I agree with other posters, just putting the OAR on there, and mentioning that it is the original theatrical presentation would be good. the problem with saying modified is some people look at modified as bad, and some look at it as, "oh I don't have a widescreen TV so the filmakers are making it so it will fit on my TV, thats good". Also instead they should make the fact that they modify it a lot more clear. Too many times you see it in really small print on the back/bottom of the DVD case, "standard version, this film has been modifed to fit your television". "Standard" version should be changed to, misleads people to think it is the norm.

Probably true, but at the same time, "Letterbox" was pretty standard for a long time, but "Widescreen" ended up replacing it . . .

This is simple.

1. There are two ways a DVD can be encoded, 4x3 or 16x9. That should be on the box ( its usually called enhanced for widescreen TVs when its 16x9 encoded but just calling it 16x9 encoded or 4x3 encoded would be simpler I think).

2. The final displayed aspect ratio should also be on the box ( 1.33:1 , 1.85:1, 2.35:1)
etc. This could be called diplayed aspect ratio or something similar

3. The last marking would be OAR if #2 is same as OAR or marked NON-OAR if #2 isnt and state the "modifed from" aspect ratio so you would know how bad its butchered.

This is all I would want and ever need. In fact, what else is there to know about a DVD regarding aspect ratios?

Ooops I forgot to mention, FULLSCREEN should never be used anymore as it is only true with a certain aspect ratio set and we now have two different aspect ratios in wide usage. AXE IT!

Widescreen and letterboxed doesnt tell you much at all so I would think it could go away too at this point. Just #1,2,3 above is all I would ever want.
I forgot to mention, displayed aspect ratios between about 1.54:1 and 1.78:1 are seldom seem or used but they benefit from 16:9 encoding on 16:9 sets
and would be PILLARBOXED instead of letterboxed. I dont think we want to go there on the DVD box. It could be assumed if you know #1,2, and 3.
JCO

Letterschlocking, or cutscreen

EDIT: It's never a bad time to bring up these T-shirt designs again...

Full screen is a slight misnomer. That's pretty clear. Almost more so is full frame, a term that really bugs me.

What is the frame to which this refers? When we're talking a scope movie shot with an anamorphic lens, isn't the full frame actually the entire letterboxed picture? It's just been squeezed onto a film frame that has essentially the same dimensions as a standard TV screen.

Yet when these movies are released in full screen, they are often referred to as full frame. Technically, it would seem the widescreen version IS full frame. If the anamorphic lens exposes a complete letterboxed picture to the entire film frame, full frame would represent that entire picture.

When we're talking open matte, the full frame is rarely, if ever, used. The picture as seen theatrically is reframed using information hidden by the mattes, while information on the sides is cropped. So you don't see the FULL frame. Something is almost always matted out of the presentation.

How about using truth in advertising? A good solution to the terminology issue might be this:

Movies shot anamorphically

Widescreen is labeled as "Original Aspect Ratio."
Full screen is labeled as "Pan and Scan."

Movies shot open matte

Widescreen is labeled again as "Original Aspect Ratio."
Full screen is labeled as "Open Matte."

Movies whose OAR is 1.33:1

One release in that aspect ratio. Not sure what to call it.

Then add supplemental displays to the DVD section of your friendly neighborhood retailer that explain each label with clear illustrations of exactly what it means.

I wouldn't use "edition" in the label because it feels excessive, but also because the word would get redundant quickly on releases that are Special Editions, Ultimate Editions, Platinum Editions, Definitive Editions, Extreme Editions, Tricked Out Editions, etc, etc.

--THX

Neither proves more a misnomer than original aspect ratio.

You know what would be easier than coming up with different names for the formats? Having everything released in OAR only!

Yes I know this is a shocking and crazy idea, but after the initial shock from those who currently buy foolscreen there would be a lot less confusion among consumers and I am sure most people on this board would be dancing in the streets. This would also save the studios money by not wasting the money on a second foolscreen transfer and having to print (possibly) two different versions. This would also payoff for some films as possibly a better transfer or more extras because there wouldn't be second version of the film on the disc.

<insanity>
Everyone write your local congressman to have this passed as law!! Maybe even an amenment to the constitutuion. For those of you outside the US please complain to the appropriate government entity.
</insanity>

Wow, that is really, really sad.

It is a shame that most companies are not willing to educate the consumers on the difference between widescreen and fullscreen. It is nice that once in a blue moon, you'll see a DVD that shows on the back of the case or on the inner sleeve, the difference between both kinds of presentations, such as with Stigmata. But for the most part, these poor people need to learn these things themselves on the internet as I'm sure some of us in the online DVD community have done. Some of you I know, try and educate some of the consumers yourself if you're working in a place of retail, but there are a lot of people that are out there, that genuinely don't care. There are many people who aren't that involved in what they watch and how they watch it, as long as they can watch it. There's a lot of people who are only 'casual' viewers, or they might have a small television that's 19 inches or something who don't feel as if they would benefit from the oar. So whatever, let them be. It's an ongoing battle that nobody will ever win unless a company actually decides to change their habits of distributing films, and others follow behind them. I'm sure giving people a choice when they're at a store buying DVD's, is better business anyways.

Excellent suggestions. It certainly would keep things straight.

What is? The Savetele reference, or the T-shirt designs?

I strongly disagree because the same DVD cannot be "fullscreen" presentation on both the old 4x3 and 16x9 monitiors currently in usage so the term "fullscreen" is obsolete, meaningless ,and needs to go away NOW and forever!

1) Dumbass version
2) People who care about movies version.

Then you actually don't disagree with what you quoted, because the poster in question suggested alternatives to avoid using "fullscreen".

DJ

I think Widescreen should stay Widescreen.

I think Fullscreen should always be called Pan and Scan, whether it is Pan and Scan, or Open Matte.

I'm sure there are SOME, but VERY FEW Fullscreen movies that have a Fullscreen OAR are released in Widescreen, so they just wouldn't have to be labeled as to what their aspect ratio is in those terms, it could just state the aspect ratio on the back.

Adding more to the confusion is some stuff is labeled "Full Screen" when it's shot in 1.33 for the old academy ratio or TV, and of course that's how it's supposed to be. And of course it isn't "fullscreen" on a widescreen TV.

"Original" and "Modified"

I think that's simple enough, no matter what kind of TV you have.

OAR version enhanced for 16x9 televisons/displays
Non OAR version formatted to fit your screen
OAR version presented in it's original 1:33.1 format

These work for me.

I think that the graphics of the screen shape (4:3 and/or 16:9) should be required to be printed on the DVD box with whatever text they want. A picture is worth....

What I'd REALLY like to see change is the slide at the beginning of P&S movies. I have a 16:9 set and will occasionally buy a pay per view or on-demand movie that is 4:3 and see: "This film has been modified from it's original format. It has been formatted to fit this (your) screen." I've seen "this" and "your" and neither is correct. I'd rather see: "This is not the original film seen in theaters. It has been cut to fit a 4:3 television." Feel free to replace "cut" with "changed" or "butchered".

Off Topic: Once again, here in the "DVD Talk" forum where the members (I assumed) were the "I love & respect everything movies" kind of people, we still get the "" post. Why? All by itself, the "" is kind of a threadcrap, so I'm thinking if you're tired of WS vs FS threads (or maybe the argument altogether), click on the next thread!

Widescreen: "33% More Movie!"

J6P can't resist supersizing, after all!

I suggest we take up using OTHAR, Original THeatrical Aspect Ratio. Only because it is a more fun word to say that OAR.

I am OTHAR, of the artistic people!

Is that what you had in mind?

Exactly! I hereby declare this movie OTHAR, and it is good!

Edit: Fullscreen/Pan&Scan would be NOTHAR, I guess.

Hey, did you watch that movie on cable last night? No, for it was NOTHAR, and not worthy of my eyes!