Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Archives > Archives > DVD Talk Archive
Reload this Page >

Your favorite OAR 1.85:1, 2.35:1, 2.55:1 Anamorphic of course or P & S

Your favorite OAR 1.85:1, 2.35:1, 2.55:1 Anamorphic of course or P & S

 
Old 05-10-03, 01:35 AM
  #1  
Rest in Peace
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: PA/NJ Border
Posts: 1,392
Your favorite OAR 1.85:1, 2.35:1, 2.55:1 Anamorphic of course or P & S

Mine is 2.35:1 anamorphic with all the LIGHTS OUT or *shades* pulled during daylight, no black bars are seen at all just like in the movie theater!


Yours?

Last edited by danol; 05-10-03 at 10:55 AM.
danol is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 02:00 AM
  #2  
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 150
I'm all for 2.35:1 also. It just has that cinematic feel that makes me think "How in God's name did I ever stand watching VHS?"
Rehevkor is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 02:00 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,507
P & S is my favorite.
Robert is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 02:34 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
John Carpenter once said that 2.35:1 is the greatest rectangle imaginable. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Depends on what's being filmed, of course. I can't imagine The Shield in 2.35:1.
DonnachaOne is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 02:37 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Bacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: the 870
Posts: 21,176
Originally posted by Robert
P & S is my favorite.
[slap across the face] That's for blaspheming

I prefer 2.35: I just like the really wide look

Last edited by Bacon; 05-10-03 at 02:39 AM.
Bacon is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 02:47 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 9,975
I loooooove 2.35:1

but watch everything in OAR...

As for some things not being suitable for it, I've seen lots of different genres in that and while I might have once agreed, I can't anymore :P
BizRodian is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 03:18 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 8,790
Originally posted by BizRodian
I loooooove 2.35:1

but watch everything in OAR...

As for some things not being suitable for it, I've seen lots of different genres in that and while I might have once agreed, I can't anymore :P
maybe i'm in the minority but I like 1.85:1 the best. I have a 27" Panasonic Tau flat screen. 1.85:1 almost takes up the whole screen, but with 2.35:1 there's a lot of empty space. Neways, I'll just take OAR whenever possible, but I definitely like 1.85:1 more.
Dabaomb is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 03:36 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,725
2:35, even though it puts much bigger black bars on my WS TV... it gives every film so much more of a professional, artistic look!

I know it's sad, but when picking out a film to watch, and I'm stuck between 2 or 3, if only 1 of them is 2.35:1, I've often chosen that just b/c of the aspect ratio! (I did this just a few days ago choosing between Moonlight Mile and The Producers). I know, I'm a sad, sad case.
JonTurner is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 03:42 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,619
I really don't think about it. As long as it's OAR, I'm happy.
Gdrlv is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 04:06 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 3,294
2.35:1, because it's closest to the true perfect rectangle.

"1 by 4 by 9, the square roots of 1, 2 and 3."
darkflounder is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 08:24 AM
  #11  
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Upper West Side of the Center of the Universe
Posts: 208
1.85:1 is by far my favorite - no black bars on my widescreen HDTV. The problem I have with 'scope projection (2.35:1, etc.) is that very few directors know what to do with all this horizontal space - there is often a ton of 'dead space' on the screen. Brian DePalma knows what he's doing and his films look great in 'scope, but does Maid in Manhattan REALLY need to be a 'scope composition?!?
nycbrent is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 10:09 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,041
I donít have a preference. I think itís more about how the space w/in the frame is used rather than the shape of the frame.
audrey is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 10:52 AM
  #13  
Rest in Peace
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: PA/NJ Border
Posts: 1,392
Dabaomb & John Turner

Didn't you guys read my first subject post? How to get rid of the black bars, like they do in the movie theater, they turn the LIGHTS OUT, or at home in the daylight you pull the *shades* and watch rectangle movies like they were shown at the movie theater!


You will appreciate the longer view than a 1.85:1 short, only filling your 16 X 9!
danol is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 11:07 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
mdc3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Posts: 9,921
2.35:1 gives me some serious wood.

MATT
mdc3000 is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 11:24 AM
  #15  
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hartford, CT / Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 90
The greatest fallacy is:

look at the subject titles. P&S isn't an OAR! 4x3 (1.33:1) is an OAR, but P&S is certainly not! I think that a big mistake was made abandoning 1.33:1. It's probably the best (You can tell I watch lots of 40's films and older). That said, I would never ever want to see a 1.33:1 version of a widescreen film. Give me OAR or give me nothing.
Schuyler is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 11:30 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Originally posted by nycbrent
The problem I have with 'scope projection (2.35:1, etc.) is that very few directors know what to do with all this horizontal space - there is often a ton of 'dead space' on the screen. Brian DePalma knows what he's doing and his films look great in 'scope, but does Maid in Manhattan REALLY need to be a 'scope composition?!?
Insert "space for Lopez's bottom" joke here.

Ah, the crime of Super35. Do you ever just go onto IMDb, look up certain cinematographers who know how to REALLY compose a shot, and make a point to watch their films?

I'm not even a big fan of a lot of De Palma's films. But CRIKEY, all those split diopter shots in Dressed To Kill... fantastic.

Vilmos Zsigmond, a man who knows the quality of widescreen, is doing Kevin Smith's latest. I'm really looking forward to it.
DonnachaOne is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 12:43 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 897
IMHO, nothing beats 2.35:1.
Deckard-10 is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 01:01 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
JimRochester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Rochester, NY. USA
Posts: 18,008
For most I prefer the 2.35:1 ratio, but I'll agree with things like comedies or close quarters, the 1.85:1 sometimes is more appropriate.
JimRochester is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 05:48 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Visalia, Ca., USA
Posts: 3,722
Pan and scan or fullscreen is my favorite because my TV is full. 1.85:1 if O.A.R. is very cool too. 2.35:1 sucks because almost half my TV is black bars. I bought a 32" HDTV not to have a 17" TV viewing area. Only thing worse than 2.35:1 is that stupid Atlantis DVD I just bought that is 2.40:1 and boring.
GMLSKIS is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 06:15 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1,086
P&S is an OAR?!?!?!?

Do you mean 1.33:1?

What about 1.66:1?

My favorite is 2.35:1 for those nice panoramic shots.

Originally posted by GMLSKIS
Pan and scan or fullscreen is my favorite because my TV is full. 1.85:1 if O.A.R. is very cool too. 2.35:1 sucks because almost half my TV is black bars. I bought a 32" HDTV not to have a 17" TV viewing area. Only thing worse than 2.35:1 is that stupid Atlantis DVD I just bought that is 2.40:1 and boring.
"Fullscreen" = black bars on the sides of my 16:9 TV so how can they call it fullscreen?

1.77:1 = fullscreen on my TV, and 1.85:1 also fills my screen nicely. I get small black bars with 2.35:1.

I would rather see the whole picture the way the filmmakers intended than chop off 33% just to fill my screen even on a 13" TV.
karnblack is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 06:43 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,065
Agree with some members above who said 2.35:1 has a more cinematic feel to it

I don't think I've ever seen a 2.55:1 movie

What's most important to me though is the OAR. Buena Vista and New Line take note
Squirrel God is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 06:46 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 2,202
I'd have to go with 2:35

A perfect example is "Lawrence Of Arabia" the deserts scenes look amazing!

David Lean was a master at using widescreen lenses
shanester is offline  
Old 05-10-03, 10:59 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
jfoobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 37,812
I prefer 2.15:1, but the only DVD I own with a film shot in this aspect ratio is my copy of Twikoff SE.

Great movie.
jfoobar is offline  
Old 05-11-03, 01:55 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
PatrickMcCart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 1,030
2.21:1

I love wide ratios, especially 70mm. Every ratio has its purpose and is usually fantastic for whatever film used.

65mm shooting is the best, of course... you get your huge image, plus non-anamorphic shooting. Deep focus AND wide frame!

It's a pity that 2.35:1 films aren't shot on 70mm and flat films not shot on VistaVision... at least outside of the occasional film with VV effect shots.
PatrickMcCart is offline  
Old 05-11-03, 02:29 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,726
Always been 2:35:1, and I have no fancy Widescreen TV.
Ranger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.