Do you think we''ll start seeing more "fullscreen for widescreen" DVDs? (1 Viewer)

[Tom Martin]

take Brother Bear. it is a double DVD, both versions are anamorphic, but one version has the original aspect ration with the bars at the top and bottom while the other fills up the screen. i hapen to think it is a great idea, as long as both versions are available.

 

[Darren Haycock]

Bleh... OAR is the only way to go, plain and simple.

 

[Malcolm R]

I agree that OAR is the only answer, period.

However, if you think the anti-black bars crowd is obnoxious now, just wait until they buy a 16:9 HDTV and they still have black bars on some films. I think that outcry, after spending thousands of dollars on a widescreen TV which they assume will rid them of black bars forever, will be even worse.

 

[Will K]

Personally, I'm annoyed when a fullscreen version just takes up space on a dual-layered disc. Besides, more and more 16:9 TV's are being sold every day. I'm not sure why studios bother with 4x3 transfers anymore. Seems like a waste of money to me.

 

[Dave_P.]

Exactly, they should dedicate the P&S space to for better usage, like less compression or more extras.

 

[Matt Rexer]

That's not what we're talking about. Brother Bear's OAR is 2.35:1. The DVD offers a version in 2.35:1, and a version in the 16x9 ratio. Both are "widescreen," but one is still incorrect.

The fight for OAR will never go away. Both 4x3 TV shows and 2.35:1 films will suffer the wrath of P&S when everyone owns HDTVs.

 

[Tom Martin]

first, what is OAR?

and i have an HDTV. i prefer to see the original aspect ratio, but if they happen to include an anamorphic widescreen version that fully fills the screen on a seperate disc, well...why not?

 

[Robert Floto]

Tom, you've been a member since November and you haven't run across that phrase...???

It stands for Original Aspect Ratio.

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

Didn't Brother Bear in theaters change aspect ratios at one point in the film? I think it's when the guy turns into a bear it changes from 1.85 to 2.35, essentially showing how his view of the world expands?

How is this accounted for on the DVD? Because it seems like this would have the opposite effect on a 16:9 TV since you would be going from the screen being full to having black bars.

Perhaps this is the reason for having both 1.85 and 2.35 on the disc, because there was no good way to incorporate the effect of changing aspect ratios in a DVD presentation.

 

[Tom Martin]

nope. firdt time i see OAR

and in Brother Bear, i believe there were bars at the top and bottom as well as on the left and right. when it went changed aspect ratio, the left and right sides filled in. btw, i didn't think this effect was that great.

 

[KyleC]

The funny thing is he answered his own question within his post.

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

This particular thing makes BB a special case. Therefore I find it reasonable that they have included two versions. Otherwise I'd consider the inclusion of a screen-filler version a waste.

 

[Darren Haycock]

If people can't stand watching 2.35:1 or whatever on a 16x9, they can use the zoom feature, plain and simple...

 

[Joe_Pinney]

Fact is, there are several different aspect ratios for films and only 2 aspect ratios for televisions, so far in our history.

Not all films have widescreen OARs, and some OARs depend greatly on the director and/or cinematographer. What was intended to be seen is not always what was seen in theaters, let alone on a television screen.

Those films that do have widescreen OARs and were intended to be seen in widescreen, have not always had even the same widescreen theatrical aspect ratio (theatrical prints have varied depending on the widescreen process, the theater, and the print type, i.e., many 70mm prints were exhibited theatrically at 2.20:1 while the exact same film, shot for shot, was exhibited at 2.35:1 on 35mm prints. Do some research at both IMDB.com and Martin Hart's American Widescreen Museum website.). The fact that there have been so many different possibilities for motion pictures to be photographed and exhibited, while only two "full screen" possibilities exist for television sets (either 1.33:1 or 1.78:1, no ifs, ands, or buts) makes for an easily confused general public.

Let's face it, folks - until they can make a TV screen that can mold itself to the actual preferred/intended/original aspect ratio of any given film, there will continue to be imperfections in the system.

Am I one of the few people who actually laments the fact that the majority of films originally photographed and exhibited in a 1.37:1 aspect ratio are actually being released in 1.33:1 video transfers? I'm losing .04 of the image!

 

[Jonathan M]

Actually, seeing as the DVD picture size of 720x480 (for NTSC) is actually not 4:3 anyway (The 4:3 frame is 704x480), it is possible to put 1.3636:1 aspect ratio on a DVD simply by using all the frame (720/480*10/11 = 1.3636...). That's pretty close to the 1.37:1 you desire

Ofcourse, with most TV's the extra bits at the sides will be well into the overscan area anyway, so you won't gain much!

 

[Darren Haycock]

Can't projectors do this? I don't know much about 'em, so I might be mistaken...

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

This is what I fear will happen, and it is also what I know will happen.

 

[Ben_@]

I like Joe_Pinney's post, but I'd like to contribute this little info as well:

Disney did a similar thing(i think) with Finding Nemo. Personally, i liked it. I know I'll get flamed (or just completely removed) but I believe that it is the OAR.
If you look at it this way: When they were making the film, they colored and animated in a larger square than they were going to show in theaters. Then, when it came time to put out a DVD, they could use the original frame, with the extra top and bottom visual information.
A similar example can be made for Ninja Scroll (a much smaller release, but still valid). It was originally created in a 4:3 ratio (it was a video release, intended to use the entire screen of a normal TV). When the SE disc finally came out, they simply chopped the top and bottom to give it a more theatrical feel. Despite looking cooler and being anamorphic, it is not the original AR that was created.

Obviously, no matter where you fall in the debate, the best answer in this is to release the movie with both versions available to view. Disney has done this so far, but Manga didn't.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

Actually, Finding Nemo was cropped on the sides, but the film was "Recomposed" so it wouldn't lose any necessary information when transfered to 4:3.

 

[Kevin Grey]

This is a concern of mine too. Not so much from Brother Bear but due to the change in AR from 2.35:1 to 1.85:1 for both The Recruit and Once Upon a Time in Mexico. I really don't want directors deciding that 1.85 is some kind of preferred ratio for home viewing. Choose the aspect ratio based only on what's best for the material and shot composition, please, not because it won't have black bars at home.