Your favorite OAR vs. P&S demos. (1 Viewer)

[Matt Pelham]

Also see The Cable Guy for a similar scene (The Owen Wilson dinner scene) with ridiculous panning and scanning.
The absoulte worst, insulting pan+scan job ever has got to be from Multiplicity. Because of the fx shots the camera remains still for most of the movie, with the characters interacting in all parts of the frame. In the MAR version the camera never stops panning and scanning, every couple seconds there is a moderate to severe pan/scan. It's simply awful.

 

[Neil Joseph]

I don't have many disks that have both formats except for...

- First Knight
- Top Gun
- A Bug's Life
- Jimmy Neutron

and a handful of others maybe. I even threw out the p&s disk for The Mask Of Zorro, seeing that it has nothing on there I want extras wise.

A Bug's Life is a decent example because it is 2.35:1.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Ghostbusters has a great P&S moment (not on the disc, but rent the tape if you have to to make a demo)--as Dan Aykroyd and the black ghostbuster are talking about the end times in the car, each is on one side of the wide screen. In the P&S version, the camera stays fixed on the empty space between them and all you see is their noses when they face each other!!

 

[Lew Crippen]

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert would be a pretty good choice. In the P&S version, the carefully framed shot of the drag queen on the top of the bus, with the robe billowing behind, as the bus goes through the desert is absolutely ruined.

 

[Steven Sims]

I can think of 2 examples. The opening scene of Reservoir Dogs, at least on the old release, where the guys are sitting around the table in the restaurant talking. With the camera moving around the table, the artificial pans are very annoying.
Also, on the '82 release of Annie, there is a glaring example of a scene being chopped up. Now I haven't verified this from the dvd, but I saw the P&S version on tv, and the dvd version has both P&S and OAR, so I'm assuming it's the same. At one point in the movie, Annie gets in a pool with Daddy Warbucks. They are floating on their backs in such a way that their feet are in the center of the frame and their heads are on opposite sides. For the entire conversation in the P&S version, all you can see is their feet. There isn't even an attempt to P&S the scene, just 5 minutes of looking at their feet and listening to the conversation. I don't know how anyone could watch this scene and still think P&S is better than having "dem darn black bars".

 

[Matt Pelham]

Yes, but remember A Bug's Life was the first film to be digitally recomposed for 4:3 sets. They used a variety of techniques including moving characters closer together and adding addional animation on the top and bottom.

 

[jacob w k]

Yes, but remember A Bug's Life was the first film to be digitally recomposed for 4:3 sets. They used a variety of techniques including moving characters closer together and adding addional animation on the top and bottom.

Isn't that even worse since the actual movie is being changed?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Most of you already know this, but I just wanted to clearify for those who may not, when watching a p&s film, when two charactors are on the opposite sides of the screen, that isn't the camera performing that move back and forth, but rather it's an artificial pan created by the telecine operator across the available 2.35:1 image. Just a friendly FYI.
I just remembered another good one, in Fright Night when the vampire Dandridge appears in Charlies mothers bedroom while she's sleeping, he turns to leave the room and in the OAR version he passes her vanity mirror and you can see that he has no reflection, because he's a vampire, and as he opens the door you can see him opening the door in the foreground, but in the mirror we just see the door opening by itself. Great shot.
However in the p&s version, the mirror trick is completly gone! We just see him walk up, open the door and leave. I have seen this movie countless times in p&s years ago before I wised up about OAR, and I never even knew about that whole mirror trick until I bought the dvd! When I saw that shot in it's OAR for the first time I said, actually outloud, "Oh shit!" and scanned back to see it again! Yet another great shot that p&s had robbed me of. :rolleyes
Regarding Ghostbusters, i've seen at least one p&s version, I think it was on HBO, with that scene in ECTO 1 between Winston and Ray mentioned above where instead of centering the "camera", they use the jump cut method of popping back and forth from Ray to Winston and back again as one speaks and the other responds. Pathetic.
And oh yes, Multiplicity definately takes the award for the most puke inducing p&s job ever! If you have motion sickness, do not watch this movie in p&s!

 

[Paul McElligott]

Blazing Saddles is great for this purpose. It has both versions on the disc and one scene in particular really shows what is being lost.

Cue up both versions to the "quicksand" scene where Cleavon Little clocks Slim Pickens on the head with the shovel.

In the OAR version, you see Little sneak up on an oblivious Pickens. The POS, er P&S version, the shovel just sort of appears out of nowhere.

 

[Bryce Miner]

I second any scene in the Cable Guy.

 

[Geoff_D]

Two words: Star Wars. Compare your glorious widescreen Laserdiscs (or vhs if you must) to your friend's pathetic pan&scan videos and watch as their resistance to the black bands crumbles. I've converted at least two people using this trusty method.

 

[Rich Romero]

I'd say Suspiria. My old VHS copy is terrible. I doubt it's even pan and scan. It doesn't look like any panning was done. It's just zoomed into fullscreen and this version was the only domestic Suspiria release. If anyone doesn't like widescreen, I'd have to use this to persuade them.

 

[BarryS]

Tony Scott's The Fan (1996) is a very good widescreen/P&S demonstration. I'm not sure if the DVD is still available though. This is one of those Columbia Tristar releases that has awful digital panning in the P&S version, much like Multiplicity. Just look at nearly any scene from the movie and you're sure to notice it. It's very distracting. The other side of the disc, however, has a beautiful widescreen transfer along with excellent 5.1 sound. Not a great movie, really, but it's a fun psychopathic De Niro-slash-baseball movie.

 

[Ryan L. Bisasky]

i was watching rat race on tbs last night and was amazed at how much pan and scanning there was in the movie.

 

[Jay Mitchosky]

An oldie but a goodie is from Mission: Impossible. It's the scene a little ways into the film where Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt) meets with Ving Rhames, Jean Reno, and the woman who's name escapes me. They are sitting in pairs across the table from each other. In the OAR version you see all of them at once, but in the P&S version you are constantly moving back and forth as they are positioned in the extreme ends of the frame. Distracting as hell and ruins the look of the scene.

Another (possibly mentioned earlier but I'm just coasting through) is the entire "why widescreen" segment off the Die Hard behind-the-scenes disc. The filmakers provide and excellent example and discussion of why widescreen/OAR is so important. They show the vault and how characters get cropped. Additionally they illustrate that in order to accommodate the full screen image they must zoom in on the frame, which in and of itself introduces artifacts. Very well done. If I recall there is a similar comparison on the Pearl Harbour S.E. which shows how characters get completely cut out of the frame.

Another one that just popped into my head is The Pelican Brief. I think you'll need separate copies but there is a scene where Robert Culp as President is having a conversation in a limo with his Advisor (played by Tony Goldwyn if I recall). Oftentimes the P&S version is showing one characer while the other (cropped out of the frame) is speaking. Looks ridiculous.

If these types of examples won't convince someone then nothing will. They clearly don't care.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Great idea for a thread. There are some good ones listed here.

There is a demo on the Sleeping Beauty DVD that illustrates the difference by playing a scene from the movie in a split-screen format.

 

[Marc Fedderman]

On a related note, TCM has been running a short that extols the virtues of OAR. Most of the comparisons to MAR have already been mentioned and include: Ben-Hur (the chariot race), Gigi (can't recall the scene), and Seven Brides For Seven Brothers (the barn-raising). Various cinema luminaries, such as Scorsese and Pollack comment on the need to preserve the intended aspect ratio. Overall, a great primer for those who are confused or conflicted on the matter.

 

[Jon Martin]

Back in the laserdisc days, I would put on a VHS copy of SOUND OF MUSIC and a letterboxed laser of it, sync them up, and during the "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria" musical number, switch back and forth between the two and have people play "Count the Nuns".

Several were cut off on the VHS copy and I would make a lot of converts to letterboxing.

 

[Ryan L. Bisasky]

another real bad example is even the paramount pictures logo for movies made in the mid 90's and into 2000, the top of the stars are cut off, and many times we can't even see the bottom of "a viacom company".
why don't studio's that do pan and scan use the full top and bottom of hte image?

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

The old Star Trek IV DVD had a feature with Leonard Nimoy explaining why the widescreen version was better.