For us purists who love and respect original aspect ratios, and who have always been mortified by pan 'n scan and "full screen" (4:3) transfers...one heartening element of the creeping Blu Ray adoption is that (as far as I'm aware) all Blu Rays are coming out in the original AR.

Obviously that widescreen TVs are becoming the norm helps this issue.

Finally, it seems we have a film delivery system that is set to deliver the original AR for all consumers - scope movies stay scope - without being butchered to fit the shape of the consumer's TV!

Anyway, to me it's one more reason to cheer Blu Ray on!

Bye Bye and good riddance to "fool-screen" DVD....

Let us hope it's ghost doesn't rise in some form in the Blu Ray era.

(The closest I've seen in these terms is that many folks will use the "zoom" functions of their TV to fill the screen. I was at a neighbor's house and it's amazing just how BAD he'd made a Blu Ray look by doing this. But even though people still do this, it strikes me as somehow less fundamentally insidious than the studios themselves actually stooping to distort the product from the get-go).

I love OAR content as much as the next avs-er but have you actually had a problem finding movies on dvd released (as in the dvd was released, not the movie) in the past 7 years? I can't think of a single film that is ONLY available in pan and scan on dvd from this century... can you?

I love OAR content as much as the next avs-er but have you actually had a problem finding movies on dvd released (as in the dvd was released, not the movie) in the past 7 years? I can't think of a single film that is ONLY available in pan and scan on dvd from this century... can you?
There are still a few out there. Grumpy Old Men comes to mind.

What really sucks is that there are still quite a few releases that are widescreen but non-anamorphic. The first seasons of both House and Metalocalypse come to mind.

I I can't think of a single film that is ONLY available in pan and scan on dvd from this century... can you?


The entire collection of GIDGET movies from Sony...in glorius 4:3.

I was infuriated...and I remain so.

Sony even had the gall to proclaim on the packaging that GIDGET was done from a "New High Definition Transfer".

As lucky as we have been so far with blu maintaining OAR, when it becomes more popular you will start seeing 2.35:1 cropped to 16X9 as well as pre-1953 movies cropped to 16X9 widescreen dimensions. The first casualty will be the Koch Vision blu-ray release of 1939s "Gulliver's Travels" coming in March - yes it has been confirmed to be widescreen!

I love OAR content as much as the next avs-er but have you actually had a problem finding movies on dvd released (as in the dvd was released, not the movie) in the past 7 years? I can't think of a single film that is ONLY available in pan and scan on dvd from this century... can you?

Allow me to enlighten you :D Walt Disney home video released a whole slew of their catalog titles for the first time on DVD well within the last 7 years that were full-frame only:
To name a few...

Follow Me, Boys
The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band
That Darn Cat! (1965)
In Search of the Castaways
Son of Flubber
The Gnome-Mobile

Some foreign Blu-ray releases have been the "new" fullscreen (i.e., reformatted 16x9 instead of original 2.35:1). The UK release of Equilibrium by Momentum Pictures is one I accidentally purchased before I knew better...

As lucky as we have been so far with blu maintaining OAR, when it becomes more popular you will start seeing 2.35:1 cropped to 16X9 as well as pre-1953 movies cropped to 16X9 widescreen dimensions. The first casualty will be the Koch Vision blu-ray release of 1939s "Gulliver's Travels" coming in March - yes it has been confirmed to be widescreen!
I wouldn't mind if Super35 2.35 movies were opened up to 1.78 and have player add mattes for those that want OAR.

The only edition of The Trouble With Angels on DVD is glorious pan-and-scan from Columbia Home Video, where TCM has been running a letterboxed version since long before the DVD release; there's no excuse for that.

White Christmas is a slightly weird case on DVD; though VistaVision was designed to be displayed at a variety of aspect ratios, it's on DVD at 1.78:1 but the LaserDisc presented the full negative frame at 1.6:1.

As lucky as we have been so far with blu maintaining OAR, when it becomes more popular you will start seeing 2.35:1 cropped to 16X9 as well as pre-1953 movies cropped to 16X9 widescreen dimensions. The first casualty will be the Koch Vision blu-ray release of 1939s "Gulliver's Travels" coming in March - yes it has been confirmed to be widescreen!

It may be the first pre-1950s movie to be cropped, but it isn't the first casualty. The Roy Orbison: Black and White Night concert and the Dragon's Lair game were cropped to 16x9. Digital Leisure apparently realized their mistake and offered both versions on their subsequent release, Space Ace. I hear that the Thunderbirds TV show is being released overseas cropped as well. Seinfeld is being aired in HD on TBS cropped to 16x9, so there's a threat that its eventual release could be cropped as well (though I trust Sony to release it OAR).

There may be others I don't know about. The IMAX titles are technically cropped, but I've accepted the explanation about how IMAX doesn't really have an aspect ratio.

For some reason, there seems to be an acceptance of cropping to get rid of side bars, yet letterbox bars are fine. I don't know why that is.

There's also the case of South Park, which, if the HD DVD episode is any indication, will probably be 16x9 when the BD comes out. However, that's a gray area, because the creators of the show are recomposing it for 16x9, similar to how Pixar did for some of their titles on DVD. It isn't really pan and scan, but rather moving the subjects around in the computer to accommodate the wider frame. The purist in me would prefer OAR, but in that case I'd say it's acceptable.

We may get to to see Full Screen editions once the BD production cost reaches DVD levels. It may still be possible for Studios to offer FS editions provided they stop including Digital Copy which I feel is a total waste of time, effort and money.

The cropping will continue, but in different ways and eventually, say ten years from now, Wal-mart will begin the push for 2.35:1 films to be cropped to 1.78:1. It WILL happen.

You see, the fight will never end because the uneducated masses will always be the folks businesses will cater to.

I think that Tv's should just scale the borders up/down electronically. I'd buy one of those.

A UK station called ITV released an old UK show called Thunderbirds, which was only ever filmed in 4:3, as a 16:9 BD release.

Those muppets cut off so much stuff, it wasn't even funny.

Needless to say, after reading some reviews, I avoided like the plauge and bought the SD DVD box set :eek: for a much cheaper price.

I may well buy the BD set, if they ever acquire a brain and release it in its OAR.

Seggers

I think if blu-ray becomes mainstream enough to start replacing DVDs then their will be 1.78:1 Blu-rays along side the OAR ones. I just hope that if it does come to this I will alaways be able to get the OAR version. many times when buying older catalog DVDs I've found many big box stores such as wal*mart will only carry the full screen versions. this countinues to this day. I asked why. they said its based on the sales of each version what ever sells more that's what they carry down the line. this ended up being full screen in most cases.

I also hope we don't get both versions on the same disc. either via a fliper or in a worst case the choise at the begining were each version of the film will ocuppy 25gbs of the 50GBs.

I think it has to do with both uneducated and those who dislike the bars. I've talked to those aware of OAR vs. fullscreen and some have said they know their losing possible picture but they rather use their entire screen then stare at black bars. so I think it can be a prefrence to some...

I do hope they always mantain OAR with blu-ray..

Allow me to enlighten you :D Walt Disney home video released a whole slew of their catalog titles for the first time on DVD well within the last 7 years that were full-frame only:
To name a few...

Follow Me, Boys
The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band
That Darn Cat! (1965)
In Search of the Castaways
Son of Flubber
The Gnome-Mobile

you can add snow dogs to that list also, there still no widescreen version of it. i want the movie but i'm not going to buy the full screen version.

Well, like someone else mentioned. People will simply Zoom or Stretch the image. In fact, just yesterday, I go to my older sisters house. They just got a cheap 32 inch widescreen TV (with tons of backlight bleeding at the edges) and lo and behold, it was Stretched. They didn't have a ton of HD channels so the majority of Standard channels made it so that they felt compelled to fill it up. Afterall, they are trying to get as "Big" as possibly, 32 was all they could afford, so when a large percentage of the screen isn't even used, it is as if they are being cheated.

I think some of you people underestimate the feeling. At work, 3 weeks ago, when the Dark Knight came out. Afterwards we went to target. I got the blu ray version. I had to almost forcefully make the secretary get the Widescreen DVD version. But I wasn't there when another aide went in and bought it. Lo and Behold he got the full screen version. His reasoning is he hates the Widescreen version because you look too much of the screen. I remember when I was in high school, in the early days of DVD. I got a 15 inch Sony Trinitron monitor and had DVD player on my computer. I remember stretching the screen literally with the controls, to try to fill up a larger portion of that tiny 15 inch screen that was giving up a large percentage of it's real estate. Later, I gained the appreciation for the widescreen format, but don't underestimate other people.

Better, I think Most content now should be switched to the Widescreen format because we all know, most TVs will now be bought in that format. But, people will still have problem with 2.40:1 ratio. It is horrendous on a 4:3 TV, but it is still giving up a large chunk of space in a widescreen format for MOST people. I think it is time for a MORE universal aspect ratio be established. OR atleast Used more often in movies. I don't see what is wrong with 1.85:1 or 1.78:1. For example, in the Dark Knight, I much rather the IMAX picture of 1.78:1 as it was A. Much Clearer and cleaner, and B. it fully filled the screen, so it made the impact even more glorious and obvious. In fact, from my perspective, the digital imax format, should be used more of a defacto standard now, since it makes for a much better looking picture, and now with Blu-Ray, we can much better take advantage of the great 4K picture it provides via 1080P. Just a suggestion, but I'm fine with aspect rations personally, But don't be surprised when people will begin to moan when they get a widescreen TV, only to STILL be plagued with Large Black bars on the top and bottom of their TV when the film is displayed in a 2.40:1 or 2.35:1 ratio. I think a lot of the general public, thinks that getting a Widescreen TV will completely eliminate these issues.

P.S. even at Work, when our HD TV is on, I see people asking why the hell are there black bars on the left and right side of the picture with most channels. Go figure right???

As lucky as we have been so far with blu maintaining OAR, when it becomes more popular you will start seeing 2.35:1 cropped to 16X9...

This will no doubt happen to cater to people like my dad...he recently got his first HDTV and was asking why he was still seeing black bars on his blu-rays. I think he was zooming in to get rid of the bars too. :mad: :( he expected that he would never see black bars again now that he had a widescreen tv.

there needs to be better education on aspect ratios for the masses. Maybe a series of commercials or something. (hopefully they would be more clear than the Feb. 2009 digital tv transition ones I've seen; but that's for another thread)

I think that so far studios have been good at keeping 2.40:1 films in their OAR. However, I'm worried that if more 4:3 material comes out on BD, they'll cave in to the masses and crop for 16:9.

I think if you are dumb enough to still get fullscreen DVDs you deserve to have the crap product you just bought.

Amusing thread.
The answer to the OP's original question, is NO.
J

I believe OAR, 4:3 and 16:9 pan and scan versions can all be rendered from a single OAR encode via BD-J. That would end the nonsense once and for all. But even then, I'm afraid it would default to 16:9.

But I agree with the other posters above, as BD becomes more mainstream, there will be more pressure for full screen, and with the difference less drastic than with 4:3, it would be even harder to fight it.

But I agree with the other posters above, as BD becomes more mainstream, there will be more pressure for full screen, and with the difference less drastic than with 4:3, it would be even harder to fight it.

Actually I have the opposite view. 2:35 or similar wide formats aren't any where as annoying for most people as they are on the 4x3 jobby. You also will continue to get more TV for less money so I think the pressure will be less. Having said that I used to belong to a forum similar to AVS in Canada that is advocating not moving to digital OTA and that all BD be in 16x9. So maybe I am way off base.

Better, I think Most content now should be switched to the Widescreen format because we all know, most TVs will now be bought in that format. But, people will still have problem with 2.40:1 ratio. It is horrendous on a 4:3 TV, but it is still giving up a large chunk of space in a widescreen format for MOST people. I think it is time for a MORE universal aspect ratio be established. OR atleast Used more often in movies. I don't see what is wrong with 1.85:1 or 1.78:1.

Yikes. I see you are pretty new to the forum. Newly produced prime time TV shows are mostly shot in HD and some form of wide screen. Shows that aren't are shot that way either to keep the cost down (non scripted) or because the equipment isn't available yet. That is often the case with local programming. The pressure will mount for these to change as both more HDTVs get into houses and more people clue in and start getting an HD source.

The Imax presentation of parts of TDK look great because of the massive size of the frame not so much it's aspect ratio. Shooting an entire feature film in IMAX is almost impossible due to the bulk, noise and cost of the equipment. Digital recording will probably over come these issues.


I think it is time for a MORE universal aspect ratio be established. OR atleast Used more often in movies. I don't see what is wrong with 1.85:1 or 1.78:1.

Come see the glorious restored re-release of Lawrence of Arabia in glorious 70mm now cropped to 1.78:1. :eek: (I didn't mean it, I didn't mean it, I didn't mean it. Please don't ban me. I know I shouldn't have even have typed it.)

You will find that there are a lot of people who will tell you that the new standard for TVs should have been 2:35. I would be among them. The wider aspect ratios actually match the way your eyes work. You can see a larger arc side to side than they can up down with out having to move your eyes. But at the end of the day the choice has always been up to the director and possibly photography director and that is where it should stay.

I love OAR content as much as the next avs-er but have you actually had a problem finding movies on dvd released (as in the dvd was released, not the movie) in the past 7 years? I can't think of a single film that is ONLY available in pan and scan on dvd from this century... can you?

Yep, "Star 80".

Thanks to everyone for all the replies, luckily (for me) I don't really know of those movies nor do I have interest in them although it's a shame that there are ANY releases not in OAR from the past 7 years.

I loved Grumpy Old Men but I'm pretty sure that DVD is from '98 or so (I remember seeing it when I got my first dvd player [in 1998] and I don't think they've ever released a new one).

Well I'm glad that all those mentioned as P&S only, are ones I have no intention to see, and many I never even heard of. Since I've been watching DVD's from the day it was available I can say with confidence that I haven't run into a title that I was interested to see that wasn't available in it's correct AR in the last 8 years or so. A notable exception was the rental from NF of Gattaca on DVD, which was released in the last century. :D Anyway from the dawn of DVD we made some real progress. But it will remain the never ending quest to rid the process entirely. The worst offenders are however are cable operators. The practices I see there is nothing compared to anything on home video.

For us purists who love and respect original aspect ratios, and who have always been mortified by pan 'n scan and "full screen" (4:3) transfers...one heartening element of the creeping Blu Ray adoption is that (as far as I'm aware) all Blu Rays are coming out in the original AR.

Obviously that widescreen TVs are becoming the norm helps this issue.

Finally, it seems we have a film delivery system that is set to deliver the original AR for all consumers - scope movies stay scope - without being butchered to fit the shape of the consumer's TV!

Anyway, to me it's one more reason to cheer Blu Ray on!

Bye Bye and good riddance to "fool-screen" DVD....

Let us hope it's ghost doesn't rise in some form in the Blu Ray era.

(The closest I've seen in these terms is that many folks will use the "zoom" functions of their TV to fill the screen. I was at a neighbor's house and it's amazing just how BAD he'd made a Blu Ray look by doing this. But even though people still do this, it strikes me as somehow less fundamentally insidious than the studios themselves actually stooping to distort the product from the get-go).

Come on now. This is a non-issue. DVDs are largely available in OAR, even if a full screen version is available. This hasn't changed in years regardless of what any chain wants to sell to their customers.

BD is OAR. To speculate upon what other versions will be available 5 years from now is a complete waste of time. BD will remain OAR just as DVD is largely OAR.

And no, there will never be a situation where open matte 2.35 movies are released as 1.85 and then will require a new player to matte the movie into 2.35 as one poster would like to see.

And I really haven't told you anything you don't already know, correct? :D

To answer the OP's question: NO

There are a ton of posts on this forum that tell you that there are still a ton of ignorant masses out there that want their screens filled.

As long as there is a demand, there will be a product even if their demand is based on ignorance.

This may not apply, but about a year ago I was looking for Air Force One on DVD, and the only thing I saw at any store was a 4:3 version. However, I did some research online, and I know there is a superbit version (obviously 2.35, anamorphic), but also a version released closer to the original DVD that is double sided, one P&S and one 2.35 (even anamorphic!). It does happen.

This may not apply, but about a year ago I was looking for Air Force One on DVD, and the only thing I saw at any store was a 4:3 version. However, I did some research online, and I know there is a superbit version (obviously 2.35, anamorphic), but also a version released closer to the original DVD that is double sided, one P&S and one 2.35 (even anamorphic!). It does happen.

The Air Force one DVD you're talking about (the non superbit one) was from February 1998....before the first (modern) consumer HDTV for crying out loud. We're talking about movies released after 2001 here.

Thanks to everyone for all the replies, luckily (for me) I don't really know of those movies nor do I have interest in them although it's a shame that there are ANY releases not in OAR from the past 7 years.
If you don't know of a movie how can you know that you have no interest in it? :confused:

This may not apply, but about a year ago I was looking for Air Force One on DVD, and the only thing I saw at any store was a 4:3 version. However, I did some research online, and I know there is a superbit version (obviously 2.35, anamorphic), but also a version released closer to the original DVD that is double sided, one P&S and one 2.35 (even anamorphic!). It does happen.

At some point a while back, Sony/Columbia started silently re-issuing many of their double-sided titles as single-sided, usually dropping the widescreen side. What made it more aggravating is that the UPCs did not change, so online retailers' info would still indicate both transfers. There was no way of being almost sure of what you would get unless you went to a store and looked for yourself.

I say "almost sure" because there were even reports of copies that used the old cover art that listed both versions, but the discs inside were fullscreen only.

The Air Force one DVD you're talking about (the non superbit one) was from February 1998....before the first (modern) consumer HDTV for crying out loud. We're talking about movies released after 2001 here.

It really doesn't matter when the movie came out on DVD. Pan&Scan is just not acceptable to me. It would be like cropping The Wizard of Oz or Citizen Cane to fill a 16:9 screen (God, please don't lat that happen) Besides, there were 16:9 widescreen sets available prior to 1998, maybe not HD but widescreen nonetheless. Give me OAR or give me death. (well maybe not death, but they can rip a fingernail off or something)

I love OAR content as much as the next avs-er but have you actually had a problem finding movies on dvd released (as in the dvd was released, not the movie) in the past 7 years? I can't think of a single film that is ONLY available in pan and scan on dvd from this century... can you?

certainly. but I think the issue is that P&S should not exist. original aspect ratio only. I think Joe Sixpack got enough of an education with DVD, and now with BD out, the stragglers should just accept the reality :D (or go pound sand if the want FS)

Especially if BD somehow remains a niche market, it should indeed be considered the preferred release above all others. I'm not sure I've seen P&S in HD, but it actually nauseates me when I see it. 120hz is bad enough at 1080p, I'm not sure how I'd deal with P&S...

The entire collection of GIDGET movies from Sony...in glorius 4:3.

I was infuriated...and I remain so.



well there is a rant you don't see everyday.

If you don't know of a movie how can you know that you have no interest in it? :confused:

fair enough, I have no interest in finding out if I have interest in them because I already have a LONG list of movies in which I'm interested and that I have not yet seen. Maybe when I get through that list then I'll move on to Gidget :p

It really doesn't matter when the movie came out on DVD. Pan&Scan is just not acceptable to me. It would be like cropping The Wizard of Oz or Citizen Cane to fill a 16:9 screen (God, please don't lat that happen) Besides, there were 16:9 widescreen sets available prior to 1998, maybe not HD but widescreen nonetheless. Give me OAR or give me death. (well maybe not death, but they can rip a fingernail off or something)

they DID give you OAR (superbit release). I'm not excusing the lack of OAR on ANY release no matter WHEN it was released. What I'm saying is that it hasn't been a problem in the last 7 years for 99.8% (approx.) of films released during that time. Air Force One from 1998 is a problem that they wisely fixed in 2001 with a superbit edition.

For the record and just to be absolutely clear...Pan and Scan is absolutely unacceptable to me too! I realize it's a horrible thing, I'm just saying that it really hasn't been a problem to anyone for whom it is important (as in anyone who would pick the widescreen version over the fullscreen version) in the last 7 years save for a few squeakers that got by here and there (and I think even the squeakers are unacceptable, I'm just saying it's not a BIG DEAL overall considering that 99.8% (approx.) of movies released since 2002 have been OAR).

It really doesn't matter when the movie came out on DVD. Pan&Scan is just not acceptable to me. It would be like cropping The Wizard of Oz or Citizen Cane to fill a 16:9 screen (God, please don't lat that happen)

That actually happened when Gone With The Wind was rereleased in the '60s. :rolleyes:

And no, there will never be a situation where open matte 2.35 movies are released as 1.85 and then will require a new player to matte the movie into 2.35 as one poster would like to see.
We don't need new players for Disney View which does basically the same thing.

well there is a rant you don't see everyday.

Hey, to each his own...

One man's "Gidget" is another man's "Matrix"...


:)

We don't need new players for Disney View which does basically the same thing.

wtf????

The Truman Show is 1.78 open-matted on Blu-ray. :(
Still no information loss, but damn, that's not the way the film was intended to be presented.

The Truman Show is 1.78 open-matted on Blu-ray. :(
Still no information loss, but damn, that's not the way the film was intended to be presented.

It's actually supposed to be 1.66:1, and I believe it's cropped rather than open-matte.

Bear in mind that Paramount and Warner's policy is to present 1.85:1 movies slightly unmatted to 1.78:1. Check some of your other discs and you'll see. I'm a big OAR advocate, but I don't have a problem with this.

I'm not too crazy about what happened with TTS, but I was expecting it since the SE DVD was the same way a few years back. I may pass on it due to the DNR/EE anyway.

It's actually supposed to be 1.66:1, and I believe it's cropped rather than open-matte.

Bear in mind that Paramount and Warner's policy is to present 1.85:1 movies slightly unmatted to 1.78:1. Check some of your other discs and you'll see. I'm a big OAR advocate, but I don't have a problem with this.

I'm not too crazy about what happened with TTS, but I was expecting it since the SE DVD was the same way a few years back. I may pass on it due to the DNR/EE anyway.

According to this review (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=1813&show=review), the OAR is 1.85 and this edition is an open-matte one.

But you're right, 1.66/1.78/1.85 are close aspect ratios, and not respecting 1.66 and 1.85 ratios (especially when there is overscan) is much less annoying than not respecting 1.37 or 2.39 aspect ratios.

Since more and more reality shows are 16:9, it doesnt hurt with Truman show to be 1,77:1 today.

I guess they decided to go with 1:66 to closer match 4:3 aspect ratio of TV shows back then.

Technical specifications for
The Truman Show (1998) More at IMDbPro »
advertisementCamera
Panavision Panaflex Platinum, Primo Lenses

Laboratory
DeLuxe
Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm (Eastman EXR 100T 5248, Kodak Vision 500T 5279, EXR 200T 5293)
Cinematographic process
Spherical
Printed film format
35 mm
Aspect ratio
1.37 : 1 (negative ratio)
1.85 : 1 (intended ratio)

Yeah, I remember reading a while ago that it was 1.66:1, but maybe that was wrong. The original DVD was 1.66:1, if that matters. It seemed like it was less wide than 1.85:1 when I saw it in the theater, but it's been so long that I can't say for sure.

TRUMAN SHOW was shown 1.85:1 in theaters.

Pan & Scan still rules the day country wide. Most stores still stock pan & scan only. Here in NYC, unless you go to a top end place of Best Buy or Circuit City, you will see Pan & Scan. Supermarkets, corner shops, convenience stores, etc all stock pan & scan. Out of habit I check wherever I go and always want to puke when I see this still goes on.

Wal-Mart is TERRIBLE about this.

That actually happened when Gone With The Wind was rereleased in the '60s. :rolleyes:

Yep. In Glorious Widescreen Color. Rhett Butler with a crew cut and Scarlett O'Hara with her feet chopped off. Wonderful.

Inexcusable.

It could eventually happen, but I think it will not be the issue it was with DVD. For one, with a 2:35 movie the black bars are much thinner on a 16:9 display compared to a 4:3 display, so I think fewer people will bother to complain and some will hardly notice. I'm a little more concerned about 4:3 material being cropped to 1:85 still, however.

I wish they had "longscreen" matting, because I love laying on my couch and watching movies sideways.

I would agree that, in the last few (3-4) years, there have been very few movies released in non-OAR only. However, in the few years prior to that it was still not that uncommon. As already mentioned, there were quite a few Disney movies released in full screen just a handful of years ago. There was a big stink over non-OAR releases of Matilda, Cats & Dogs, Willy Wonka and others just a few (maybe five) years ago. I have no idea how many movies were released on DVD in the last seven years as non-OAR only, but it is not an insignificant number.

Since I've been hanging out at AVS Forums, I keep seeing the same "black bar" comments over and over again. There are a great number of people who will never accept black bars regardless of how much education they receive. This number will keep growing and these people's opinions will start affecting studio decisions.

Anyone who thinks that non-OAR Blu-ray releases won't happen is not living in the real world. It will definitely happen (and already is, as several examples have already been supplied). Why are so many 2.40:1 movies shown in 1.78:1 on HD pay channels? You think that those same cropped version won't start showing up on Blu-ray once Blu-ray creeps into the mainstream? It will happen. I wish it wouldn't, but it will. And those of us who care about OAR will have to come to places like this and Home Theater Forum to figure out if a disc is being released properly.

Edit: I forgot to address the cropping of 4:3 material for widescreen TVs. This is also absolutely going to happen. Fortunately, I think it's unlikely that classic academy ratio films will be released only as 16:9, but a lot of minor material (lesser films and TV shows) will undoubtedly suffer this dreaded fate.

I can't think of a single film that is ONLY available in pan and scan on dvd from this century... can you?

THE SHADOW (1994) has always been available in 1:33:1 only. It's not a great movie, but the photography and production design are excellent. I'm hoping that Universal releases this to BD sooner rather than later.

THE SHADOW (1994) has always been available in 1:33:1 only. It's not a great movie, but the photography and production design are excellent. I'm hoping that Universal releases this to BD sooner rather than later.

I hate to keep doing this, but the shadow was released in 1997. EVERYONE agrees they screwed up LOTS of things in the beginning of dvd (flippers, fullscreen only, nonanamorphic widescreen, etc.). This century equals 2000 and beyond (or 2001 and beyond for sticklers)