DVD fanaticism: It's what's for dinner (1 Viewer)

[Michael Harris]

I saw this on cnn.com today. The article begins with this opening statement:

(CNN) -- Before we go to the core of this week's article, allow me a brief dissertation on the "widescreen vs. fullscreen" DVD debate. In my opinion, there's no reason to buy a fullscreen DVD. Thank you. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I certainly agree.

 

[SteveK]

Michael - I just finished reading that article, and I came here to start a post about it when I saw you had already started one. I like the way that paragraph was in bold print, while the rest was in regular print. Although nothing else was said in the article about widescreen or fullscreen, perhaps that one simple statement will be enough to get people thinking "Why" and do a little bit more research. Once they see what widescreen is about, hopefully they'll agree that there is no reason to buy a fullscreen DVD. The sales charts indicate that more people prefer widescreen already, but obviously the studios haven't yet received the message as they continue to release some DVDs ONLY in fullscreen.

Fortunately, most DVDs are released in widescreen, and they almost always outsell the fullscreen. Brief articles like the one on CNN can't hurt.

Steve K.

 

[JustinCleveland]

EEEEh. Wrong answer.

There is no reason to not buy a non-OAR DVD. Thank you. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Sorry, I don't want a widescreen Citizen Kane. Sorry, Freaks and Geeks and The Simpsons look pretty good fullscreen.

 

[Michael Harris]

That's why I hate the terms "widescreen" and "fullscreen" when the term OAR is actually what is meant.

 

[Jodee]

I think in this context he meant a DVD that has both widescreen and fullscreen versions available. Unfortunately dual format releases are starting to become the norm these days.

 

[MuneebM]

I agree! I really hate it when I walk in to a store to buy a DVD or Blockbuster to rent a DVD and all they have is Fullscreen versions

 

[Reagan]

If you really want to pick nits, then the term OAR doesn't cut it. Go see the Sleeping Beauty DVD for an example.

Give them a break. Their heart is in the right place.

-Reagan

 

[Ernest Rister]

What about the Sleeping Beauty DVD? How does the OAR argument not apply to Sleeping Beauty? Lady and the Tramp (1955) was shot twice, once in Scope and then again in full-frame, just in case the then-new widescreen fad turned out to be a flop. Sleeping Beauty, however, was only shot once, in widescreen Technirama 70. The fullscreen version on the SB DVD is pan and scan.

 

[Reagan]

Re: Sleeping Beauty

The widescreen version is indeed OAR but is also overly cropped on all four sides. It's obviously not a P&S abomination, but it's not what was shown in the theaters either. The American Widescreen Museum has a nice page about this issue featuring screenshots from the Patton laserdisc.

-Reagan

 

[Will*B]

Thank you. My sentiments exactly.

 

[Ken Seeber]

I have a link to the complete article in my thread here.

 

[Matt Stone]

If it's not what was shown in theaters, it's not OAR...so what's the confusion?

 

[oscar_merkx]

good stuff indeed yet sometimes full screen is the only option for early pictures

 

[Mark_vdH]

Well, it can be cropped (on more than one side), but still maintain its original aspect ratio.

 

[jeff peterson]

If it's cropped on the sides it's no longer OAR. If it's 2:35:1 and you chop the sides, then it's something like 2:12:1, isn't it?

 

[Marc_Sulinski]

If you crop it a certain amount all the way around, it can retain the same ratio, but it would just be zoomed in. I have always assumed that the term OAR implicity refered to the framing being the same as well.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I was under the impression that the cropping on SB was only top and bottom, since it was taken from a 35mm reduction print rather than a Technirama 70 element.

 

[Mark_vdH]

Maybe it's my English, but I assumed that "side" could also refer to the "top" or "bottom" sides.

That's why I said it had to be cropped on more than one side: that makes it possible to get back to the movie's "OAR".

I believe reading that some scenes in Gone From The Wind suffer from this problem. For a theatrical re-release during the "cinemascope-hype", they cropped the 1.33:1 movie to 2.35:1 (top & bottom). Some scenes were lost in 1.33:1, so for later releases, they had to crop the already cropped 2.35:1 image (left & right) to get back to 1.33:1.

 

[Matt Stone]

Okay, I see what you were saying. Like Marc, I assumed that OAR implied correct framing as well. Looks like we'll have to also specify if films are OF (Original Framing)

...or maybe an all inclusive acronym OAR&F

 

[Michael Harris]

I like that! I have always used the term OAR to mean that it is exactly as it was meant to be framed and presented. Since the examples given above, while obscure to me anyway, seem to be valid ones, a more precise term is needed. Anything to get away from "widescreen" and "fullscreen" After all, does a 4:3 "fullscreen" actually fill a 16:9 TV (zooming not withstanding")

One thing is for certain, there is a certain amount of "DVD Fanaticism"