There is no such thing as Super35 film. The Super35 process uses the same 35mm film as any 35mm film process.

DJ

This is probably way too simple an idea to address/dismiss the 'Super 35' arguement (if it was and done the same as the example given for Air Force One, there should be more on the top/bottom of the frame on the 4:3 version as compared to the 16:9 version)

will someone that has the 16:9 R2/R4 set make a couple of screen grabs, and then someone with a (ewwwwwwwww...) tape of the same episode from an off air recording make the same grabs and stick them side by side. That would tend to say which way it is..

There's no need. It is already known that the 16x9 versions add more image to the left and right sides. This does nothing to tell us whether the Super35 process was used. All Super35 does is use an enlarged exposed aperture, including exposing the space on the film that is otherwise reserved for the soundtrack. Using that process, you can make any kind of framing decisions afterwards that you wish. It is entirely possible that Super35 was used to achieve the framings used in "Buffy."

DJ

Lando, it's this simple.. it doesn't matter if the image on the side you see is more, the fact remains that OAR is not about More pictures, it's about Correct aspect ratio based on how it was intended to be filmed by the director. in this case, the director has stated that it was ment in 4:3 and thus the OAR of this is 4:3 and no matter how better it looks in widescreen, it's not what the purest always fight for.

Given that Bits editor Bill Hunt actually doubts the truth of what Whedon says ("there's something else going on here"), there's little reason to doubt the veracity of the letter. It would be kind of weird for Hunt to invent a letter from Whedon and then disagree with it. Plus, it's not anything new; Whedon has said all of this before. But, no matter how many times Whedon says it, some people will just want widescreen because it's somehw "better" in their mind.

DJ

More from Digital Bits:

Be strong, R1! If all the other regions jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?

I hope that having that in my sig is helping folks like keep this idea in mind.

And somebody else mentioned "cramped and confined". I think that's the point. Buffy was forced into something she didn't want. The confines of the square screen help bring that point home IMO.

Essentally this contradicts half of the post i see on this forum. I've read posts where people get on large neon soapboxes and preach the advantage of Widescreen to the masses. Everyone uses OAR as the reason for that. But when a director says "i prefer full screen" everyone becomes the "it looks broken crowd" only in reverse, it's kind of funny.


My only complaint is that i wish Angel season 1 was put in widescreen only because Whedon (and i) prefer the show that way.

I'm curious if anyone that is anti-widescreen buffy has actually seen the R2 presentation? That's the only way I've seen seasons 4 and 5, so I can't really compare them. I have seen S6 in fullscreen so once that is out I'll judge for myself.

So OAR is determined by the director, and Whedon has directed 10 episodes in the four seasons the show has been done in widescreen. So maybe the rule needs altered to apply to this situation.

Did you not read what Whedon wrote? "The BUFFY's I (and others) shot were framed for traditional TVs."

I find it funny that when the director wants something other than widescreen, people start talking about "altering rules" in order to convince themselves that it's acceptable to watch something in the wrong aspect ratio.

DJ

Your quote doesn't make sense, and I'm not talking about altering rules. I'm just saying Whedon only directed 10 episodes in the last four years, so if OAR is the directors call only then he has a pretty small say.

What doesn't make sense? Whedon, the producer, is saying that every "Buffy" director framed for 4x3. How does that not make sense to you? Whedon produced the show and was always on the set, so he knows quite well how each show was shot.

Quote:

and I'm not talking about altering rules.

Oh really? So you didn't say "maybe the rule needs altered to apply to this situation."? I guess I'm hallucinating. Or, maybe, given the grammar of the sentence ("maybe the rule needs altered"?), you secretly meant something else.

Quote:

I'm just saying Whedon only directed 10 episodes in the last four years, so if OAR is the directors call only then he has a pretty small say.

Whedon, the producer, has explained that every director who worked for him framed for 4x3. If OAR is the director's call, then every director already made the call for 4x3.

DJ

In the cinema, directors tend to call the shots in a creative sense. In television, the producers have that power.

If Whedon says 4:3, then it's 4:3.

Holy vampire dust, Batman. Whew! This thread has grown into a major debate since I posted yesterday. Just finished reading it all and I'm less annoyed. As I originally posted yesterday:

However, Brian_92gsr noted:

That does support the theory that just because there are 16:9 versions, that doesn't mean that's the way they should be viewed. As jedidiah said:

Furthermore, Cardinal Fang asked:

Possibly so. This may, indeed, be the reason that Buffy has been released in R2 in 16:9. In other words, although it's not intended to be viewed that way, so many Europeans have widescreen TVs that they'd be peeved if Buffy were 4:3.

Two people mentioned that the 4:3 ratio gives a feeling of Buffy being "cramped and confined" and that is likely the intent. However, I can't help liking the more cinematic feeling of 16:9.

HOWEVER, the bottom line (as several people have said) is that the OAR (Original Aspect Ratio, the intended aspect) is 4:3. The fact that there are framing issues support this theory. Whedon's comments seem to be true, not simply an excuse. Despite what I may prefer, I'm satisfied.

The sign of someone who truly understands and appreciates the importance of preservation of artistic intent.

DJ

Interesting that so many who claim to be OAR advocates are really just 16:9 advocates. Just like Joe Six Pack, they could care less about what is intended, they just want to fill their screens.

I actually have a 4:3 non-anamorphic TV, so it has nothing to do with just filling the screen. I'm certainly not an "OAR-purist", though when I do watch movies it's always in OAR. I just think both of these shows are being filmed with both formats in mind. The errors due to widescreen are very few compared to errors such as boom mics in the shot (the only one I even saw was the bluescreen in Restless). I'm still curious if anyone else has actually seen the R2 release.

Before I drag myself to bed, I just want to clarify my statement, "Despite what I may prefer, I'm satisfied."

When I initially heard that Buffy was available in 16:9, my feeling was of annoyance because I interpreted it as if they intended the aspect ratio to be 16:9 for foreign markets, but here in the US they chose to crop the sides. As thedigitalbits.com said, it sounded fishy. However, I think we've pretty much established that the OAR is 4:3.

What I'd prefer is if Joss Whedon had decided in the beginning to film Buffy and Angel with 16:9 being the intended aspect ratio. Again, I prefer the more cinematic feel. And it has nothing to do with my TV screen (for the record, a rather small 27" 4:3 set).

However, my preference for widescreen Buffy is a rather moot point because Whedon stated that his intent was 4:3. Based on his statement and based on the analysis from people contributing to this thread (framing issues, etc.), I am satisfied with the choice to distribute it in the OAR. As a result, I wouldn't want it in 16:9. I want it in the OAR--despite my preference for 16:9.

To strike the deceased equine even further, I would absolutely be sick if studios went back and rereleased classics such as Citizen Kane in 16:9, either by matting it or by "restoring" the left and right (yeah, yeah, I know it's not possible because it wasn't filmed that way, but still...). Welles framed his scenes for 4:3. The composition is important; the OAR is important.

Hope this makes sense. I'm tired... Have fun.

Lot of people here trying to convince themselves they’re getting the best version when in fact Buffy in widescreen simply looks better and is a more involving immersive experience when letterboxed. As pointed out above Whedon has only directed a very few episodes and IMO is wrong about 4:3. I’ve seen that season in both 4:3 and widescreen and there’s no competition - Widescreen (as pointed out in the DVDFile piece) is the more aesthetically pleasing and better composed of the two versions. Frankly I’ll take the evidence of my own eyes over and above Whedon’s - He’s not infallible.

Y’all presumably have no problem disagreeing with opinions in real life that you believe to be wrong so why blindly and blithely accept this one like it’s engraved on a stone tablet? I can understand, I suppose, if you’ve not seen widescreen Buffy but until you do you really can’t say for sure which is better.

People who watch Full screen versions that are not OAR say they think it looks better also.

I do not care if some feel it looks better or not. I want to see the episodes the way they were intended to be viewed. As simple as that.

I have tried to watch my movies in their OAR since I was collecting Laser Discs. I also do not want to see everything in 16x9 since many movies should be shown in 1.85 to 1 or 2.35 to 1 in which case I will still see black bars on my movies on my 16x9 TV.

I am all about OAR unless there are nude women that could be seen if they showed it wrong then I would say screw OAR

This isn't an issue where opinions have any place. 2+2=4, not 5. The OAR of "Buffy" is 4x3, not 16x9.

I don't care which one looks better to me. I don't which one is "more involving" to me. I don't care which one is more "immersive" to me. I don't care which one is more "aesthetically pleasing" to me. I don't care which one I happen to think is "better composed." My opinions on those topics are irrelevant to the question of how the show should be presented. I happen to think that Good Burger would be a more involving immersive experience and more aesthetically pleasing if I just superimposed porno on top of the entire film, but that doesn't mean that the film should be presented that way; my opinion doesn't decide what's right for someone else's film. The presentation of Good Burger should not be decided based on my opinion, just as the presentation of "Buffy" should not be based on yours. Our opinions on these matters don't count.

This forum usually has a name for the sort of people who decide how to watch a movie or TV show based on what they happen to think looks good, no matter what the filmmakers intended to be seen. Joe-something-or-other...

DJ

You know, there's a scene in Pee Wee's Big Adventure where he pulls a seemingly endless chain out of the basket in his bicycle. OAR/Widescreen advocates claim that when the scene is viewed in open-matte fullscreen the gag is ruined because you can see the chain coming up through the bottom of the basket.

There's a scene in a season four Buffy episode where vines are supposed to be attacking the characters. In the widescreen version, the hands of crew members can be seen manipulating the vines. "Where the Wild Things Are."

Or equipment can be seen on the sides of the widescreen image, during a scene of and Buffy rolling down stairs in "This Year's Girl."

Or the sun visors at the edges of certain outdoor shots. "Goodbye Iowa."

How this any different than the Pee Wee situation? Because when it's widescreen being adapted to fullscreen, anything like this just ruins the entire movie. Hell, even a boom mike dipping into the unmatted frame proves that MAR is evil. But all of a sudden framing errors become acceptable if 4:3 is being modified to widescreen?

(I got the above examples from an old thread on the HTF, and there were caps. Anyone with a R2 set of S4? Can anyone cap the scenes in question?)

And on a related note, the episode "Once More, With Feeling," was broadcast widescreen, and presumably will be presented on the S6 DVDs that way as well.

Having that single episode presented widescreen gives it a deserved degree of uniqueness. Not exactly concrete proof that the rest of the series is intended to be 4:3, but it is something to consider.

It's not. When one error like this happens to an open-matte transfer of a 1.85:1 film, OAR advocates (rightly) cry bloody murder.

When it happens to a 16x9 transfer of a TV show meant to be seen in 4x3, a subset of those same people say that those mistakes are no big deal, even though there are quite a few of them (as people in this thread have pointed out).

The constant obsession with promoting "widescreen" as being "better" has come back to bite true OAR advocates: now, in their unending desire for widescreen, some have stopped caring about OAR altogether. This situation, of course, will only worsen as the installed base of 16x9 sets grows.

DJ