and pushes it now into a new aspect ratio of 1:78 ????
    Or is the image regardless of how it is presented from DVD - all 1:78? and if it is.. , did we get robbed by the film in question now being shown slightly matted or cropped?? (slight pan and scan) ..( i.e. the box art states 1:85 anamorphically enhanced )...

    there are literally thousands of titles in the past ten years that are OAR 1:85 but are now in 1:78.. Or is just the technology -that is taking the 1:85 image and displaying through the 'enhanced' anamorphic electronics & slightly cropping that image just for our benefit ??, of our enjoyment of Hi-def 16x9 viewing..

    I know it appears to be slightly confusing on the surface of these questions., but I really cannot find, thru all of the internet, what is the true aspect ratio being delivered to the screen in our living rooms., from the time the movie left the lab and is transferred to all the elements in tow for our dvd release..

    I appreciate all the candid and honest honest answers to this perplexing situation..
     
  2. WillG

    WillG Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,621
    Likes Received:
    131
    It seems to me that it depends on the studio for how a 1.85 film is transfered to DVD/Blu-Ray. The term enhanced for 16X9 is just another way of saying Anamorphic Enhancement. It doesn't automatically make the image 1.78.1. Some studios such as Warner and Paramount open up the mattes slightly on an 1:85 film to make it 1.78 (and notice on their DVDs they don't specifically state aspect ratios). Others such as Fox and Universal transfer the film at true 1.85:1 (for example, my set with no overscan shows very slight black bars). Personally, I don't see why some studios transfer at 1.78 (unless, it's technically easier to do so) because the overscan on most people's sets would probably eliminate any black bar area or leave it virtually imperceptable.
     
  3. widescreenforever

    widescreenforever Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    arthurjulius
    Thanks for the (one) reply .,, But the question was never really answered:

    If the studios, -down to the lab 'remix' the image into a 16 x 9 mix or 1:78, are they tampering with the true aspect ratio? and if so, why not use the correct OAR on the box or jacket instead of the theatrical OAR ??
    Title in question here is Stepehn Spielberg's A.I. from 2001., the two disc special ed quotes in print the iamge is 1:85.1 enhanced anamorphic., Now the image is changed on DVD playback either thru 4:3 or 16 x 9 TV . to 1:78.1
     
  4. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,648
    Likes Received:
    3,809
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    I'm not really sure what you're getting at but there's virtually no difference between 1.78 and 1.85 so they're not altering the aspect ratio.
     
  5. Joseph DeMartino

    Joseph DeMartino Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    8,311
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Florida
    Real Name:
    Joseph DeMartino
    You're conflating two completely unrelated things. A film that is "ehanced for 16 x 9 TVs" or "enhanced for widescreen televisions" is encoded anamorphically on the disc regardless of the film's aspect ratio. A 1.85:1 film remains 1.85:1, a 2.35:1 film remains 2.35:1. (This is also true, for what it's worth, for non-anamorphic transfers.) The "problem" you've discovered would only be a problem if "enhanced for 16 x 9" meant what you think it means - "aspect ratio changed to 16:9" - but since it doesn't, there isn't any problem. (Go take a look at the Star Wars films (2.35:1) or Ben Hur (approx. 2.60:1), all of which are "16 x 9 enhanced" and none of whichis anything close to 1.78:1 on a (properly set) television.

    (BTW, almost no films are "shot" at 1.85:1 - that is, hard matted to that aspect ratio. Instead they are shot on standard 35mm film with spherical lenses and open mattes and an aspect ratio of roughly 1.37:1 - the standard "Academy Ratio". The shots are composed for 1.85:1, but the 1.37:1 area is usually "protected" to keep cables and boom mikes out of the shots so that it is easier to produce TV and airline versions of the film. In the theater the film is matted in the projector to the proper aspect ratio - although projectionists routinely screw this up, and many audiences never see a film in its proper "theatrical aspect ratio" until it arrives on home video. Ironic, isn't it? )
     
  6. widescreenforever

    widescreenforever Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    arthurjulius
    I kniow about 2:35 etc.. what I am referring is 1:78 fits snugly inside your 16 x 9 screen where 1;85 should give a sliver of black bars on top and bottom.., if the pixel counts for a a so called 1:85 film works out to 853 by 480 =1.777 or 1:78 .. this is what I am trying to get the bottom line ..
     
  7. Joseph DeMartino

    Joseph DeMartino Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    8,311
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Florida
    Real Name:
    Joseph DeMartino
    But you evidently don't know about "overscan". I suggest you do a quick Google search on the term. Most sets have enough overscan built-in that even if those tiny slivers of "black bar" are pefectly reproduced on the DVD they will not show up in the viewable area of your TV screen.

    Regards,

    Joe
     
  8. Billy Batson

    Billy Batson Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    680
    Location:
    London
    Real Name:
    Alan
    You can't see those "tiny slivers of black bars" on a domestic TV. The only reason they're put there is so you have a nice clean line between bars & picture when viewed on a 4x3 telly (which is fast becoming a thing of the past). And let's not forget they are put over picture infomation! Just think of 1.78 as 1.85, & enjoy the films, & think what great days these are to be a film fan.
    Edited by Billy Batson - 7/6/2009 at 01:49 pm GMT
     

Share This Page