1.85:1 or open matte to 1.78:1

[Blu-21]

At the risk of this being a insignificant thread/poll, do you prefer a film in its OAR of 1.85:1 with the small black bars in tact on the top and bottom of the screen? or do you find it preferable when studios open up the frame resulting in slightly extra picture information on the top and bottom?

Keep in mind I don't mean when studios crop/over scan the image from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 which makes for slightly lower resolution and less image visible, and I can understand how opening up the mattes from films in 2.35:1 shot in Super35 to 1.78:1 would turn people off which is why these things aren't what I'm talking about in regards to this poll.

[HD Goofnut]

OAR all the way, but it doesn't really bother me that much when a title is opened up from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1. Now, going from 2.39:1 to 1.78:1 is absolutely inexcusable.

[aiman04]

No preference, both are fine.

[HyperRealist]

Don't care and I have 120" screen.

[Al_The_Strange]

Whichever one the film was originally filmed in.

[AngelGraves13]

Open Matte as long as the framing doesn't go to hell, like showing C-stands or lightboxes or cast and crew.

It's not that big of a difference, but it's nice to have the screen filled.

[OrlandoEastwood]

Originally Posted by AngelGraves13

Open Matte as long as the framing doesn't go to hell, like showing C-stands or lightboxes or cast and crew.

It's not that big of a difference, but it's nice to have the screen filled.

When I was a child living at military bases, especially in Germany, the people working the theater at one of the bases near me couldn't project a film to save their lives. Most 1.85:1 are in 1.37:1 with everything visible at the top and bottom and you'd see boom mics in a lot of shots because the projectionist screwed up.

[HeavyHitter]

OAR preferable, but it doesn't bother me either way in this case.

[Dex Robinson]

Until recently, I would have said that either one is fine. The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is so minor.

But let me give you one very specific example where opening a 1.85:1 movie to 1.78:1 ruined a scene.

In the Scorpion release of BEACH GIRLS, there is a scene where a boy is holding a bottle and a girl is pulling on the cap, trying to open the bottle. In this scene, the girl is reaching down, grabbing the bottle while both of them are rocking and the boy is yelling, "It's coming, it's coming".

This was clearly intended to be a sexual joke. The girl was supposed to be reaching down...OUT OF SIGHT below the frame. We were supposed to assume that she was jerking on something other than a bottle. The big "reveal" was to have been foam shooting out of the bottle at which time we would all get the joke.

The obvious problem is: we all saw the bottle she was jerking through the entire scene. It was only visible in a tiny sliver at the bottom of the frame and we could only see the very top of the bottle. Nevertheless, it was clearly visible. So the intended joke was spoiled from the moment that scene appeared.

So, even though the difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 is very small, I've come to respect that we shouldn't tamper with the way the director intended things to be seen.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

OAR all the way, but it doesn't really bother me that much when a title is opened up from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1. Now, going from 2.39:1 to 1.78:1 is absolutely inexcusable.

This.

[nagysaudio]

Makes no difference.

[Blu-Velvet]

It really depends on the movie. There are a lot that are transferred at 1.85 or 1.78 that I'd really prefer to see at 1.66, and in a few cases even at 1.37 (like THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO). As others have noted, changing a 2.35/2.4 film to 1.78 (whether opening up the top and bottom from a Super-35 negative or chopping off the sides of an anamorphic negative) is a travesty that must continue to be condemned vehemently. On the other hand, there are likely any number of Super-35 films that were basically composed for a 1.78 HDTV final product but released theatrically as 2.4 just to get a bigger picture in theatres that have full CinemaScope wide screens. That is just as annoying, as the theatrical version looks tightly cropped and a 1.78 version would probably look better.

The nice thing about having a projector with a zoom lens (with black masking around the screen) is that if a 1.78 or 1.66 transfer looks too loose, all you need to do is zoom it out to 1.85. If it's transferred at 1.85 and looks too tight, you're S.O.L.

I really appreciate the few rare Blu-rays that include the option of both a 1.37 and a 1.78 transfer, and in even rarer cases separate 1.37, 1.66, and 1.85 transfers!

[EddieLarkin]

1.85:1. Obviously the difference is neglible but it feels more like I'm watching a film if I have black bars somewhere on the screen. If it's 1.78:1 it feels like I'm watching a TV show.

[42041]

Not a significant difference; don't care.

[frogmort]

My favorite film of all time is The Shining. I guess I've gotten used to the 1.78:1 AR on BD.

[Drewbee87]

Seeing as how my tv doesn't have a Dot by Dot option that keeps me from seeing every inch of the picture, I voted "Either one is fine".

[StingingVelvet]

OAR all the way.

I don't even notice black bars since I watch stuff in the dark. It baffles me how some people can be so annoyed by them, in any form.

[reason108]

OAR preferred. But, also ok with 1.78:1 as long as it does not affect things. There should be a poll for the directors of the films to answer. I wonder how they would feel about it.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by reason108

OAR preferred. But, also ok with 1.78:1 as long as it does not affect things. There should be a poll for the directors of the films to answer. I wonder how they would feel about it.

Ask Roger Donaldson. He decided to alter The World's Fastest Indian to 1.78:1 from 2.39:1 for the BD release. It was released in 2.39:1 in Australia though. Then there's Michael Apted who did the same thing for The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

[yellowcakeuf6]

And let's not forget about 1.75:1.