Open Matte/Alternate aspect ratio releases

[Qaenos]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

So you can't go wring with OAR, but you don't prefer it, even though it's technically not "cropped."

Cropping is when something is cut off that was intended to be seen. Masking a negative for OAR isn't cropping, despite what you might want to believe.

Ok, I'll use the term "masked'. I don't want cause confusion. To me, I think of it as "cropped" because the image is lost forever - as Blu-ray user, I can't choose to remove the mask and recover the original full frame image.

As for the statement "You can't go wrong with OAR, but I prefer open matte most of the time" - that's what I mean. Releasing a film on Blu-ray in OAR is the safest bet. You are presenting the film as it was shown in theaters, so you can't be blamed for a bad AR choice. However, most of the time, I prefer films that open up the matte, because I like to see more of the picture. There are rare exceptions when this backfires (Pee Wee Herman, for example). However, I recognize that this preference is in the minority, which is why I say - you can't go wrong with OAR. I've never been upset that a Blu-ray is in OAR, but I still prefer open matte most of the time.

[baheidstu]

If the intent on the part of the director and cinematographer was not for it to be exhibited that way then watching it open matte has no legitimacy. Just because someone saw a film that way on TV or DVD years ago means nothing. Those were compromises made to accommodate for the fact that mass consumers didn't like black bars on their TVs and wanted pictures that filled the whole screen. Watching a film this way IS analogous to Pan & Scan because the intent is the same. Altering the composition of a film's image to account for technical limitations and / or ignorance. Whether a film is shown unmasked so that it reveals boom mikes, or cropped so that it upsets the balance of the image, the results are the same - a corruption of the photographic composition.

There have been films released on blu-ray in multiple ratios but these are exceptions with specific reasons. The Big Trail was made in 1930 when virtually all films and the theatres that exhibited them were academy ratio only. On The Waterfront was released when widescreen was new, thus many films were shown either way, again, due to the fact that theatres were not equipped to show widescreen. These issues were known to the filmmakers at the time and taken into account when shooting the film. In the case of Oklahoma, they shot the entire film twice to account for the fact that many theatres could not show 70mm movies. To use the blu-ray releases of these films as evidence to back-up the opinion that all films should be released in multiple aspect ratios is wrong.

If someone has the desire to watch a film "differently" - whether it be turning the colour down on your screen to watch it in black & white, or watching the open matte version of a film on your DVD copy, go for it, but there's no way anyone should be encouraging the studios to accommodate these personal quirks for future blu-ray releases.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

Multiple aspect ratios imply lower bitrates.

There are many releases with multiple versions on multiple discs. Lifeforce from Arrow is just one example - the theatrical is on one disc and the director's cut is on the 2nd disc. Why would two different aspect ratios be any different? Shout just did that with Exorcist III/Legion. Just make them a multi-disc set.

[Martoto]

The argument for "more image" makes about as much sense as asking for all the sync sound that was recorded on the set, not just the dialogue, because it lets you hear "more sounds" and fills your speakers more. Even if they are noises that the director never intended you to hear.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

To save time, I'm going to refer you to this article. Scroll down to where it says The Issue of "Open Matte" and take a look at the example presented from Dark City. Nuff said, imo.

At the end of the day, either you care about seeing it the proper way or you don't.

That's one example. It's already been said several times in here that we are talking about films that were released theatrically in multiple aspect ratios. This can be done and has been done in the past. Titanic 3D is a recent example. Disney animation is another area where this is an issue - The artists bothered to animate the frame for 4:3/alternate viewing options, so many people appreciate having that version available to see the artwork the artists bothered to draw, even though it may not have been seen in the original aspect ratio.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Martoto

The argument for "more image" makes about as much sense as asking for all the sync sound that was recorded on the set, not just the dialogue, because it's "more sound" and fills your speakers more. Even if they are noises that the director never intended you to hear.

You and others continue to ignore the fact that some films have been released in multiple aspect ratios theatrically. What then?

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by mar3o

That's one example.

It's one of many - I simply posted that to save time and typing.

Originally Posted by mar3o

It's already been said several times in here that we are talking about films that were released theatrically in multiple aspect ratios.

That may be what you are talking about, but the OP specifically cited TV broadcasts so clearly he's not just talking about what was shown theatrically.

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by frodawgg

My proposal is this: a release should include every ratio a movie has been presented in other than home media. Let's use the oft-discussed and -disputed "The Shining", for example. It was shot in 1.37, exhibited in theaters at both 1.66 and 1.85, and on TV in 1.33. Even though Kubrick's "intended" version was 1.85, I actually prefer the 4×3 one (well, actually it would be nice to have the negative ratio, but it was only filmed--not presented--that way, so let's disregard it), as it opens up the image more.

But thanks for the correction, I guess...

[mar3o]

I'll quote the OP:

"My proposal is this: a release should include every ratio a movie has been presented in other than home media."

To me he is referring to alternate theatrical presentations.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by mar3o

You and others continue to ignore the fact that some films have been released in multiple aspect ratios theatrically. What then?

We haven't ignored that fact, you just haven't been paying attention.

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

At the end of the day, the decision should be left up to the filmmaker(s). If they want a release with multiple aspect ratios, so be it. Arbitrarily changing the intended AR to appease a handful of people would be just as misguided and insulting as colorizing old movies in an attempt to attract people who don't like B&W films.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I'll quote the OP:

"My proposal is this: a release should include every ratio a movie has been presented in other than home media."

To me he is referring to alternate theatrical presentations.

Maybe you should read more than one sentence in the post. I've already cited the portion of the post that demonstrates that he is including TV broadcasts, but apparently hiding it under a spoiler tag confused you.

Originally Posted by frodawgg

My proposal is this: a release should include every ratio a movie has been presented in other than home media. Let's use the oft-discussed and -disputed "The Shining", for example. It was shot in 1.37, exhibited in theaters at both 1.66 and 1.85, and on TV in 1.33. Even though Kubrick's "intended" version was 1.85, I actually prefer the 4×3 one (well, actually it would be nice to have the negative ratio, but it was only filmed--not presented--that way, so let's disregard it), as it opens up the image more.

He wants it the way he saw it on TV. How is that not clear?

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by mar3o

You and others continue to ignore the fact that some films have been released in multiple aspect ratios theatrically. What then?

The OP for this thread mentions aspect ratios that were presented. Not aspect ratios released.

If a studio/artist releases a film in multiple ratios in the theatre then everything shot for that film was intended to be seen in one of those formats at least.

The artist and/or distributor is not obligated to repeat the mistakes made by exhibitors for nostalgic reasons.

Why is it assumed that a movie presented in a theatre at the wrong aspect ratio meant that more image was being projected?

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

Maybe you should read more than one sentence in the post. I've already cited the portion of the post that demonstrates that he is including TV broadcasts, but apparently hiding it under a spoiler tag confused you.



He wants it the way he saw it on TV. How is that not clear?

Why do you always have to have an attitude in these threads? Are you incapable of having a friendly discussion without bringing your trademark snark to the table? We're just having a discussion here. Too many people on this forum have a bad attitude. I don't get it.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Why do you always have to have an attitude in these threads? Are you incapable of having a friendly discussion without bringing your trademark snark to the table? We're just having a discussion here. Too many people on this forum have a bad attitude. I don't get it.

I actually find WhySoBlu? to be one of the most well-informed and articulate users on this forum who often beats me to the punch with saying what I intend to. I find far less attitude in his responses than this post of yours...

Originally Posted by mar3o

You and others continue to ignore the fact that some films have been released in multiple aspect ratios theatrically. What then?

...which tersely seems to ignore all the points that have been made already in this discussion.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Why do you always have to have an attitude in these threads? Are you incapable of having a friendly discussion without bringing your trademark snark to the table? We're just having a discussion here. Too many people on this forum have a bad attitude. I don't get it.

Is that your way of acknowledging your mistake? I'll take it.

And yes, I can be abrasive - but you're not exactly innocent here yourself, as baheidstu pointed out. I have no problem with you personally, but I'm not particularly fond of being corrected unless I've actually made a mistake. So I guess you could say my doucheyness is a snark borne out of frustration...

[bigshot]

I think there is an awful lot of OCD in either the hobby of home audio and theater, or just on home audio and theater forums. I see people loudly complaining about differences in aspect ratios that don't add up to a hill of beans. 1.66? 1.85? Yes, the numbers sure do sound different, but when you look at the film in those two aspect ratios, they are basically the same. 16/44.1? 24/96? I defy you to discern any audible difference. People can become WAY too dogmatic about numbers, and it's a lot easier to judge image and sound quality by mechanically applying formulas of numbers than it is by using your eyes, ears and mind. I usually roll my eyes when I see people acting like that and move on to someone who is able to judge without looking at a scorecard.

[frodawgg]

Looks like I ruffled some feathers. Not my intent. My bad. ��

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I think there is an awful lot of OCD in either the hobby of home audio and theater, or just on home audio and theater forums. I see people loudly complaining about differences in aspect ratios that don't add up to a hill of beans. 1.66? 1.85? Yes, the numbers sure do sound different, but when you look at the film in those two aspect ratios, they are basically the same. 16/44.1? 24/96? I defy you to discern any audible difference. People can become WAY too dogmatic about numbers, and it's a lot easier to judge image and sound quality by mechanically applying formulas of numbers than it is by using your eyes, ears and mind. I usually roll my eyes when I see people acting like that and move on to someone who is able to judge without looking at a scorecard.

1.66 and 1.85 are pretty damn different if you ask me.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

1.66 and 1.85 are pretty damn different if you ask me.

I agree. Now, 1.33:1 to 1.37:1 or 1.85:1 to 1.78:1? Yeah, those are close to each other.

[fuzzymctiger]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I agree. Now, 1.33:1 to 1.37:1 or 1.85:1 to 1.78:1? Yeah, those are close to each other.

I kind of notice 1:85:1 to 1.78:1 at least on a tv or computer, because it's just the little difference between looking like a TV show and looking like a movie, but that's just me

[bigshot]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspe...ratios_svg.svg

1.33 is a significant difference from everything else, but 1.66 to 1.85 are all very close, especially the way theyre typically composed.