AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Has anyone posted this? I'm trying to figure out if the person actually believes this about Letterboxing and doesn't have a clue about OAR, or is actually making fun of those folks that don't understand it. I hope it's a joke...


Here's a quote from the webpage:

Quote:
"Letterboxing" is the vile practice of censoring movies on video and broadcast television or cable by blocking the top and bottom of the television screen with black bars so that you cannot watch or enjoy the movie. Letterboxing"/Lettershlocking censorship ignores the fact that the television screen is a different shape than the movie screen, so that the movie must be correctly formatted to fit the television screen.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About Letterboxing (Lettershlocking)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
This guy has been around for YEARS. In about 1995 or so, I made the mistake of trying to show him why letterbox images exist.


He's an annoying troll, and I hope he never stumbles across this forum. Also be forwarned that you will NOT show him his errors in his thinking. The email I received from him, after visually creating an example, was commical. I wish I had saved it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,570 Posts
Ah, Savetele... this guy might have got probed by aliens one to many times... unfortunately I think he's totally serious.


Fred
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Aaron Oz
This guy has been around for YEARS. In about 1995 or so, I made the mistake of trying to show him why letterbox images exist.


He's an annoying troll, and I hope he never stumbles across this forum. Also be forwarned that you will NOT show him his errors in his thinking. The email I received from him, after visually creating an example, was commical. I wish I had saved it.
So he truly believes this? I love it, Letterboxing is a conspiracy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Oh man. I emailed him too telling him about OAR. He answered me and told me to GO AWAY. Then any emails I got from him after that were, "We have no interest in debating you!" Yeah. He swears up and down he will WIN the fight with letterboxing. But, he won't. I finally told him, "You like fullscreen so much? Then buy the ****ing movie on VHS and leave DVD alone!" Oooo I was pissed. But, I do believe his website is a joke now. There's been some research done on him too. I believe his name is Bernie Farber.


Here is a webpage that basically looks like HIS page, but, some words are underlined and if you click on them, a message will pop up and say why that's a bunch of BS. Like, the 99.99999999999% crap. His opinions DON'T COUNT!! You'll see why.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ussdefiant/rebuttal.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,570 Posts
And you know what's really ridiculous is if he ever went and saw an older film like, say, Citizen Kane at a theatrical screening and it was shown at the correct OAR that had his beloved "full-screen" shape he'd flip out there too because "it didn't look right" on the modern theater screen.


Fred
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
To mix up things I want to remind that what is considered pan & scan is often actually full frame or open matte. If these are unfamiliar, see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/AV/FilmToVideo/ for a good explanation.


A couple of times I've compared the aired 4:3 version of movie with the OAR widescreen version I have on DVD and it seems that often the 4:3 process includes partly open matte AND pan & scan. The reminds the reframing that is shown on that website's super-35 section, but I guess that mostly in those cases the original film is not super-35.


My 2 eurocents worth..


P.S. I'm on supporting that ridiculous website in the beginning of the thread. OAR rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
rauer


The open-matte area often contains things that were not meant to be seen in the film, such as boom mics or shadows. In the open-matted version of "A Fish Called Wanda" you can clearly see that John Cleese is wearing boxers when he is supposed to be naked, another case of something that wasn't supposed to be on screen because the director intended it to be matted out.


When there is a mix of open matte and p&s that usually means that there are special effects shots, which have to be pan & scanned because they are only finished for the OAR in order to save money.


IMHO open-matting is just as bad as p&s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
joekun,


as I stated I'm a supporter of OAR, absolutely. I just wanted to remind that it's not technically always p&s as thought.


EDIT: another thing to consider, if you do not need subtitles and don't mind ( :eek: ) losing the resolution, you can always zoom an open matte picture and get something close to OAR..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Another thing you could do is put some cardboard at the top and bottom. But of course, like Joekun said. The special effects are usually pan and scanned because they are only done in the film's OAR on the computer. That saves on processing time, and, yes, money. I watched part of A Christmas Story on TCM, which was in the soft matte letterbox format, and it looked damned good. Open matte also seems to make the picture look more far away. Don't need extra crap at the top and bottom of the screen. So, the director's intended OAR is what I shoot for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
Quote:
another thing to consider, if you do not need subtitles and don't mind ( ) losing the resolution, you can always zoom an open matte picture and get something close to OAR.
I would rather have the studios use the zoom feature on DVD players to cut off the sides of an anamorphic picture for those who have a problem with the letterboxing. Most full-framers don't care about resolution as much as we do.


I know you're not in the full-frame crowd, just throwing out some comments of my own :)
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top