Now that I have seen openmat version of King Kong and Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang on FIOS HD, I can see where openmat version of a film can be preferred, especially on a small screen where one would find normal scope film too small. How do people feel about openmat versions of films for the new HD format?

You can vote for more than one choice.

It would be cool if the players could "change" from Open Matte to OAR(and I guess even to 4x3) on the fly.

I like OAR to see the directors intent...but sometimes would like to fill the screen.

I prefer to see it the way it was meant to be seen, ergo OAR.

I'm going with "open matte" & "depending on the movie".

I have had my fill of chopped off heads and poor framing. If it's going to be "scope movie" framing, then do it correctly and forget about the rest of the other options. But don't frame for a spherical and butcher the finished product just to do a scope print.

b2b

Give me a goddamned break. We've had 9 years of DVD to get everyone used to the concept of OAR. Why are we suddenly regressing now?

Well Josh,

Some of us like more of everything. If I had a choice between theatrical version vs. extended ultimate version (even if it was not a director's cut), I tend to go for the super extended edition. In similar fashion, I just don't see open matte versions of the films in same negative light as I do cropped version or heaven forbid, pan and scan version. If a proper open matte version of a film is available, such as King Kong, Fearless, or KKBB, then I might be open to purchasing such a version on HD format for home use.

I would like to remind everyone that if a movie is intended to be matted, there may be things the director does not want to be seen, such as production elements. I strongly urge you to check out this page:

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml

As for the whole idea of people preferring to get rid of black bars as opposed to watching a film in OAR, I would also like to remind people that while film is part entertainment, it is also art. We wouldn't ask the Louvre to remove the frame of the Mona Lisa because it annoys us. We wouldn't ask Ansel Adams to make a print where he doesn't crop out telephone poles that he felt disturbed the natural serenity of his image because we want to see everything that was on his negative.

I could keep going on. But the gist is that a director is the artist (some more so than others) and he makes decisions on aesthetic elements of his work. If we don't like it, we can criticize it, but we can't (shouldn't) change it.

I would like to remind everyone that if a movie is intended to be matted, there may be things the director does not want to be seen, such as production elements. I strongly urge you to check out this page:

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml

As for the whole idea of people preferring to get rid of black bars as opposed to watching a film in OAR, I would also like to remind people that while film is part entertainment, it is also art. We wouldn't ask the Louvre to remove the frame of the Mona Lisa because it annoys us. We wouldn't ask Ansel Adams to make a print where he doesn't crop out telephone poles that he felt disturbed the natural serenity of his image because we want to see everything that was on his negative.

I could keep going on. But the gist is that a director is the artist (some more so than others) and he makes decisions on aesthetic elements of his work. If we don't like it, we can criticize it, but we can't (shouldn't) change it.

+1, good post!

Oar.

I would like to remind everyone that if a movie is intended to be matted, there may be things the director does not want to be seen, such as production elements. I strongly urge you to check out this page:

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml

Thats a nice page, but I think this one is better (for OAR discussion in general):
http://www.widescreen.org/multimedia.shtml

I especially like how they refer to the "anamorphoscopic" lens :D

Just like the OAR, the home aspect ratio ought to be the director's decision.

I prefer OAR, but we can't always have that. I definitely prefer open matte to zooming/cropping get a 1.78 AR though (as I'm sure most do).

If it's not OAR then I don't want to watch it, let alone buy it. Hopefully we'll never see any open matte or cropped presentations on either HD format.

If it's not OAR then I don't want to watch it, let alone buy it. Hopefully we'll never see any open matte or cropped presentations on either HD format.
What would you say then to something like Fearless. It's OAR for its original Asian release was 1.85. For US release, they made it 2.35 for some unknown reason. Would open matte 1.78 HD DVD be any less OAR than 2.4 that we currently have? Is OAR really about director's intent or is there some marketing involved?

I was almost split the middle between OAR only and "depends on movie". But I can't think of any movie that should not be OAR except for ones I don't really want to watch anyway, so I say, OAR.

If the director and cameramen know what they are doing, OAR will look fine. If not, then it's a terrible movie anyway, so why bother?

If the director and cameramen know what they are doing, OAR will look fine. If not, then it's a terrible movie anyway, so why bother?

Well said. :)

If the director and cameramen know what they are doing, OAR will look fine. If not, then it's a terrible movie anyway, so why bother?
Problem is that's not always the case. How would you explain where there are multiple AR for theatrical release such as Fearless? Did the director all of a sudden decide that he wanted 1.85 for Asia and 2.35 for US?

I think too often we blame or credit the director, producer, cinematographer, etc for the end product stating that's what they intended. Too grainy, it's the director's intent. Muffled dialog, that's the sound designer's intent. Muted colors, that's the cinematographer's intent. Wooden performance, that's according to the director's intent. Too much dirt and noise on the print, that's the mastering house's intent, etc. I don't think anyone can be that perfect. I know that in certain instances, directors will use intentional grain to impart some "feel" for the film such as Saving Private Ryan. But I believe just as often, if not more, you can get grain from poor film stock, exposure, etc that the director had no intention for, but didn't have the budget, patience, or whatever to redo. We all know Lucas didn't intend to shoot SFX shots the way he did in the original Star Wars. That's why he redid all the shots for the SE and refused to release the originals for a long time. Many soft shots we see in many films may have been intended, but more often, it's soft because the shot was not in focus.

Now getting back to AR, it is possible that people other than the director may be setting the agenda for why films are released in multiple AR. With Super 35, the director may be shooting with both 1.85 and 2.35 ratios in mind. If that's so, who's to say open matte is any less worthy than 2.35. I think this is entirely different from pan and scan where you chop off the picture to fit your screen. I just rewatched King Kong on Cinemax HD in open matte 1.78 and it's just as beautiful as matted 2.4 on HD DVD. I know I am not missing any picture, in fact seeing more, and I would prefer this presentation for my 42" 1080P LCD in my bedroom.
I have no idea what Peter Jackson would say, but he was very careful to keep any and all props out of the matted area as to not ruin the open matte shots. So thank you.

I was almost split the middle between OAR only and "depends on movie". But I can't think of any movie that should not be OAR except for ones I don't really want to watch anyway, so I say, OAR.

If the director and cameramen know what they are doing, OAR will look fine. If not, then it's a terrible movie anyway, so why bother?

Oh, so, with any movie you don't like, it doesn't matter if it's OAR or not? :confused:

I voted OAR only, but I would not be opposed to them releasing separate OAR and 1.78:1 versions of films, provided that EVERY film gets an OAR version (yes, even the ones I don't like).

I chose "Openmat preferred to get rid of the black bars". However, I don't like that wording. It has a negative connotation. I prefer to think of it as "Openmat preferred to show more of what is already there" or "Openmat preferred to show what the black bars are covering up".

I prefer to think of it as "Openmat preferred to show more of what is already there" or "Openmat preferred to show what the black bars are covering up".
How about "Openmat preferred to show elements the director intended to be hidden?"

A Fish Called Wanda springs to mind as a good example of open matte gone awry. John Cleese's boxers were revealed in a scene where he was supposed to be naked.


I voted OAR only.

Anybody who is buying a HDTV to enjoy a HD shiny disc movie should have it in widescreen and big enough to not have to worry about the size of black bars.

I understand people bitching about black bars on a small 4:3 set. On a 32 inch ar above widescreen set, they just need to be educated about how the black bars are your friend.

I like films OAR when they are released in HD.

How about "Openmat preferred to show elements the director intended to be hidden?"

A Fish Called Wanda springs to mind as a good example of open matte gone awry. John Cleese's boxers were revealed in a scene where he was supposed to be naked.


I voted OAR only.


Well that's already been covered in this thread. But, I guess I should add only if it can be done without messing up the movie. Obviously, in the example you site, it should not have been done.

I understand people bitching about black bars on a small 4:3 set. On a 32 inch ar above widescreen set, they just need to be educated about how the black bars are your friend.

It's not about education. The concept of what the directory wanted to show is simple. You should read the posts in this thread that are in favor of openmat when it can be done without ruining the movie before making such a condescending statement. It's really more about preference than anything else. Maybe they should offer an openmat version and an OAR version on HD for movies shot in super 35 just like they do a widescreen and fullscreen version on some regular SD-DVD's.

Yeah, then we can have a bunch of fullscreen HD discs sitting on the shelf that only a handful of people would actually look at.

With open matte we get to see Kathleen Turner holding a little something of William Hurt's ( and i do mean little )....with the 1.85:1 presentation we lose that....mind you with original ratio we also get rid of unwanted boom shots ( microphones )

I prefer original aspect ratio but i am willing to compromise on open matte productions more than i would be scope productions.

I was almost split the middle between OAR only and "depends on movie". But I can't think of any movie that should not be OAR except for ones I don't really want to watch anyway, so I say, OAR.

If the director and cameramen know what they are doing, OAR will look fine. If not, then it's a terrible movie anyway, so why bother?

That was my thinking. I ended up voting it depends on the movie. Generally speaking I want OAR, but there are a couple examples where open-matte may provide benefits. One serious example is Koyaanisqatsi which was filmed 4:3 but screened theatrically 16:9. I originally saw a theatrical live presentation and it was open-matte 4:3, and I prefer the film this way. The DVD release is 16:9, and I was dissappointed by this, as the VHS I have is open matte 4:3 and I prefer that framing.

A less serious example is the 4:3 open-matte version of T3, which shows a lot more of kristanna loken.

One problem with open-matte though, is few people then have the ability to mask or blank things down to get back to the OAR if they wanted to. For this reason I am more inclined just to say OAR, except for the significant example of Koyaanisqatsi where open-matte is something I really prefer, because for me that's really the "OAR" of the film as I have always seen it.

One problem with open-matte though, is few people then have the ability to mask or blank things down to get back to the OAR if they wanted to.

Actually, they could provide that option. There was a DVD (can't remember the name) that had a "theatrical matte option." It had an open matte transfer, with the option to add masking to the top and bottom of the image. The masking was encoded as a subtitle track (since DVD subtitles are actually bitmap images).

The problem, of course, was that the transfer had to be non-anamorphic, so the widescreen image wouldn't be as good as it would be on anamorphically enhanced DVDs. The HD formats don't have anamorphic enhancement, so this could be done with no degradation to the proper OAR version. The only issue would be that the compression might not be quite as good since there would be more image to compress than with straight 2.40:1, but as long as it's done right (possibly with a higher bitrate), the difference should be negligible.

I wouldn't want open matte 1.33 from 1.78 especially with the HD formats since that would significantly degrade the presentation (pillar boxing). I was thinking more along the lines of open matte 1.78 from 2.40 like in King Kong. If they could place matte as a subtitle track, that would be a great option.

Yeah, then we can have a bunch of fullscreen HD discs sitting on the shelf that only a handful of people would actually look at.

Not sure if you mean fullscreen as 4:3 or the "new" fullscreen of 1.77:1. But, just to be clear, I was talking about 1.77:1 openmat. Not 4:3 openmat. I thought that would be clear from reading the prior posts in this thread.

I don't know about the people who post regularly on AVS, but I'll bet most (other) people would choose the 1.77:1 openmat version of KK that was shown on Cinemax than the 2.4:1 version that is on the DVD and HD-DVD. I'll bet the same would be true of the openmat versions of Lake House and KKBB that were also shown on HD cable and Fearless on the SD-DVD. If there is a 1.77:1 openmat version that is good enough to show on cable, then I would like to have the option of purchasing that on HD-DVD.

1.77:1 is HD fullscreen. I don't know how 4x3 entered this thread.

You have to consider that many of these open matte versions of Super35 2.4:1 films aren't just opened up on the top and bottom but are slightly cropped on the sides, zoomed in, panned and scanned, etc.

There's also the problem that just about every open matte version looks like crap because the framing is so loose that you often get massive amonts of dead space above and below the frame. Like the opened up versions of 1.85:1 films you would never mistake it for being OAR. It's a compromise and I don't think anyone would want to buy a compromise over the original.

I think it's important to remember that the OAR is not necessarily "the way it was intended".

"OAR" usually refers to the aspect ratio of the original cinema release. This is not always decided solely by the director, and can be a studio / distributor decision.

A good example of this (though not specifically HD) is Koyaanisqatsi.

This was shot in a 1.33 ratio - then cropped top and bottom in order to make it fill out the width of cinema screens.

However when director Godfrey Reggio got the chance to do a special edition on DVD, he reverted it to the 1.33 it was originally shot in. The framing is just plain Better - as you could expect with the mighty Ron Fricke handling the original cinematography. You get - among other things - those wonderful expanses of sky which are so striking in much of his work. Unfortunately this release is now out of print and somewhat rare.

Now we have to make do with the MGM DVD release - and also put up with reviews praising it for using the "original" (i.e. cropped) "1.85/1 ratio" ;)

In short, the best decision depends on the film and the director.

Original theatrical aspect ratio or nothing

In short, the best decision depends on the film and the director.

In short, what OAR really means, the true spirit of OAR, is that movies should not be cropped, chopped or panned merely to fit a given display aspect ratio.

If you want to go into corner cases where OAR is ambiguous and wish to argue what the OAR of this film or that film is, go ahead, but just because a few films have ambiguous OAR does not diminish the importance of maintaining OAR in home releases.

In short, what OAR really means, the true spirit of OAR, is that movies should not be cropped, chopped or panned merely to fit a given display aspect ratio.
Agreed.

But my point is - without wanting to muddy the waters on a principle that I generally agree with - that to say "Original aspect ratio only" oversimplfies the issue.

The bottom-line real-world issue is, how do we as viewers/purchasers know what the right ratio is? People see "original aspect ratio" on a box or in a review, and they think Great, no cropping. But they are forgetting that in this case "original aspect ratio" just means "the same as the first cinema release", which is not necessarily the true spirit of OAR, i.e. the director's artistic intent. The cinema release is every bit as much subject to the tinkering of studios and distributors as the home release is. How do we know whether the cropping and framing in the theatrical version was part of the original artistic intent?

We can't necessarily go by what it says on the box or what we are told in reviews, because the distributor always has a vested interest in telling us that their version is the Definitive, Original one. I believe there are even cases where the director has intended 4:3, then it's been cropped by the studio for wider aspect cinema release - and then a subsequent DVD distributor has pan-scanned from this print - down to 4:3!! This is once more the originally intended ratio, but what we're seeing bears no relation to the originally intended picture.

Sometimes you have to crop the top because that's where the microphones are. ;)

And the bottom - cos that's where the underpants are! :eek: :D

OAR for sure.

Well Josh,

Some of us like more of everything. If I had a choice between theatrical version vs. extended ultimate version (even if it was not a director's cut), I tend to go for the super extended edition. In similar fashion, I just don't see open matte versions of the films in same negative light as I do cropped version or heaven forbid, pan and scan version. If a proper open matte version of a film is available, such as King Kong, Fearless, or KKBB, then I might be open to purchasing such a version on HD format for home use. I do see less of a sin here with open matte than pan & scan :eek:

With a huge screen, with an open matte I concentrate on the eye level portion center (the widescreen portion) anyway. The top and bottom are less visible to me anyway. Just like watching a 1:85 movie formatted for the IMAX screen, I concentrate what would be the matted poortion anyway.

The extra headroom and background just add to the atmosphere.

Now granted if I see boom mikes and junk that whacks me out of the suspension of disbelief, and I see its only a movie, then thats not good.

And stretching or zooming of 1:33 stuff? To me thats like robbing the grave of the classic filmakers.

What would you say then to something like Fearless. It's OAR for its original Asian release was 1.85.

Fearless is a bad example, as who knows what it's really supposed to be in length or aspect ratio.

(Fearless, Huo Yuan Jia, Legend of a Fighter, Jet Li's Fearless)

The Hong Kong release was 2.35:1
The Taiwan release was 1.78:1 (stretched)
The South Korean release 1.78:1 (cropped from HK release)

Thailand:111 min / Philippines:105 min / UK:104 min / USA:103 min

I can see where openmat version of a film can be preferred, especially on a small screen where one would find normal scope film too small.

Strictly speaking, open matte does not increase the size of anything, it just unmasks some areas of the original film.

So how does this help people who think 2.35:1 is "too small"?

I can't believe we're *still* having this discussion.

Strictly speaking, open matte does not increase the size of anything, it just unmasks some areas of the original film.

So how does this help people who think 2.35:1 is "too small"?

I can't believe we're *still* having this discussion.

Doesn't it all depend on the director's intention. I am assuming that the OAR and Open Matte discussion only applies to Super35 films, not one shot in Panavision or some the anamorphic process that uses the entire 35mm frame.

The director could have two intentions

1. Shoot Super35 and only ever expect the part of the film that defines the eventual 2.35:1 AR to be ever screened. So for 4:3 it would have to be panned and scanned.

2. Shoot Super35 but project the image for 4:3 projection also (open matte). I understand James Cameron prefers this approach. So when the film makes its way to video, there could be two versions. A widescreen version based on the version shown in the theatres and a 4:3 version recomposed for video. This avoids some of the pitfalls of panning and scanning.

I would think this is probably the only time where opening up the matte is a reasonable process. Something that the director thought about when he composed the image in the camera.

So I would vote OAR most of the time for widescreen releases on video but for 4:3 then situation 2.


Larry