Folks- Attended the director's workshop with Sydney Pollack yesterday at the Virginia Film Festival. He took some time to explain OAR and bash pan-and-scan to the audience. The first signs of his opinions came when the moderator qued a clip from They Shoot Horses Don't They? At first Pollack groaned "Oh no, it's gonna be pan-and-scan" only to be delighted when the Sony DVD logo from the player on the screen and the film began playing letterboxed. Later he began talking about his use of Panavision (2.35:1) framing on this and all of his films when he first began, and how he loves the 'scope framing, so much he even got into fights with the studio on Horses since the entire film takes place on one small set and the studio types assumed panavision was only good for big vistas. He got similar grief for shooting Tootsie that way ("What, you want to shoot a comedy in 'scope?"). But then, with Out of Africa, the movie of his he most wanted to film in panavision, he sadly came to the conclusion that he couldn't bear to see his films getting panned and scanned and found that full frame transfers became a necessary, lesser evil (he said that Three Days of the Condor in particular gets destroyed when cropped as there are several scenes where vital clues get clipped out of the frame). Since then he has only shot films flat (1.85:1) because of video. This clearly pained him alot. Then the moderator said "Well now that we have DVD with it's wonderful letterboxing abilities are you going to start shooting in panavision again?" Pollack smiled and said "absolutely with DVD more popular I can't wait to get back to shooting in panavision". So it seems there is light at the end of the tunnel. Still it pains me to hear that we were denied a 2.35:1 Out of Africa because of the monstrosity that is pan-and-scan. - Guy PS I seem to recall that Pollack actually sued a TV station for showing Condor in pan-and-scan without removing his director's credit.