Oar, Oar, Oar (1 Viewer)

[nousername]

But I've seen them shown that way in a theater. Does 1.85:1 now qualify as OAR for those films?

I would classify that as misframing. It's probably not how they were shown originally...

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I think Mike Knapp's definition would pretty much exclude bonehead mistakes by local projectionists...

Well, first of all, the 2.0:1 think is usually done willfully rather than accidentally, so while indeed "boneheaded", I'm not sure it is technically a mistake.

The question then becomes why would it not also extend to boneheaded mistakes ...errrr... decisions by studio executives such as with "Shane" at 1.66:1 (which would be the OAR by the above definition)? Or lack of infrastructure to support a director's preferred ratio on a large scale commercial release such as with Kubrick? Ignoring a filmmakers intent/preference seems pretty silly.

I'll be happy with whatever aspect ratio the filmmakers would choose to show the film theatrically under controlled circumstances and consider that OAR even if it was not shown that way upon initial release.

Regards,

 

[MarkHastings]

What about the Premiere presentation of the movie? I would hardly think that the premiere of ANY movie would be misframed

All other subsequent presentations are no longer the original presentation and shouldn't be worked into the equation.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

The Shane situation is such an abberation that I think it should be dropped from the discussion. "Hard cases make bad law."

Regards,

Joe

 

[TedD]

In the last three years, I've seen these films theatrically, in several different theaters:

Dr. Strangelove
North by Northwest

All of these films were projected at 1.85:1, even though that aspect ratio is incorrect for all of them.

Sorry, Charlie, there is nothing wrong with showing these two titles at 1.85, because that's the way they were presented in the vast majority of U.S. theatres.

NxNW was a VistaVision title, and D. S. was made well after 1954, which is when 1.85 became the standard flat A.R. specified by the SMPTE.

As an interesting aside, if you ever see a VistaVision print from Paramount in a movie theater, you will see a symbol that occurs twice at the beginning of each reel. It looks a lot like a "T" and an "F" superimposed and has three horizontal bars.

Those three horizontal bars happen to be alignment marks for the following A.R.'s, 1.75:1, 1.85:1 and 2.0:1, and should be aligned with the top masking to properly frame the image for each of the A.R.'s.

Ted

 

[nousername]

I'll be happy with whatever aspect ratio the filmmakers would choose to show the film theatrically under controlled circumstances and consider that OAR even if it was not shown that way upon initial release.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I wish there was a neat acronym for "What The People Who Actually Made The Film Want It To Look Like."

DJ

 

[Peter Kline]

OAR also is the abbreviation for "official accountants report". As we know, Hollywood films rarely make any money as these bottom line reports often show large loses for most films.

 

[Ken Chan]

It looks like I will no longer be able to claim the "creation" of the term.

Hey, two different guys independently invented calculus at about the same time. One is more famous than the other, though

//Ken

 

[Patrick McCart]

I wish there was a neat acronym for "What The People Who Actually Made The Film Want It To Look Like."

FAR - Filmmaker's Aspect Ratio

 

[Peter Kline]

You can bet that most filmakers wanted their effort to be seen on a large screen in a movie theatre and not on a low rez home video setup!

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Hey, two different guys independently invented calculus at about the same time. One is more famous than the other, though

Same thing happened with the telephone and the theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection. The trick is to get your story out to the general public first. In this case I think Mike K. wins.

Regards,

Joe

 

[David Lambert]

FAR - Filmmaker's Aspect Ratio

Done, and done!

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

My point is that you don't have to treat the Shane situation as an aberration if you take into account the filmmaker's intent. I don't understand why some in this thread are so dead set against that.

The premiere aspect ratio suggestion wouldn't really be flexible enough either. What if a film was shot 2.35:1 35mm, but for the premiere, they made a 70mm blow-up that was cropped to 2.2:1? Stick with how it was composed by the filmmakers at the time of production and you are all set. Using filmmakers' original intent as your criterion prevents you having to cover your eyes and ears and dismiss every exception as "de minimus".

Example: I am convinced that if Kubrick were alive to supervise a special screening of any of his flat 35mm films, he would want them presented with the full exposed frame theatrically. I therefore have no problem with the DVDs representing that. I am equally convinced that Coppola would show Apocalypse Now theatrically at 2.35:1 or possibly 2.2:1 for a 70mm blow up. Neither of these match the 2.0:1 AR of the DVDs, so the DVDs are not OAR.

Regards,

 

[Tony Whalen]

I like FAR.

How about another one?

F.A.R.T. Filmmakers Authorized Ratio (for) Television?



Personally, I think OAR should represent how the movie was originally envisioned by the director/cinematographer. However, the argument for how a film was presented theatrically is a compelling one. Tough call...

Frankly, just so long as crappy artificial camera moves aren't introduced into a film for home-use, I'll be happy.

 

[Paul McElligott]

My turn:

Original Aspect Ratio: The aspect ratio that was assumed when composing shots for theatrical distribution.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Original Aspect Ratio: The aspect ratio that was assumed when composing shots for theatrical distribution.

Substitute "presentation" for "distribution" and it's pretty consistent with what I would consider OAR for theatrical films.

Regards,