[dandrewk]

I know there are lots of OAR fanatics here. And I hear your call, and mostly agree with the sentiments. But with more and more films being shot in 2:35 for NO GOOD REASON, cropping/pan & scan can sometimes make a film better.


Nobody is knocking widescreen. But 2:35 started as a means for those "epic" films (starting in the '50's) to show those broad battlefield, etc. Nowadays, most filmmakers use it because they are too incompetent to design shots in anything but 2:35. I mean, after all, they have these huge sets, why not show all of it?


Elegance and efficiency go right out the door, everything becomes "in your face" with the assumption that the viewing public is too stupid to fill in the blanks.


Result - we get tons of useless visual information, with a huge, wide screen filled with characters/objects rendered too small to elicit fine detail and artistic nuance.


I am NOT against 2:35. It has its merits for the proper material. But when I see ANIMATED movies and films like "In the Bedroom" being shot in 2:35, I have to ask: Why? Why do character driven films need a wide aspect?


It's for reasons like this that I am NOT an OAR fanatic. You say the film is cropped? GOOD!. Maybe it should have been shot that way...

 

[kurros]

It is not so much that "OAR fanatics" are complaining about loss of visual information, which has its own issues. The problem is that many times when they go back to edit it for 16x9 or 4x3 they zoom, which results in a loss of resolution.


Your opinoin that you could would have done it in a smaller frame if you were directing is certainly valid, but saying that the director was incompetent is going a bit far.

 

[aviators99]

There is so much wrong with this posting, I don't know where to start. But here are the highlights:


1) Watching movies in HD is about watching movies the way they were aired in the theater.


2) If a director chooses to film a movie in a particular aspect ratio, then that's his/her right as an artist/filmmaker. If you don't think it was necessary, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Do you buy a work of art from a gallery and crop it?


3) Some worker at HBO doesn't know more than a veteran director about which things in the scenery are important to a film's message. A paint chip might be just as important as a line of dialogue.

 

[balazer]

It's too simplistic to say for all films that the original theatrical aspect ratio is the one and only proper aspect ratio. Lots of films are shot open matte, with the director envisioning multiple target aspect ratios.

 

[balazer]

Isn't the point to have a picture that matches the human field of vision? I don't know about your eyes, but my eyes are closer to 1.85:1 than 2.35:1.

 

[dandrewk]

Kurros - ok, "incompetent" was a bit harsh. I dunno, maybe "lazy" would be a better word.


Aviators -


1. Maybe for you, but for the vast majority of viewers, its all about sharper pictures. If OAR or lack thereof improves the experience, not having the HD viewing duplicate the theater showing is irrelevant.


2. Of course it's their right. But once a movie is released to the public, iow ME, -I- become lord and master of that viewing experience, not the director. I pay my money, I get the absolute right to agree/disagree with everything the moviemaker did.


By using your logic, we are not allowed to want a different ending/faster pace/more sex, etc. in any movie we view. Given that, I bet there must be very few movies that anyone would watch.


3. In this case, I disagree. -IF- the movie has no business being shot wide in the first place, cropping will only help the film.


A similar vain - movies that are 2+ hours long, for no good reason. Again, elegance and efficiency are a thing of the past. Don't know how to tell the story in a simple manner, letting the viewer figure it out?(Hitchcock was a MASTER at efficient filmaking) - HEY! I know! Let's just include EVERYTHING and bore everyone to tears.


I am not an editor. But I guarantee you - sit me down on an AVID with some movies I have seen recently, and within one hour I will come up with something BETTER than the overlong theatrical release.


Sorry if that sounds arrogant and pompous, but I know of no other way to describe it.


We live in an age of film school directors with their "wow, look at me!" cinematic training, and quality has suffered as a direct result.

 

[aviators99]

The point is to have a picture the way the filmmakers created it! Once a film is made (edited), the message is created. Perhaps you think it could have been done better--but it can't--by definition. It would be a different picture (with its own message)!

 

[vruiz]

Quote:

Originally posted by aviators99 There is so much wrong with this posting, I don't know where to start.

Then why did you? Don't feed the trolls please.

 

[Savageone79]

Sorry but you do sound pompous. You may feel you have the right to re edit a movie once you own it to suite your feelings about the film but that is just nonsense. You take the movie as it was made and either like it as such or not. Agreed not all directors are masters at their craft and maybe they even think it could have been done better but somehow I don't think it should be left up to the consumer. An artist doesnt take votes on which color to use in his painting. By your line of thought fox should start a show and call it American Film maker where every week we get to vote on how a film is shot and edited, who stars in it and what the content is. A film should be viewed as it was intended and we dont have the right to alter that. (and i don't agree that most directors film their movies so that it can be shown open matte or pan and scan.. I am sure some maybe fool proof the movie so that it won't ruin it but if they wanted it to be shown that way they would have made it that way to begin with)

 

[aviators99]

Quote:

Originally posted by vruiz Then why did you? Don't feed the trolls please.

Good point...sorry.

 

[Thebarnman]

Quote:

Originally posted by balazer Isn't the point to have a picture that matches the human field of vision? I don't know about your eyes, but my eyes are closer to 1.85:1 than 2.35:1.

Wow, you must have very poor peripheral vision.

 

[BKMaggert]

Quote:

Originally posted by balazer Isn't the point to have a picture that matches the human field of vision? I don't know about your eyes, but my eyes are closer to 1.85:1 than 2.35:1.

There's more to it than an aspect ratio that matches your field of vision. (How do you measure that anyway?) We live in a world governed by gravity. It means we live in a predominately horizontal world. People move across a room horizontally, not vertically. Cars go back and forth, not up and down. Etcetera, etcetera. For a given screen area, a wider aspect ratio shows more 'action.'

 

[Andrew_Ballew]

I posted this in another thread, but its in respose to the same thread starter- so I will post it here too..


Because they wanted to. That was the artist's decision, and regardless of anyone else's opinion, thats the way it should be presented.


As a musician who makes a lot of his own recordings, I might pick out a certain key to perform a song. My choice of key is not necessarily always thought out in depth, but it was my choice, I perfected the recording in that key, and always expect it to be replayed in that key to maintain its integrity as I mastered it. I don't want someone else later on down the road who had no input at all in the creation of the recording to decide that so and so consumers might like it in another key therefore they butcher it with pitch processing. Ruining the original performance, compromising fidelity, and doing great violence to the artist's final judgment of a completed work.

 

[dandrewk]

LOL, yes, if you can't come up with intelligent, cohesive arguments, simply throw around meaningless insults and leave it at that.


Instead of calling someone with over 550 posts a "troll" (btw, do you even know the meaning of that term?), why not debate the point? Otherwise we will assume you don't have any valid rebuttal.


Savageone - I see, so as long as the viewpoint melds with yours, it's ok to have the viewpoint. Otherwise, to use your term, it's "nonsense". And you call -me- pompous? Hey, you are entitled to your opinion, and NOWHERE here have I attacked the retentive OAR fanatics as you all seem to be attacking me.


If you want OAR, that's fine for you, but... IMHO IMHO, you are AWFULLY close-minded if you insist on it every single time, and AWFULLY pompous if you think everybody (including ABC, HBO etc.) has to agree with you.


Reread my original post. Look at the thread title before you raise your idealistic cackles. If an object is flawed, we have the right to correct it, or at least CRITICIZE it. We don't have to sit back and have it jammed down our throats, all the while spewing out vacant platitudes about "artistic integrity".

 

[dandrewk]

Andrew - understood, and I agree with you.


Understand, though, that once you sell rights to your recording, you lose final say in how it is presented. Even Spielberg, Lucas etc. only maintain limited control over subsequent presentations.

 

[Andrew_Ballew]

Quote:

Originally posted by dandrewk Andrew - understood, and I agree with you. Understand, though, that once you sell rights to your recording, you lose final say in how it is presented. Even Spielberg, Lucas etc. only maintain limited control over subsequent presentations.

True that I could lose control over its presentation, but that still doesn't change the fact the I, the artist, prefer it to be presented in the way I perfected it.


Likewise, when it comes to my personal enjoyment of movies, I would rather give the artist the benefit of the doubt and see it OAR.


But, I guess almost in a hypocritical way, I still thoroughly enjoy HBO HD, especially when their re-framing is done well. Sometimes their pan and scanning just plain sucks, though. As a matter of fact, I think ALL pan and scanning sucks. But I will give you this much- re-framing can be done well, especially when shot open matte for various aspect ratios. But all that being said, I still want it the most as the film-maker originally framed it.

 

[dandrewk]

Quote:

But all that being said, I still want it the most as the film-maker originally framed it.

As do I! I know that comes as a surprise to some of the posters in this thread, who took my words out of context to launch yet-another diatribe about the absolute necessity of OAR.


I much prefer OAR, but I HATE that some films were shot in 2:35. That's all I am saying. Character driven movies don't need 2:35, and YES, it does detract from the movie.


Take my example - "In the Bedroom". An otherwise excellent film, I was bothered by the wide aspect. Watch that film sometime, and frame it in your head for 1:78, etc. Or better yet, crop it if you have ffdshow. I bet what you will see will look and feel better.


This doesn't mean that it SHOULD be cropped or P&S'd when viewing. Just that it SHOULD have been a non-wide aspect when filmed. Maybe instead of whining to HBO, we should be whining to the movie studios about excessive 2:35 usage.


I don't mind at all if 1:66 or 1:85 films are shown in 1:78. In fact, "widescreen enhanced" DVD's do just that. I DO mind 2:35 that is shown in anything but OAR. But I WON'T not watch it just because it isn't OAR.

 

[Andrew_Ballew]

Quote:

But I WON'T not watch it just because it isn't OAR.

I am with you here except for 4:3 pan and scan- I just hate it. But again, if something is reframed by say HBO-HD, and it looks good re-framed- sure I will watch it. Like you, I am certainly not a total OAR zealot. Except again on that da*n 4:3 pan and scan stuff... like they recently did to "The Fifth Element."


And I absolutely DETEST hearing things from relatives like "I hate those black bars," or " Why doesn't it fill my screen, is something wrong with it?" Sheesh.



Cheers


Andrew B.

 

[balazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thebarnman Wow, you must have very poor peripheral vision.

Perhaps you have very poor vision in the top and bottom peripheries.

 

[balazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by BKMaggert ... It means we live in a predominately horizontal world. ... For a given screen area, a wider aspect ratio shows more 'action.'

Who says 1.85:1 is narrower than 2.35:1? Maybe 1.85:1 is taller!