What do you think the "ORIGINAL" in Original Aspect Ratio mean?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Jeffrey Forner, May 30, 2002.

  1. Jeffrey Forner

    Jeffrey Forner Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 1999
    Messages:
    1,117
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm taking this poll to prove a point in another thread.

    When you hear the words, ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO does this mean...
    1. The aspect ratio which a film is presented originally in theaters or on television?

      or
    2. Whatever the director wants even if it doesn't coincide with how the film is presented in theaters?

    No explanation is necessary. Just pick A or B please.

    Thank you.
     
  2. Brian Lawrence

    Brian Lawrence Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1998
    Messages:
    3,634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Brian
    A
     
  3. John Thomas

    John Thomas Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Methinks there be ulterior-motive behind this.
     
  4. Andy Olivera

    Andy Olivera Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2000
    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've always thought it should be DIAR(director's intended aspect ratio) rather than OAR, so I'll have to go with B.
     
  5. Andrew Chong

    Andrew Chong Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    0
    B
     
  6. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,366
    Likes Received:
    902
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    B - with the modification "Original INTENDED Aspect Ratio"
     
  7. MartinTeller

    MartinTeller Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,721
    Likes Received:
    1
    B
     
  8. JohnAD

    JohnAD Cinematographer

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,335
    Likes Received:
    0
    B.

    John.
     
  9. Bill McA

    Bill McA Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2000
    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    0
    B
     
  10. Bill J

    Bill J Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,970
    Likes Received:
    0
    B
     
  11. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,549
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Neither...because of the poll.

    OAR should mean the correct presentation of the film within the boundries of what it can be.

    For example, Ben-Hur could be shown at 2.55:1 on TV instead of 2.76:1. But it's blatantly wrong when matted incorrectly to produce a false 2.76:1 ratio. Of course, anything under 2.55:1 would be out of the question.

    On the other hand, a film like Help! (made at 1.33:1 for 1.66:1 matting) can be shown at 1.66:1 or 1.33:1 without compositional flaws. In fact, I used my video editor to correctly matte Help! to 1.66:1 and it looks great. But it looks just as good withotu the slight matting.

    It should be a combination of what the film can be shown in and also what is reccomended by the filmmakers.

    Shrek could actually be shown at 1.66:1 without a single bit of the picture lost. That's what it was rendered in...but 1.78:1 gives it better compositional form.
     
  12. Brian Lawrence

    Brian Lawrence Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1998
    Messages:
    3,634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Brian
    As the lone A voter, I feel it should be made clear that I mean the ratio the director first intended for the theaters. I don't vote B because that would be in favour of the mis-framing of Apocalypse Now on dvd as directors and DP have second thoughts, years later on how it should be shown.
     
  13. Claus Nielsen

    Claus Nielsen Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    B
     
  14. Artur Meinild

    Artur Meinild Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    "B"

    "A" is called Theatrical Aspect Ratio.
     
  15. Bjorn Olav Nyberg

    Bjorn Olav Nyberg Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    945
    Likes Received:
    0
    B, unless I disagree with the director [​IMG]
     
  16. Scott Weinberg

    Scott Weinberg Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    7,477
    Likes Received:
    0
    Buzz buzz.

    I'm a B.
     
  17. Ken Garrison

    Ken Garrison Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    0
    I pick B. Even if a movie has been filmed in Super 35 or is a Soft Matte, I prefer to see it in widescreen. Some movies that are Soft Matted are ruined with the Mattes removed because there's a possibility of Mics and other props showing up in the picture. I prefer the widescreen of Super 35 because it looks more natural in widescreen. Jaws The Revenge is a Super 35. I compared the Fullscreen to the Widescreen. The fullscreen had a little more top and bottom information but had less info on the sides. The widescreen, which I own on DVD has a little less top and bottom info, but more info on the sides. And I do like the widescreen version better. I mostly prefer Cinerama, Panavision, Cinemascope, and any other widescreen techiniques that uses an anamorphic lense. Cinerama used a 3 camera techinique that I think is really cool.
     

Share This Page