Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Now, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but this seems like following the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit. The reason OAR is so important is because it preserves the filmmaker's intentions in terms of the cinematic composition of their artwork. You may be "against" full-screen, but to zoom is is the same principle: fitting the picture to the frame rather than the frame to the picture.

Obviously, it's your preference, and I'm not trying to begrudge you whatever you prefer, but your claim that you "fully support OAR" when you are not watching films in OAR is a bit bizarre.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

droidguy1119, I have stated my case in multiple previous posts.

"Beware the beast Samre5, for he is the Devils pawn, alone among Gods primates, he hunts for AAR versions OAR movies that he already owns........shunn him.....drive him back into his jungle lair.....for he is the harbinger of death".

That's about it......isn't it ?

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

It made sense to the studios, who were convinced that "the masses" would not buy a film on DVD if it didn't fill their screen. So 4:3 versions were provided, either as on option on a release, as a separate release, or as the only release.

So we ended up with titles like Willy Wonka getting an only 4:3 release, until pressure from film fans pushed Warner to eventaully release an OAR version.

Or situations like 40-Year-Old Virgin, where Universal initially released the theatrical version of the film in only 4:3

Or Lord of War, where the Lions Gate initially only released it in 1.78:1.

In all of the above situations, the studio eventually corrected their mistake, but only because of consumer backlash from film lovers. However, there are other times where consumers are stuck with an AAR release as the only option (e.g. Creep, Matilda...).


To be clear, samre5 is only in favor of an AAR release as an option. My impression is that if a studio is only going to release one version of a film, he'd rather it be OAR, and he and other viewers can choose to crop it if they so like. However, he'd like AAR available as a secondary option, since it's his personal preference to view them that way.

So he doesn't "fully support OAR," since he doesn't view OAR himself some (most?) of the time, but he supports OAR releases over his own preferences.


Now this is just melodramatic. If you can't stand your opinions being criticized/countered, don't post them online. Don't act like you're being persecuted because people disagree with you.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Just realized that my use of "AAR (Altered Aspect Ratio)" my be non-standard.

Everyone agrees on the acronym OAR, but not for a description of non-OAR images.

For example, Wikipedia lists the acronym as "MAR (Modified Aspect Ratio)" for non-OAR releases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_...ratio_releases

Anyone have a preference? AAR or MAR?

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

"MAR" is the one I'm used to seeing.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Jay G., I was of course just being silly........I do not feel persecuted, I do not think that theatrical releases should be chopped up and distributed to people as the sole option. The people that feel it necessary to comment on what I should be viewing in my own home are just looking over my shoulder at the table and telling me that I shouldn't be eating my eggs scrambled.......don't you know that we all in here eat our eggs "sunny side up" ?? After all, we're all in the restaurant together , right? I feel that they should no more do this to me , than I should to them....it's just arrogant. I have not made a single reference to limit anybodys rights in any way.

I just feel very strongly that it's not for me to tell them what to choose or feel or vise-versa....apparently, people just can't seem to stick to facts. I haven't and wouldn't dare to comment on another persons choice. Again, I do not advocate the replacement of the theatrical release by some altered hacked up version and am in favor of covering all of the bases for everybody that may desire any given film....period. A simple search apparently has stirred up an old WAR that I was unaware of. I am now stuck in a philisophical debate in defense of my right to look for something that others have battled against and they are projecting and applying a set of criteria to me that just do not apply.........although the final result is the same sort of thing, my journey to this same place is a different process from the people that they are at war with.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Jay G., You don't think the "planet of the apes thing" was even a little funny ??

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Wrong...it was Kara Thrace! :D

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

MAR.

And I wish IAR (intended aspect ratio) was the standard rather than OAR.

OAR can be corrupted, and has been, to mean anything from original camera negative, original modified aspect ratio to its, proper meaning of, intended aspect ratio. Intended aspect ratio is clear and descriptive but everyone sticks with OAR out of habit.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Informative post as usual Abintra........Samre5 learning as we go.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Abintra, .......Where did you come up with the links to all of those titles as provided in your post #67.......was that all that you could find or was it just a quick search. Thanks

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

It's just a quick search of DVD Aficionado for titles with the words "modified" or "reformatted" in them. Some of the results are for 1.85:1 OAR titles modified to 1.78:1, which is actually extremely common and often unnoticeable, depending on the overscan on a TV.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

I've always defined OAR as "the aspect ratio the film was originally presented in." I've never seen it used as "original camera negative AR," since most 1.85:1 films have a camera negative of 1.33:1, but 1.85:1 is still most commonly referred to as the OAR for those films.

I do see a use for IAR, but not as a replacement for OAR. It could be used for those films where the director has a preference for something other than OAR, such as certain Criterions that have a "director's preferred aspect ratio", or for TV shows that have been broadcast simultaneously in 4:3 and 16:9, meaning that there's two OARs, but the producers have a preferred one.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Our Wal-Mart has one side of a wire display with assorted four-film collections of various titles/studio offerings for $12.00 (YMMV). Among them is one of Warner's 4 Film Favorites: International Spies Collection. The back of the case lists all three Austin Powers movies in 2.4:1 AR, and looks to have ported over all the commentaries and special features from the stand-alone versions. Spies Like Us, in full frame, is the fourth movie.

I didn't buy it, so I don't know if the first movie was remastered in 2.4:1 for standard DVD or if the description's in error (hey, it's happened before!).

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

This question will get the hive buzzin'............ Which has the higher resolution image.....a studio cropped dvd scaled to 1.78:1 from a 2.35:1 OAR movie or a 2.35:1 OAR presentation zoomed to full screen ? Both images displayed on a 16x9 TV.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

And sometimes that original presentation has been modified which is why the OAR wording can be misleading.

The Kubrick films come to mind as examples. I believe a studio or two, Lionsgate, has been known to use that wording on some modified transfers rather than conveying that they are genuinely modified.

IMDb sometimes lists the original negative ratio in their tech specs. Seems to be applied randomly without much context on when and why they list it.

I've noticed some other times people get confused about how a film/show may have been shot or originally presented and it becomes difficult to explain the difference between those and the intended aspect ratio.

The point being that OAR can and has taken on duplicitous meanings where as intended aspect ratio is more explicit in its meaning (though something can have multiple IARs but it aids in eliminating some of the above uses).

Jay G. answered this for me (thank you kindly). I'm sure there are a handful of others that meet that criteria also but I don't know them offhand (used to have a list I kept but lost it).

Those aren't supposed to be listed in those results based on their guidelines, for the reasons you detailed, so perhaps they will reconsider those when submitted. Those erroneous ones should be the exception though.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Well, a 2.35:1 OAR Blu-ray zoomed in to 1.78:1 will have a higher resolution than a 1.78:1 DVD. ;)

Seriously though, if people valued resolution over OAR, letterboxed laserdiscs would've lost out to 4:3 MAR releases.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

No, because I understand that OAR doesn't necessarily equal IAR. Just like original theatrical cuts don't necessarily equal the director's intended vision. However, there's value in a home video release that replicates the theatrical experience for a film, so OAR and theatrical cuts have their place, even if they aren't what were originally intented to be seen.

What's the wording though? They can't be using the wording "original aspect ratio." I've never seen the acronym OAR used by film fans to refer to the AR of the original negative.

But it's specified as original negative ratio, and not as just OAR.

I don't see how using IAR is going to clear up the confusion, since there's still going to be that disconnect between how it was shot and how it was presented.

Again, I think OAR is clear enough on its own, and where it's unclear, IAR would have the same difficulties. For example, with Kubrick, Warner maintained that he intended his movies to be 4:3 on home video, so they could've used the term IAR explicitly, instead of relying on the qualifier of "original negative aspect ratio". Movies like Planet Terror and Once upon a Time in Mexico could've used IAR explicitly as well, since Rodriguez apparently intends them to be that way on home video. At least with OAR, the studios have to modify the term, or use a different term, when the home video release is different from the theatrical.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

I gather that the answer is yes....although answered cryptically and with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Hypothetically, since I do not know if it even exists....which would have the higher resolution image.....a studio cropped "Bluray dvd" scaled to 1.78:1 from a 2.35:1 OAR movie or a 2.35:1 "OAR Bluray presentation" zoomed to full screen ? Both images displayed on a 16x9 TV for the sake of this comparison. Maybe someone is willing to answer this one with specifics only....the other shoe will drop in "three, two, one........

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Well, it depends. Let's assume that both are 1080p images. The studio would have to crop the 2.35:1 image from a digital master that was higher res (like 4K) in order for the 1.78:1 image to have more resolution in 1080p. If they crop a 2.35:1 1080p master to create the 1.78:1 image, then that's no different than zooming in with a BD player in terms of source resolution (although the studio's upscaling may be better).

Or, the studio would have to create a 1.78:1 1080p transfer straight from the film.

Of course, with the 1.78:1 crop, you're getting more resolution, but less overall image. Also, the resolution increase is only about 24% for that reduced image. Since 1080p is 6x the resolution of 480p, or about 500% more resolution, pining for that little bit more resolution seems petty (although there are some that wish Blu-ray had included a 2.35:1 "anamorphic" mode, which would've squeezed the 2.35:1 into the full resolution of the 16:9 image frame).

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Quick note: the name of the format is "Blu-ray", or "Blu-ray Disc", not "Blu-ray DVD". The DVD Forum has nothing to do with Blu-ray.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

[Of course, with the 1.78:1 crop, you're getting more resolution, but less overall image. Also, the resolution increase is only about 24% for that reduced image.]

Just to "zero in" on this particular part of your response.....your answer "appears" to be yes.

Then it would be beneficial to somebody who wanted this particular version as an alternative to the OAR version of any particular movie......of course, where image quality was what they desired if they were dissatisfied with the image degredation upon zooming a given 2.35:1 movie to full screen. My opinion of course, based on your facts.

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Yes, if you want a cropped version of a movie so it fills your screen, a studio release that's cropped from a super-HD source is going to give you a higher-resolution cropped image than cropping an OAR release with player's zoom. I really didn't think I was being unclear about that, and it's not even an opinion, but deductive reasoning.

However, my point about Blu-ray was that, with 6x the resolution of DVD, a crop of a 2.35:1 1080p Blu-ray is still going to have remarkable resolution, much more significant a resolution increase than a 1.78:1 cropped DVD release is going to give. If, for example, you wanted to watch T2 cropped, you'd be much better off cropping the 2.35:1 Blu-ray than watching a (non-existent) 1.78:1 DVD of it.

Also, the resolution difference between zooming a 2.35:1 OAR Blu-ray and a 1.78:1 MAR Blu-ray would only be noticeable on a 1080 TV. On 720p TVs, the resolution of the zoomed OAR disc would still be higher than what the TV could display.

And then there's the cost to the studios. Studios don't like releasing multiple versions of a single title (at least concurrently). Studios will make multiple releases to appease certain demographics, but it comes at a cost. Retail space is lost to multiple versions of the same film, space that could've gone to different titles, new or old. Manufacturing resources are used up, both in terms of time and money, meaning lesser titles may get delayed or cancelled. And production and design resources are used up, meaning other films won't get transfers, or certain special features can't be produced.

Do you really want to sacrifice the availability of more films on video just so you can have a version of a film that offers, at most, a 24% gain in resolution over if you just cropped the existing release of that film?

Re: 1.78:1 cropped from 2.35:1
 

Jay G., You really know your shit....... thank you for answering my post so candidly and informatively...... in your recollection, have you ever been called upon to provide the information provided in post #99 ? Just wondering if I am an alien or something. Thanks P.S.below>>


Quote:
Originally Posted by samre5
Then it would be beneficial to somebody who wanted this particular version as an alternative to the OAR version of any particular movie......of course, where image quality was what they desired if they were dissatisfied with the image degredation upon zooming a given 2.35:1 movie to full screen. My opinion of course, based on your facts.

quote:Jay G.
[I really didn't think I was being unclear about that, and it's not even an opinion, but deductive reasoning.]

It's my opinion (that is, of course, if you are referring to me) that it would be beneficial to somebody who wanted this particular version as an alternative to the OAR version of any particular movie......of course, where image quality was what they desired . According to numerous prior posters, it is not beneficial to zoom or crop in any fashion.

Quote: Jay G
[And then there's the cost to the studios. Studios don't like releasing multiple versions of a single title (at least concurrently). Studios will make multiple releases to appease certain demographics, but it comes at a cost. Retail space is lost to multiple versions of the same film, space that could've gone to different titles, new or old. Manufacturing resources are used up, both in terms of time and money, meaning lesser titles may get delayed or cancelled. And production and design resources are used up, meaning other films won't get transfers, or certain special features can't be produced.

Do you really want to sacrifice the availability of more films on video just so you can have a version of a film that offers, at most, a 24% gain in resolution over if you just cropped the existing release of that film?] >End Quote<

Response:
Jay G., I would not want an option to limit distribution or content on DVD or Blu-ray. I couldn't agree with this segment of your post more.

My initial search was for a single dvd...........my follow-up hypotheticals were to educate myself and maybe enlighten any passers by who would gain from our................. "spirited discussion".