Should we distinguish between OAR and TAR...? (1 Viewer)

[Artur Meinild]

TAR = Theatrical Aspect Ratio.
The reason I'm asking is because lately, I've seen some confusion (on this forum) to whether or not certain movies are released as the director intended...
One example is Evil Dead. To my knowledge, this was shown 1.85:1 theatrically (I'm not sure), and this AR is recreated for the new DVD release. However, all previous HV versions have been 1.33:1, which is the films OAR. Some people complain about the new DVD being 1.85:1.
Another example is of course Kubricks films, which is much the same situation. Eyes Wide Shut for instance was shown 1.85:1 theatrically, but released on HV as 1.33:1 because he wanted that. This is the opposite situation, as lots of people complain about the DVD *not* being 1.85:1.
A last example is Toy Story, which had a TAR of 1.85:1, but now has a OAR of 1.77:1 (directors intend). No one seems to complain about this, yet some people find room to complain about the new Silence of the Lambs being 1.77:1 instead of 1.85:1 as shown in theaters!
So maybe we should clearly distinguish between OAR and TAR (which of course in most cases would be identical), since movies *can* be "butchered" against the director's intend both in theaters and on video...
------------------
~ Stud. Polyt. ~ Artur Meinild ~

 

[Adam Tyner]

The Evil Dead was framed for 1.66:1 and probably shown that way theatrically in Europe. More than likely, it was matted to 1.85:1 stateside. According to The Evil Dead Companion, a book Raimi participated in heavily, the only full-frame showing was the premiere, and that was because they showed the film in a theater that accomodated that older aspect ratio. The 1.85:1 image on the upcoming disc may have the same aspect ratio, but it was reframed, shot by shot.
------------------
My DVD list | My personal site
[Edited last by Adam Tyner on August 25, 2001 at 08:26 AM]

 

[Dana Fillhart]

First I was hit with an OAR.
Then I was MAR'd.
Now I've been TAR'd.
This is beginning to hurt a lot! Pretty soon, I'll be GOR'd too!

------------------

 

[Richard Kim]

There's Apocalypse Now with a TAR of 2.40:1 but is shown 2:1 on home video at the insistance of the DP.
There also Galaxy Quest, with multiple aspect ratios theatrically, but with one AR for home.
[Edited last by Richard Kim on August 25, 2001 at 09:12 AM]

 

[george kaplan]

Perhaps you'll be BAR'd (Butchered Aspect Ratio), CAR'd (Crappy Aspect Ratio), FAR'd (F*cked-up Aspect Ratio), JAR'd (Just plain wrong Aspect Ratio) or WAR'd (Weird (and clearly wrong) Aspect Ratio).

------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

 

[Artur Meinild]

Thanx Adam, I certainly believe you're right!
And yes, Apocalypse Now is a very good example, I completely forgot about that one.
BTW, it just hit me that TAR goes for Television Aspect Ratio as well. Several TV shows that have an OAR of 16:9 is cropped to a TAR of 4:3!
------------------
~ Stud. Polyt. ~ Artur Meinild ~

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Also, with Toy Story, from what I've heard, that was originally animated at 1.77:1 and was cropped to 1.85:1 for common projection reasons. Silence of the Lambs was filmed at an aspect ratio of 1.85:1, so that really is a problem, just like the DVD release of 'Batman'
------------------
My DVD Collection

 

[Patrick McCart]

Here's what they mean to me:
Original Aspect Ratio: The entire image on the negatives.
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: What was intended to be seen in theaters. A 1.33:1 filmed film shown matted, too.
Modified Aspect Ratio: Any image that differs from the negatives. For example, Willy Wonka was modified in theaters (matted) but the OAR appears on the current SE DVD.
Matted: Turning a 1.33:1 film to 1.85:1 to simulate the intended theatrical image. Most 1.85:1 films were filmed at 1.33:1 only...excluding the few that are hard matted and/or feature CGI effects. CGI is usually rendered at the theatrical aspect ratio, thus those shots are hard-matted to save money, time, and effort.
Pan & Scan: Only hard-matted 1.85:1, films with CGI (1.85:1 and Super-35), and ALL anamorphic or 55mm to 70mm films are truly pan & scanned on 1.33:1 versions. A 1.33:1 version of Wonka is the OAR, the matted version is the TAR. The 1.33:1 version of Amadeus is both a MAR and P&S image. The letterboxed version is the OAR and TAR.
Chances are...if you're seeing a film on TV that was made after 1955 and is taking up the full screen, it's either panned and scanned or open matte.
Of course, there's that process Pixar used on A Bug's Life...
I prefer the theatrical aspect ratio. It's no surprise to me that I have 0 pan & scan-only films and only 2 open matte-only discs (Vegas Vacation and Help!...which the latter is in dire need of a new transfer...)
------------------
P.S.: There's no P.S.

 

[Scott H]

Here's what they mean to me:
Original Aspect Ratio: The entire image on the negatives.
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: What was intended to be seen in theaters. A 1.33:1 filmed film shown matted, too.

Well then we need to correct this

OAR is not the exposed aperture. OAR is indicated only by the ground glass used in the camera's viewing system for the film and the corresponding framing leader that is used to properly align the intended frame in post production to those ground glass markings. The OAR is almost always within a larger exposed image. For instance a 1.85:1 framing demarkation within a larger 1.37:1 exposed negative frame.
For example, Lucas' SWE2 was shot on HD... The entire image area is 1.78:1, but the framing is for 2.40:1. So there is a substantial amount of image information above and below the OAR that was captured during filming but is incidental.
Here's an example of a framing leader for extracting 1.85:1 from within a 1.78:1 HD aperture: http://home.earthlink.net/~harrisfil...LeaderFull.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~harrisfil...aderCenter.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~harrisfil...meLeaderLR.jpg
Theatrical aspect ratios hopefully correspond to the OAR, but that is not always the case. They are not always what was intended by the filmmakers to be shown in theaters. Thus they are not indicative of the OAR.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.

 

[PhilipG]

Don't forget KAR (Kubrick's Aspect Ratio), which could be absolutely anything, depending on
a) your TV shape
b) whether you knew Kubrick at the time
c) whether you believe what Kubrick's family says
d) whether you prefer the open matte composition
e) whether Warner thinks it can make more money with boxset version 3

 

[Hendrik]

"TAR = Theatrical Aspect Ratio. "
...this has come up before ... several, if not many times already...
...actually, after careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that there is no way there is such a thing as "TAR"...
...if the baby must have a name, it should be named as follows:
ITARE = Intended Theatrical Aspect Ratio (Europe)
ITARU = Intended Theatrical Aspect Ratio (USA)
...to be entirely correct, then, there should be two re-re-releases of, say, Stanley Kubrick's "4:3" movies: one set for European anal retentives (ARs), featuring ITARE... and another set for North American ARs, featuring ITARU...
...incidentally, and - probably - ditto for Anchor Bay's releases of Paul Verhoeven's pre-Hollywood films, and many Chabrol/Polanski/Truffaut, etc. films...
...not-so-incidentally, and - definitely - ditto for all movies not filmed at the original, early nineteen thirties 'Academy aperture' 1.33:1 (a.k.a. OAA) but rather the improved, late nineteen thirties 'Academy aperture' 1.37:1 (a.k.a. IAA)... in fact, the latter should be windowboxed and anamorphized before being transferred to DVD, so that they will appear in their full, original glory on widescreen displays...
...and...