|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).