topic

Of A Revolution

Original Aspect Ratio. Essentially the ratio a film was created for, and usually exhibited theatrically in.

It means that you have not yet bothered to look at the FAQ on the top of the page:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=160736

There is a strip club in town called Madame Oars.
That has nothing to do with said topic.

What I feel is the essential philosophy of OAR is listed in my sig.

OAR, original aspect ratio, is a simple term for video exhibiting the correct aspect ratio for the film.

If it's what was in theaters, reccomended by the filmmakers, or part of a variable aspect ratio format, that's fine.

The Shining, without matting, is OAR. Amadeus screened at 2.35:1 is OAR. Citizen Kane exhibited at 1.33:1 is OAR.

What is not OAR?

Anything the filmmakers do not approve of or anything obviously incorrect. It just takes simple common sense!

Hmmmm….I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to call the full frame release of The Shining OAR since it was composed for and shown theatrically at 1.85. Prior to his death, Kubrick expressed a preference for the home video release to be full frame, so maybe Intended Aspect Ratio might be more appropriate in this case.

Ruh-roh... Here we go again...

....(running and hiding in the Otter Farm)

It means nothing when it comes to buffy season sets.

Well then I say we should demand the ITAR(Intended Theater Aspect Ratio) of it instead of the ATAR (Altered Television Aspect Ratio) of it

OAR is just 3 letters but are very dangerous when they are included with the phrase "not in it's original"

Kubrick composed for 4x3. It was not his "home video preference," it was his preference, period. To quote Kubrick assistant Leon Vitali:

Of course, the myth about it being only his "home video preference" will clearly never die.

DJ

I really don’t want to drag this thread OT…I posted the comment about The Shining because I thought it was a poor example to use for OAR since there is so much controversy surrounding the flick. That said, the issue is more complicated than your post implies and is covered in greater depth at the Kubrick FAQ—questions 11 and 13: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/#n1s1 and http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/h...g/shining.html. Question 1 also contains relevant info on the AR.

Stainforth, an assitant editor, seems to explain what his experience was as he did his job. Vitali, who worked with Kubrick for decades, explains what Kubrick actually thought.

And while the issue may be more complicated than what my post implied, it's certainly more complicated than Kubrick having a "home video preference" (something that Stainforth does not claim).

DJ

OAR = Original Aspect Ratio
So what does Original Aspect Ratio mean? Nothing. I have never found a definition of the acronym in an authoritative print medium, say a dictionary or book on film. I would like to be proved wrong. No, a web site won't do. They are easily and quickly changed.
Anyway, the first use of the term I can recall was in the Home Theater Forum (HTF) and the person who used it says his intended meaning was "the ratio in which a film was originally exhibited theatrically". Lately I have noticed that some people have introduced "directors intent" into the meaning. I suppose that is fair enough for a term that has no "official" meaning. The problem is that now you have two possible definitions, one embraces original exhibition and the other director's intent. Director's intent and original exhibition are usually in sync... but certainly not always. Television has seldom been mentioned in the past but this will be a problem and it will likely get worse with the release of more seasons of recent TV shows (witness the Buffy thread).
The one thing nearly everyone agrees on is that pan & scan is the devil from hell. Hope that helped more than it confused Swaqieu.

On this forum it means widescreen.. because it's always better no matter what..

Good call Easy....couldn't have said it better myself.

AFAIK the notion that Kubrick preferred The Shining to be released in full frame on home video stems from Warner Bro., not Stainforth or Leon Vitali. Although Mr. Vitali does say: … that Stanley always insisted that the video transfers were done the way he shot them through the camera.

With all due respect to Mr. Vitali, some of his technical information is a bit suspect; see for example his comments on why none of the films released 1.66 are anamorphic. And even according to Vitali, The Shining was not composed for academy: He [Kubrick] composed his shots for 1.66, which is the full screen, but he wouldn't be hurt by going to 1.85 if he had to do it. Add to that the comments from Gordon Stainforth and the Steadicam operator Garrett Brown (who claims that Kubrick asked him to frame for 1.85) and the issue becomes clouded.

In any event, I don’t want to get into a pissing contest—none of us have the inside scoop. My point is only that the OAR for The Shining is questionable.