zyzzle

OK, I have a confession to make. There have been times when I've actually enjoyed seeing an open matte presentation of a film more than seeing the same movie in OAR. Many times, the OAR seems too cramped at the top and bottom of the images (Can you say "Cut off Head?") Prime examples include EVIL DEAD and the V miniseries, also many other films (the original VACATION comes to mind).

Note that I'm *not* talking about Super 35, or "Pan and Scam" or other methods. 2.35 films should ALWAYS be screened in OAR. When the 1.85:1 films have the matte taken away, it seems to actually make me feel like I'm getting a bonus: I'm seeing MORE of the film than I am supposed to see and this is enjoyable, I'm becoming more immersed in the world that that particular film creates. How does this argument sound: Open Matte for 4:3 sets < 27 inches and OAR for 16:9 sets or 1080i sets?

I like when both versions of films are included on the flipper DVDs. What is the group's opinion? Can "Full-Screen" ever be better than Original Aspect Ratio?

Robert George

"Better" is a subjective term. Because you are speaking in subjective terms, then the answer is yes, fullscreen can be "better" if that is what a particular viewer prefers.

Fullscreen (4:3) is not, however, an accurate presentation of a widescreen film. If the viewer's ultimate goal is a presentation as true to the original as possible, then fullscreen is never "better".

bis22

Sometimes I feel the same way about it being a little cramped vertically or just that it's framed too high, but I always go with the widescreen version since sometimes there are a lot of really cool compositions that don't have nearly the impact when the mattes are lifted. Plus, gotta get use out of my TV's 16:9 mode.

Jackskeleton

OAR is not about more picture, it's about correct picture.

zyzzle

I'm OAR all the way, especially on 16x9 sets where the anamorphic enhancement gives much more detail. Just wanting to know what you think about open matte for those with 4x3 sets.

Why did Kubrick insist that his films be shown open-matte? What about that opinion justified open-matte as "the correct picture" when many of the compositions look better in 1.85?

I enjoyed seeing WILLY WONKA in open-matte because I felt like I was being "treated" to previously deleted material! I know that seems crazy, but I actually like both versions! It is also entertaining to search for 'errors' when the mattes are opened.

futbol

I would think that seeing things you're not supposed to (booms, pants that ruin the joke of the character being naked) would throw you out of that world and back into this one, realizing you're just watching a movie, in the wrong way, no less.


That argument would just reinforce what people already think about widescreen - that you have to have a widescreen tv.

Look, personally, I hate full-screen, except of course when that's how it's supposed to be shown. As has already been stated, it's not about more picture, it's about the right picture.

So, to answer your question - no. I do not believe that full-screen can ever be better than OAR.

Spiky

Kubrick's 4:3 movies are filmed as 4:3. Willy Wonka was filmed as widescreen (1.85:1?). That's the difference, there are no "errors" in Kubrick's (AFAIK) because he filmed them for that format. As mentioned, it isn't about more pic, it's about correct pic.

Isn't the V miniseries supposed to be 4:3? I haven't seen it since it aired new, but I thought it was made for TV.

Robert George

No. This continues to be a misconception. Most films intended to be projected at 1.85:1 in theaters are shot full aperture 35mm. Some effects shots can be hard-matted at 1.66:1 or even 1.85:1, but the principle photography will be full frame on the camera negative. In rare instances, and mostly years ago in the earlier part of the widescreen era, a DP may use in-camera mattes (hard-matte), but this was rarely done then and virtually never done now.

Kubrick's flat films were shot like the vast majority of other flat 35mm films. Full frame 35mm (1.37:1), composed for 1.85:1, and matted in theatrical projection.

The simple truth is, Kubrick didn't like letterboxing and he just wanted his flat films shown on TV without mattes. To view Kubrick's films, and almost every other film produced for theatrical exhibition since the late fifties, as they were intended to be seen in the theater, it has to be in widescreen.

WhovianZorker

It was made for TV, but it was apparently ahead of its time (at least regarding screen ratio ). It was shot in widescreen.

Romerojpg

I love this chit chat, its just funny.

I see what I want to see, not what others want me to see.
but 99% of the time widescreen is far better, that other 1% of the time, well its up to me.

milo bloom

The only fullscreen DVD (not TV, etc) that I actively keep is the Elite Evil Dead. I believe the AB Book of the Dead version is overmatted. Raimi also numerous oppurtunities to LBX it on LD, and never did, making me believe it's a bit of retroactive thinking on that one. Plus the fact that Bruce Campbell is the one that supervised the new transfer, and not Raimi himself. I like Bruce, but I don't see him as knowing more about the AR than Raimi.

Aside from that and the Kubricks (that man was nuts, so I take all of his "preferences" with a grain of salt), I don't care about the extra image, I want the right image.

I do have the Secret of Nimh in fullscreen, but that was before my conversion and I would drop it in a heartbeat if I could.

Rypro 525

for the most part, i like seeing the mattes there because there isn't so much above their head. the only exceptions i;ve made are evil dead 1 and robocop cc. (which i think the mgm crops all four sides right)

japplen

How it was filmed is always a factor, but when someone asks me why people prefer widescreen, I always tell them to think about how their vision works. Our peripheral vision is sort of oval, so unless you have one glass eye, a rectangle view will work better. It's easier on the eyes and you will be able to better process the data. So, as for two-eyed people, a widescreen format is the better. Although, many don't realize it yet. Mainly because their TV size is too small for it to be an issue yet.

eXcentris

Are you sure?

Mad Dawg

There is a difference between "correct" and "right...oh, so very right."

Jojo

I also like widescreen but for there are so many times that the naughty bits were off the screen in the widescreen version. Open matted you will see lots more.

So in my opinion, if the open-matted transfer is available, they should include that on the DVD release in addtion to the widescreen version for those who want to see more picture information.

talemyn

Given the above graphics, I would like to revise our long-standing motto to the following:

"OAR is not about more picture, it's about naughty bits.".

zyzzle

Love that one! Open-matte being about the naughty bits!

Interesting observation about the binocular vision of sight having an oval field of vision... Maybe the fact that I am completely blind in one eye explains my "liking" for BOTH OAR and Open-Matte.

milo bloom: I also have the Secret of NIMH DVD in the only available Region 1 format, which is Full Screen. Do you or anyone else on the forum know if this film was Panned and Scanned for the DVD or if the matte was simply opened up? I couldn't find any info on this on the net.

I also agree that the open-matte version of a film should be made available with its OAR version on DVD. However, this should NOT be done at the cost of compression artifacts. Release a 2-disc or DVD18 and that would be great. However, I expect I'm in the minority with this wish, unfortunately...

milo bloom

Will you people stop posting that pic!! There's nothing to see!!!


And I'm not sure about that Secret of Nimh. I don't think it's open matte, but it's been so long since I've watched it. Maybe I'll try zooming it on my WS tv and see if that helps. Probably not.

calhoun07

There are a couple movies I feel are better viewed in open matte, and that's True Stories (the film is obviously filmed for a 4:3 composition; I could not imagine the movie with the tops and bottoms cut off) and Creepshow (you miss out on a lot of the comic book art and the voice balloons in the transition scenes especially).

But for the most part, I don't give a second thought if a movie was filmed in 4:3 or not. If a widescreen version is available, I am fine with that since most movies use the top and bottom as dead space anyway. I prefer to see the movies as they were originally presented in the theater, unless the director feels his movies should be viewed other wise, or I know the matte is actually cutting things off that should have been seen and it's not just dead space it's cutting off.

Rypro 525

i thought the wide went down a bit further. I haven't seen the dvd yet, but it wasn't that low was it. and teh full frame dvd doesn't show that much does it?

Gyno Rhino

No, you cannot make a film better by using anything other than the OAR.

The whole point is to see the film as the makers intended it to be seen.

calhoun07

So if a director wants you to see a movie in full frame only, that's cool?

DavidH

Maybe, BUT, what are his reasons for wanting you to see it in full frame or modified? For example, Coppola's reason (or advice given to him) for modifying Apocalypse Now on home video format is flawed.

DealMan

It's confirmed that The Evil Dead was framed for 1.66:1, so the newer Anchor Bay editions are slightly over-matted.

But to answer your original question: NO

Open matte is just as bad as Pan+Scan