or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › HAS the OAR battle been lost?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HAS the OAR battle been lost? - Page 8  

post #211 of 276
"That said, there's Showtime" ..... and HDNet Movies.....

Damn get over it! if your that unhappy, get another provider or can the sub, how hard is that?

OTOH...... may be you should read the S*X VS HD thread, wonder......., na, I won't go there! ROFLOL......

Can you watch and enjoy anything tonight (or ever) in HD? Damn this is getting really OLD.
post #212 of 276
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Damn get over it! if your that unhappy, get another provider or can the sub, how hard is that?
Er, you can't get what doesn't exist.

You here just to threadcrap or do you have something meaningful to add?
Oops, I forget which thread I'm talking about. Crap away!
post #213 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by gwsat
I agree with the program providers' decision to show 1.85 movies in 16:9. Such cropping eliminates less than 4% of the horizontal aspect of the picture, which is probably a worthwhile trade off to get rid of black bars and produce a slightly bigger image.
I can't say I endorse even that idea; then again I used to enjoy 2.35:1 and wider LBX LDs on a 13" (yes, thirteen inch) monitor...
post #214 of 276
DaveFi,

Didn't mean to imply that it is an all or nothing debate, but the topic is posing the question "has the OAR battle been lost?". To me that question is implying that "something" is heading to "nothing". If the topic was stated "has the OAR battle been won?" it would have been met with rolled eyes. I think we know the answer to that one. Maybe I'm reading too much into the question.

I would like to see OAR *every single time*. Given the feelings on just this forum of "fill the screen vs. OAR", I can't but help but believe those same feelings exist with mainstream program providers who don't want to deal with "black bar" complaints.

I know folks who hate the "black bars" and never want any widescreen that introduce black bars -- end of story. It's really more than "black bars": it's how one views movies as art vs. entertainment, how they view their TV as technology vs conduit for diversion, etc.

Thankfully, there is HDNet Movies and a few other providers that are bold enough to present OAR on a consistent basis.

So, has the battle been lost? I would say not. We may be surrounded but I think we're holding firm to our patch of ground. Reward the OAR supporters with viewership and letters of thanks.

IMHO

Paul
post #215 of 276
I decided to start a database to show the aspect ratio and the difference between the DVD version and the HD version.

I started doing this for me but I decided to make it into a web page and put it out. Right now, I have only one comparison and I am still working the bugs out of the layout and content.

Let me know what you guys think...

Check out the start of the database.
post #216 of 276
Carlos, see if you can find some films like "The Dark Crystal" or "Little Buddha", which use the edge of the frames for important action. That would make quite a statement!
post #217 of 276
I said it earlier.. I'll say it again. Yes, the OAR battle on TV has been lost. Just like the OAR battle was lost decades ago. TV is for giving you lots of content for little or for nothing. But that isn't the movie studio's bread and butter. That is home video sales. And how is a company to expect you to buy the HD home video of a movie when they are showing you a virtually bit for bit perfect version of it for free or little cost?

If you recorded OAR Spider-Man 2 (or even knew that it was coming) on HBOHD from a provider with full bitrate, would you buy the HDDVD of the movie (or I guess Blue-ray in this case :p). For the VAST majority of users, no, probably not.

Same thing with network TV. Edited for time or content. They aren't there to show you a perfect copy of the movie. They're there to get you to be the movie on home video.

The OAR battle has always been lost on TV. ShowtimeHD is the exception and not the rule. If you really think things are going to change after 20+ years just because a single network decides to Show OAR you are a pretty serious dreamer.
post #218 of 276
/music
"You can say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join me
And the world will be accurately framed"
post #219 of 276
"Er, you can't get what doesn't exist.".......

Did I say I did not support OAR?, I buy widescreen DVD's, or D-Theater tape way before they show up on any pay service, I enjoy them and what I watch on the TV, you and I both know HBO (fill in the blank, service) is not going to change a damn thing, read the post above about all that. What I said is this (subject) is getting very old, and that there seems no hope of any change (to OAR).

OTOH, if whineing about this (and other subjects here in) every day makes one feel better somehow, it could have some value? ;-O Opinions vary.....
post #220 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by chroma601
Carlos, see if you can find some films like "The Dark Crystal" or "Little Buddha", which use the edge of the frames for important action. That would make quite a statement!
These two films are not part of my library. Not becuase I don't want them but because I have not seen them shown lately.

When they show them in HD next time I will make sure to add them to the list.
post #221 of 276
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by gwsat
I agree with the program providers' decision to show 1.85 movies in 16:9. Such cropping eliminates less than 4% of the horizontal aspect of the picture, which is probably a worthwhile trade off to get rid of black bars and produce a slightly bigger image.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by kucharsk
I can't say I endorse even that idea; then again I used to enjoy 2.35:1 and wider LBX LDs on a 13" (yes, thirteen inch) monitor...
kucharsk -- In the best of all possible worlds I agree that it would be better if even 1.85:1 programing were shown in OAR. But I understand why program providers would convert such programming to 16:9 in order to keep The Flat Earth Society from carping about those black lines.
post #222 of 276
what I don't get is that you said you can understand why they convert to 1.85:1 but then rant because they crop 2.35:1... unless you are saying you want OAR but with things as they are you understand why they do it...
post #223 of 276
It seems that many posters here are unable or unwilling to grasp that people watch TV for different reasons. They are completely unable to fathom the thought process by which someone might prefer OAR or FS.

This is analogous to cognitive development in little kids. There are many interesting experiments regarding the ability to realize the existence of perspectives other than your own.

Place a young kid in a room with each wall painted a different color. Face the kid at a wall and ask them the color, they’ll get it right. Next, the experimenter faces a different wall and asks the kid, this time, ‘what color is the wall I am looking at?’ Prior to a certain level of cognitive development, the child will always answer with the color of wall that they see in front of them, not what is front of the experimenter.

The same phenomenon is evident in this thread. Some people apparently can’t grasp that others perceive things differently.

While I only watch OAR programming, I am also not so ignorant as to suppose that my preference is somehow superior or more correct. People who prefer FS are not uniformed or ignorant. They simply prefer an immersive experience of a larger image over seeing what somebody else proclaims as ‘best’.
post #224 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by dfiler
I am also not so ignorant as to suppose that my preference is somehow superior or more correct.
You are pretty much the only member on this board then.. :p

Like everything else on this board, the OAR argument is a ticking timebomb with the elitists lashing out at J6P and J6P doing his best to defend the fact that heis actually entitled to an opinion. Invariably the elitist will "concur" (well, not really) that he is entitled to his own opinion but then belittle him on it in someway.

As long as HDDVD's are released OAR I couldn't give a rat's ass what HBO broadcasts in. As long as I can watch a reasonably entertaining show once in a while and it look significantly better than SD I'm fine. If I really care about the movie I'll buy the DVD (and eventually HDDVD)

The only channels that I am actually NOT apathetic about OAR on are channels that show movies unavailable on DVD. TCM, HDNet Movies, etc. I would LOVE to see these channels stick with OAR just because I might never have the chance to own some of these movies in OAR any other way.

But no, with a 2.35:1 X2 sitting on the store shelves it doesn't bother me in the slightest that HBO crops it for 16x9.
post #225 of 276
"But no, with a 2.35:1 X2 sitting on the store shelves it doesn't bother me in the slightest that HBO crops it for 16x9."

BTW; this title is also on D-Theater (HD) right now, in the OAR version, YES, I know most here "HATE" D-VHS media, none the less with HD-DVD in a big time format war (read; freak the folks who will buy equipment / titles, ie; US), D-VHS is here right now and WORKS (YES, I know the titles are not all that good, the amount of movies actually released)!

I still think, no matter, this (OAR whine) is beating a dead horse, we all know HBO (fill in blank) is NOT going to change, right (plus the OAR DVD and/or D-Theater, shows up way before it is showned on pay hdtv)? Also, anyone has the right to post opinion on the subject, funny as "I" find some these heated opinions.

Take care, try to enjoy some HDTV of you choice tonight.
post #226 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by borghe
what I don't get is that you said you can understand why they convert to 1.85:1 but then rant because they crop 2.35:1... unless you are saying you want OAR but with things as they are you understand why they do it...
borghe -- The reason I am relatively sanguine about seeing 1.85:1 films cropped to 16:9 but not 2.35:1 films is a matter of degree. Films shot in 1.85:1 lose only 3.5% of their horizontal aspect, whereas nearly 25% of 2.35:1 films is lost, a difference of between 7 and 8 times! You read my rant correctly: I would prefer to see even 1.85:1 films in OAR but I understand why programmers don't do it. But I DON'T understand why programmers insist on cropping 2.35:1 films -- no matter how loud the anti-black bar crowd screams.
post #227 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by borghe
Like everything else on this board, the OAR argument is a ticking timebomb with the elitists lashing out at J6P and J6P doing his best to defend the fact that heis actually entitled to an opinion.
I really don't consider myself an elitist. I just think it's important that when I watch a film, I get to see all of it. Those who prefer sacrificing content for the sake of filling their screens are simply not seeing the entire movie. Nothing "elitist" about that, unless one thinks that only the elite deserve to see all of a given film. It makes no sense to make this about social status. Heck, I love beer.

And as far as 1.85 films going to 16 x 9 full screen, I can live with that quite nicely. I am specifically talking about 2.35 here.

While there is much to be said for an "immersive" full screen experience, having it at the cost of content seems misguided to me. But as many people do prefer it, I just don't understand why HBO won't show both versions. They play their films many times in a month. Why not do OAR some of those times, fullscreen others? Everybody is happy.
post #228 of 276
INHD was showing Little Darlings (1980) in OAR last nite (2.35).

So.. screw HBO anyway.. :cool:
post #229 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by gwsat
borghe -- The reason I am relatively sanguine about seeing 1.85:1 films cropped to 16:9 but not 2.35:1 films is a matter of degree. Films shot in 1.85:1 lose only 3.5% of their horizontal aspect, whereas nearly 25% of 2.35:1 films is lost, a difference of between 7 and 8 times! You read my rant correctly: I would prefer to see even 1.85:1 films in OAR but I understand why programmers don't do it. But I DON'T understand why programmers insist on cropping 2.35:1 films -- no matter how loud the anti-black bar crowd screams.
I agree with you completely. I've pointed out to borghe, on a number of occasions, that the small amount lost when going from 1.85 to 1.78 is so small as to be negligible in terms of any aesthetic loss of picture content. The overscan on most CRT displays is so great that there is a much more significant loss of content than any 1.85 to 1.78 cropping would produce. Even plasmas and LCD, which tend to have less overscan than CRT sets, will hide the black bars that would appear with a 1.85 movie. Now, going from 2.35 to 1.85/1.78 is a whole other story that is intolerable.

There is a basic obvious truth here. The movie is the movie. The picture is the picture. A 2.35 movie deserves to be shown as it was intended to be seen. To alter the movie to fit a physical structure is simply wrong. There is NO valid excuse for it. It's that plain and simple. An altered movie isn't the truth. It's a lie. Those that want to participate in that deception should get a display or STB that will allow them to zoom away those magical black bars that allow a 2.35 movie to be seen as it should be seen.

I just realized that borghe won't see this post as he's placed me in his ignore file. That's OK, I'll post it anyway.
post #230 of 276
no, I got what you guys are saying. it's fine to crop as long as you say so. no matter how you cut it it's a double standard.

so yes, the OAR battle has been lost. J6P says it's ok to crop 2.35:1 and you say it's fine to crop 1.85:1 to 16:9. Basically everyone is saying cropping is fine to some degree.
post #231 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by borghe
no, I got what you guys are saying. it's fine to crop as long as you say so. no matter how you cut it it's a double standard.

so yes, the OAR battle has been lost. J6P says it's ok to crop 2.35:1 and you say it's fine to crop 1.85:1 to 16:9. Basically everyone is saying cropping is fine to some degree.
borghe -- Quite to the contrary it is clearly not a double standard, it seems to me. Are we to assume that you believe cropping 3.5% of the horizontal aspect of a film is the functional equivalent of cropping 25%? Your post would certainly support that inference. Nevertheless, if you don't get it you don't get it -- or at least you SAY you don't get it, :)
post #232 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by dfiler
Some people apparently can’t grasp that others perceive things differently.
If it were that simple, I'd go along with you. I don't believe it's the case though, for the majority of those we're discussing. What I do believe is that most who oppose movies in OAR don't understand what they are missing; the artists original intent.
post #233 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by Ken H
If it were that simple, I'd go along with you. I don't believe it's the case though, for the majority of those we're discussing. What I do believe is that most who oppose movies in OAR don't understand what they are missing; the artists original intent.
I agree and would add that the anti black bar folks seem not to realize the HUGE amount of visual information that is lost when a 2.35:1 image is trimmed to fit the 16:9 format.
post #234 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by gwsat
borghe -- Quite to the contrary it is clearly not a double standard, it seems to me. Are we to assume that you believe cropping 3.5% of the horizontal aspect of a film is the functional equivalent of cropping 25%? Your post would certainly support that inference. Nevertheless, if you don't get it you don't get it -- or at least you SAY you don't get it, :)
I believe it is a double standard too. Cropping is cropping, whether it's 25%, 3.5%, or .001%...it is very hypocritial to advocate OAR for 2.35:1 films but not other formats.

Either it's OAR or bust. Any middle ground weakens the position of the OAR camp.

You can't say "We want OAR," but then say it's okay to crop a film if you only lose 3.5% of the picture.

That's like someone who pretends to be FIRMLY pro-life, but then says, well, it's okay to have an abortion if the baby will have birth defects.

Either you are pro-life or you are pro-choice.

Either you are for OAR 100% or you not. The ones only willing to fight for 2.35:1 films are definitely NOT.

P.S. In fact, it is even hypocritial to consider yourself an OAR advocate when you simply allow 1.85:1 films to be cropped. You guys are NOT the OAR camp, but rather the 2.35:1 camp. At least identify yourself correctly, because it clear that you are not advocating Original Aspect Ratio for all films, just ones 2.35:1 (and perhaps larger, like Ben-Hur).
post #235 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by pappy97
I believe it is a double standard too. Cropping is cropping, whether it's 25%, 3.5%, or .001%.......
Where did you learn your rhetoric? Polarization U.? It needs work.

First, comparing right to life to OAR is not even close to a good analogy. Some will be insulted you even went there, I think it's just very, very lame.

Second, although in a perfect world I too would like all film and TV in OAR, I understand there are other issues in play. Obviously you don't. Let me fill you in; to lose 3%-4% of a film is undesirable, but may be unavoidable in some cases for technical reasons. Aside from technical reasons, I would strongly speculate there is no film you can reference that is diminished in any way by losing such a small percentage of image. This does not come close to what happens with a 2.35:1 > 16:9 zoom/crop/fill job.

Having said that, I am fully aware that it's a slippery slope once you start monkeying around with stuff like that, so I don't take it lightly.

Lastly, if you can't understand the difference, and I suspect you won't, I'm not going to try and explain any further.
post #236 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by gwsat
borghe -- Quite to the contrary it is clearly not a double standard, it seems to me. Are we to assume that you believe cropping 3.5% of the horizontal aspect of a film is the functional equivalent of cropping 25%? Your post would certainly support that inference. Nevertheless, if you don't get it you don't get it -- or at least you SAY you don't get it, :)
again, you are rationalizing to meet YOUR desires. Let's look at this objectively.

When you crop 3.5% are you cropping areas of the image that the artist intended you to see. Yes.

When you crop 28% are you cropping areas of the image that the artist intended you to see. Yes.

So argue away that the modern cinematographer is shooting for overscan and I'll argue away that the average cinematographer is shooting for 4:3.

Objectively, it is nothing more than a rationalization on your guys' parts as to why it's ok to crop some movies but not others. I didn't realize that the desire for OAR was only priveleged to those of you with TV's with overscan. Maybe the fixed pixel crowd needs to take up OAR for ALL TV's on their own then, hey?

So tell me again how it is ok to crop some movies but not others. And then come back to me when we are all watching LCD/plasma/cnt and you are complaining because you lost 3.5% and are not watching the movie OAR... Or then will it STILL be ok to get rid of those black bars. Either way it's lose lose for you. Either you say the 3.5% cropping is bad because you won't have OAR on your fixed pixel displays or you say it's fine in which case the 28% should be fine for j6p.

my point is that you guys are saying "OAR unless I say otherwise." Double standard.
post #237 of 276
borghe, are you being obtuse on purpose? There is no double standard. 1.85 is so close to 1.77 that it simply becomes academic. We're talking about the terrible loss of image you get cropping extensively, not a smidgen.

Sheesh. What a brick wall.
post #238 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by chroma601
borghe, are you being obtuse on purpose? There is no double standard. 1.85 is so close to 1.77 that it simply becomes academic. We're talking about the terrible loss of image you get cripping extensively, not a smidgen.

Sheesh. What a brick wall.
Yup. It's pointless to argue anymore with those that just don't want to live in the real world.

As Ken said, in the ideal, perfect video world, everything should be in OAR. But in the real world, you sometimes have to carefully choose which battle you want to fight. To ask the entire production chain to maintain 1.85 OAR may be too much and not worth the slight gains. I'd much rather put resources into the 2.x OAR arena. It's much easier to try to make the argument that a 25% loss is extremely significant than to make the same claim for a 3% loss. It's not a double standard. It's simply being practical and reasonable.
post #239 of 276
JerryG -- I agree on all points.

Not to name any names, but do some of the recent posts to this thread bring the word "troll" to the mind of anyone else?
post #240 of 276
Thread Starter 
Fox-HD appears to be cropping movies, so subtract one more name from the list.

I suggest everyone support Showtime. I realize there isn't much in the way of new content, but at least they're OAR. They have been getting some decent movies lately. They ran Karate Kid on Sat and will be running School of Rock next month.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › HAS the OAR battle been lost?