What does OAR mean?
05-01-03, 04:22 PM
#5
DVD Talk Legend
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
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=160736
05-01-03, 04:35 PM
#7
DVD Talk Legend
What I feel is the essential philosophy of OAR is listed in my sig.
05-01-03, 04:43 PM
#8
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
05-01-03, 05:06 PM
#9
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PatrickMcCart
The Shining, without matting, is OAR.
The Shining, without matting, is OAR.
05-01-03, 07:55 PM
#13
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by audrey
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.
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.
05-01-03, 09:53 PM
#15
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by audrey
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.
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.
That is because at the time (of The Shining) 1.85:1 was becoming an industry norm in the United States, so what he did was, he shot his original negative, then he made the interpositive, then for theatrical release he would mask the interpositive, which meant he still had the original negative in full frame. This was also very important to Stanley. He was very conscious of the fact that you lose I think 27% of your picture when it is matted to 1.85:1. He hated it, he didn't find it satisfactory. He liked height.
DJ
05-01-03, 10:16 PM
#16
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by djtoell
Of course, the myth about it being only his "home video preference" will clearly never die.
DJ
Of course, the myth about it being only his "home video preference" will clearly never die.
DJ
Last edited by audrey; 05-01-03 at 10:23 PM.
05-01-03, 10:52 PM
#17
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by audrey
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.
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.
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
05-02-03, 10:23 AM
#18
DVD Talk Gold Edition
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.
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.
05-02-03, 04:53 PM
#21
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by djtoell
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).
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).
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.
Last edited by audrey; 05-02-03 at 05:01 PM.
