My OAR Site (1 Viewer)

[JeremySt]

UPDATED! LOOK AGAIN!
Im not sure if this is in the right section but....
Ive been working on my website on and off, and I made one section designed to educate people on OAR. I've added some new screen captures, and re-written some stuff. It is mainly for my friends, but I could do with some outside input. Its not totally done yet.
http://www.geocities.com/nostromo777/widescreen1.html

 

[David Lambert]

At first glance it looks pretty good...pretty professional looking.

It also looks like a healthy read to take it all in, and I don't have time right now. I'll take another look at it later.

I'll just mention that, when I got to the bottom of Page 2, I clicked on the Page 3 link and got an error. FYI.

For now, I'll say GOOD EFFORT and encourage you to keep on working on it. Thank you!

 

[Patrick Larkin]

a nice job. not for the joe sixpack but definitely good for someone that wants to take the time to learn.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Looks like you have exceeded your bandwidth. If you need hosting, let me know, and I'll hook you up.

 

[JeremySt]

LOOK AGAIN! MORE UPDATES! BETTER PICS! THRILL!
Thanks for the hosting offer. I just got Adobe GoLive and am in the process of learning how to use it. Ive made some changes.... look again!!!!!
http://www.geocities.com/nostromo777/widescreen1.html

 

[GlennH]

Looks pretty good. You do have some typos here and there, so I'd suggest a good proofreading.
example on PAGE 2:

TELEVISION

 

[Nate Anderson]

Nicely done. Better than I could probably ever manage...

 

[Chris M]

Unfortunately I only got to the end of page 1 and your bandwidth ran out again... sigh. I suggest you take up the offer for the web hosting!
It was VERY interesting actually.
Chris.

 

[Timmy T]

May I ask if there is any web site that I can check the OAR of a particular film?

IMDB does not have this info and Amazon has a bit but not very comprehensive.

 

[MichaelPe]

May I ask if there is any web site that I can check the OAR of a particular film?

IMDB does not have this info...

Yes it does. When looking at a movie's page, click on the "technical specs" link on the left side of the page.

 

[David Lambert]

Unfortunately, the IMDB is not always accurate on the AR!
For example, I once saw that a film's AR listing (can't recall the title right now) was assumed to be the same as an improperly framed LD's AR. IIRC, the DVD corrected it. This wasn't too long ago either, and I'm sure it's not the only example of it. What *WAS* the name of that film? I hate getting old and senile...

 

[John P Grosskopf]

Almost half the screen is wasted showing black. A

widescreen film shown on a screen that is not as wide as the film is referred to as LETTERBOX because of its similarity in size to a common Letter Envelope. The problem with this is that the image appears visually smaller, and a small set, the picture can be TOO small to follow the action. This format is still artistically preferable, because NONE of the image is lost.

I would revisit this section and remove the term "wasted" for a non-negative descriptor. As it is, Joe six pack says "The picture on my new big ol screen TV is WASTED wit dem blasted big-ass black bars and I paid to see da whole screen dammit!"

A sentence like, "To display a widescreen film properly on a consumer 4:3 set, the image must be displayed across the horizontal center of the screen to show the image's intended and proper dimensions." would be preferable. This gives JSP no justification in the "wasted" arena.

You also might wasnt to revisit the last 2 sentences in that section as well to play up the widescreen advantage, and note that the increased resolution of DVD eliminates many of the resolution issues of shrinking the image down to letterbox size as compared to VHS and broadcast TV.

Other than that, a nice light-colored border around some of the widescreen/P&S images against the dark background would set them out more and make them easire to see and compare.

Hope this helps.

 

[Timmy T]

Thanks, Michael and David.

 

[Richard Kim]

Nice. However you did not explain how 1.85:1 films are shot open matte. You explained Super35, so I found it strange that you didn't explain open matte.

 

[Scott H]

A conventional 35 millimeter camera WITHOUT anamorphic lenses is used to shoot a 1.33 x 1 film frame. That film frame is then matted to create a widescreen image.

Regular and anamorphic 4-perf 35mm typically expose a 1.37:1 frame.

S35 4-perf typically exposes a 1.33:1 frame.

As Richard said, regular 35mm 1.85:1 is typically matted to it's AR from within a 1.37:1 open-matte frame. And, it is possible to shoot both regular and S35 3-perf and not have a 1.37/1.33:1 frame to open up to (~1.78-1.85:1). I have even read on Kodak's site about 2-perf S35 2.40:1.