Open Matte/Alternate aspect ratio releases

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

Your preferences shouldn't be playing a part in this at all - it's not about what you want, it's about what the people who made the film intended.

I think that depends on whether you see film is a static object displayed in a museum, or if it is a living thing where the audience is the ultimate judge. I see value to both sides of that coin. I certainly don't feel entitled to tell teenage kids not to play Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon while they watch Wizard of Oz and I don't think Bugs Bunny on Broadway is a sacrilege because they aren't screening the cartoons with the soundtrack that was recorded for them.

Everything is a continuum, with radically wrong on one end and just slightly wrong on the other. There's nothing wrong with expressing relative values.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I think the issue with 1:66 vs 1:85 isn't the small difference on one side, but the added total between both sides.

A sales program for Vistavision posted in a thread on Strategic Air Command showed a 1.85 image with approximately the 1.33 field in the middle marked "comfortable viewing area" and the additional image to either side of it marked "the corner of the eye". There's a difference in relative value to edges of the screen as opposed to the center too.

[HD Goofnut]

I am still laughing at bigshot's post about how 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 are close.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Well, you misunderstand my argument. I'm just saying in relative terms, it's small.

Herp a derp.

No, I get it. I just disagree. I realize it doesn't matter to you, but you're not going to convince enthusiasts that OAR isn't a big deal.

Originally Posted by bigshot

I think people should get upset in proportion to the error. Get really mad at the first blu-ray release of The World at War, which was cropped from 1.33 to 1.78. Get considerably less mad at Strategic Air Command, which was cropped from 1.85 to 1.66.

I think you should stop worrying about how other people react. It's no big deal to you, but others want the movies they're watching to be presented properly. Your indifference won't change that.

Originally Posted by bigshot

If you get just as mad at little things as big ones, you won't have a very happy life because only God is perfect.

See, it's these idiotic, condescending platitudes like the one above that show you really just don't get it...

We're living in a time where it's possible to have every film presented in its intended aspect ratio, without exception. There's absolutely no good reason to alter the composition of a movie just to make some simpleton happy by filling up his screen.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I think that depends on whether you see film is a static object displayed in a museum, or if it is a living thing where the audience is the ultimate judge.

What if we just see the film as a work of art that was made by a team of artists and wish to see it the way they intended it to be seen?

And given the average intelligence of a given audience, I would never, ever want the audience to be the "ultimate judge" of anything. I can't even begin to imagine how terrible things would be if the average moron was dictating how films should be presented...

Originally Posted by bigshot

Everything is a continuum, with radically wrong on one end and just slightly wrong on the other. There's nothing wrong with expressing relative values.

There's everything wrong with wanting to arbitrarily alter a work of art you had nothing to do with. The fact that you can't see this says all that needs to be said.

[jh901]

1.66 versus 1.85 may not be a deal breaker on the typical flat panel display, but don't we want to advocate for home THEATER rather than home VIDEO? There's no rationale for the issuance of blu-ray that crops the theatrical in this era. My 1.33 diagonal is roughly 75" and 1.78 is 92" and 1.35 is 115". I expect blu-ray movies to be issued with a "theater display" in mind. Many of you will get into front projection in the next few years and I can assure you that you'll be thankful for all of the OAR content you've collected.

This is a good topic, but sometimes the response isn't convenient. Better to advocate for videophile quality transfers than to waste time calculating how to get a tiny bit more screen area from a "home video" friendly blu.

[bigshot]

I think it's fine to hope that the studios do everything perfect. But studios are made up of fallible humans. It just isn't realistic to boycott releases and demand that they go back in and issue replacement disks for minor errors. Politely point it out and move on with a smile on your face. If you nail them to the cross for the little stuff, all that does is convince the studios that streaming is a lot easier market to serve than blu-ray.

I watched Strategic Air Command (VistaVision 1.85) in 1.66 on my ten foot screen the other night and enjoyed it immensely. And I watched several of the recent Hammer pictures in 2.00 instead of 1.85 and enjoyed them too. Would I have enjoyed them more if they were the correct aspect? Probably not. The films weren't impacted by the difference in any way I or my friends could detect. If it hadn't been pointed out to me online that the aspect ratio was off, I probably would never have known.

I guess I am a very fortunate cinephile. I'm living the dream I had when I was a kid of what the future would be like... Tens of thousands of movies and TV shows instantly available to me to screen in my own movie theater in my house. Full color! Surround sound! Big sharp picture! For all that, I'm happy to forgive a sliver of image too much or too little once in a while. I'm not going to get all hot and bothered about small details.

I love the art of movies passionately. I'm not hidebound to the technical aspects. YMMV

[WhySoBlu?]

The (completely misplaced) smug air of superiority is just wafting off of that post, permeating the thread with the stench of arrogant indifference...

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

The (completely misplaced) smug air of superiority is just wafting off of that post, permeating the thread with the stench of arrogant indifference...

[mar3o]

I'm sorry but I see nothing wrong with Bigshot's attitude here, unlike some others in this thread. He is being civil and posting his opinions. People on this site are often rude and ruthless when defending their position. Bigshot isn't being rude so I give him credit. I see where he is coming from but I don't agree 100%. On the one hand, he's right. People on this site are often way, waaay too snobbish about every little technical aspect of a blu-ray, to the point where they seem to be incapable of actually enjoying watching movies anymore. They're too busy picking the releases apart. Which I can also understand because there's lots of screwed-up releases out there.

But I can see his point. I hate it when they botch up aspect ratios, sure. But there's no reason for some people in this thread to be so rude and antagonizing just because his priorities aren't the same as some of the other members in here. We all have things that bother us with these releases. Some people are more concerned over color timing, some over grain/DNR,some with sharpening, some over audio tracks (original/remixed), some over packaging, and some over aspect ratios, just to name a few points people regularly argue about in here. Why do some people get so twisted out of shape just because somebody has a different opinion?

[bigshot]

No problem. It's OK really. I've been on the internet for over 20 years now. I know all about internet forums and the kinds of people they attract- both good and bad. People don't have to agree with me, I'm fine with that. I'm having a discussion, and if someone wants to dismiss the discussion with a wave of the hand and an over emotional ad hominem attack, then I'll just continue to speak past them to the people who are actually paying attention and interested.

I do think it's important to quantify the relative size of problems when we talk about them on forums. Unless you actually own the disc, you have to depend on the discernment of others to decide whether something is a deal breaker, or something you can easily live with. Like you say, this isn't just about aspect ratios... it's a whole range of things people do or don't find objectionable. We all object to seeing Oklahoma squished into a CRT TV set with cropping and pan and scan. But I have to say, I don't object to Strategic Air Command in 1.66 instead of 1.85. The degree of the problem should be defined so people can decide for themselves.

We're all serving an audience here... other film fans like us who are reading what we write to decide what movies they want to buy. We owe it to them to give them a fair assessment of the discs we review and speak about. We shouldn't make absolutist proclamations to try to make their minds up for them. I understand that certain personality types have trouble discerning shades of gray and may not be able to modulate their emotional outbursts. That's OK. I understand. But that sort of thing really doesn't help the people reading to pick a movie to buy to watch this weekend. Those are the people I'm speaking with, even if they are just lurkers and don't post.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

No problem with multiple aspect ratios if it was presented that way theatrically or is endorsed by the director/cinematographer. If only Arrow's release of Blood and Black Lace had included the 1.85:1 version, then we wouldn't just have a cropped 1.66:1 version with horrible framing.

[frodawgg]

For those interested: https://www.change.org/p/warner-brot...edium=copylink

Those of you who are not and are dead set against it, I respectfully ask you to please ignore and keep your comments to yourself. Thank you.

[Thad Komorowski]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I'm sorry but I see nothing wrong with Bigshot's attitude here, unlike some others in this thread. He is being civil and posting his opinions.

Gosh, BIGSHOT'S post immediately below yours has BIGSHOT playing Internet psychoanalyst with a lot of the posters here, passive aggressively accusing them of having personality disorders for not understanding what BIGSHOT wrote. That's a reoccurring theme in BIGSHOT threads all over the Internet: BIGSHOT says something; someone says, "That's not accurate, here's proof;" BIGSHOT plays the, "I've done all this, and this is the miserable thanks I get, I'm still right and you're mentally ill" card.

Personally, I think there's a fine line between posting an opinion and saying there's no difference between 1.66 and 1.85 and "I know which version of this film I'll choose, and it isn't historically accurate." Seems a lot of other people do too, but you know, that's our problem.

[Widescreenfilmguy]

What a strange thread this is

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Thad Komorowski

Gosh, BIGSHOT'S post immediately below yours has BIGSHOT playing Internet psychoanalyst with a lot of the posters here, passive aggressively accusing them of having personality disorders for not understanding what BIGSHOT wrote. That's a reoccurring theme in BIGSHOT threads all over the Internet: BIGSHOT says something; someone says, "That's not accurate, here's proof;" BIGSHOT plays the, "I've done all this, and this is the miserable thanks I get, I'm still right and you're mentally ill" card.

Personally, I think there's a fine line between posting an opinion and saying there's no difference between 1.66 and 1.85 and "I know which version of this film I'll choose, and it isn't historically accurate." Seems a lot of other people do too, but you know, that's our problem.

Except he didn't say there's no difference. He said the difference is small and to him it's not a big deal.

[Thad Komorowski]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Except he didn't say there's no difference. He said the difference is small and to him it's not a big deal.

"Small" and "no" in this case are arbitrary, as he also said in the post that sparked this whole discussion, regarding people who want accurate aspect ratio "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." The idea that the difference between 1.66 and 1.85 AR doesn't add up to "a hill of beans" is preposterous.

I guess the bigger question is... why are we supposed to even care what he thinks?

[DaBargainHunta]

Come on, guys, Blu-ray.com is a breeding ground for OCD types - myself included. Just admit it and own it.

[TripleHBK]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

Come on, guys, Blu-ray.com is a breeding ground for OCD types - myself included. Just admit it and own it.

In a way I love threads like this... they remind me of a room full of intellectuals all arguing over something philosophical. Excellent points can be made across the board, people are hell bent on ensuring that their perspective is correct, and for someone like myself that typically falls somewhere in the middle on many of these issues I get to soak up a ton of knowledge and great links around the internet. Honestly, the passion in this thread and others on this site is what keeps me coming back for hours on end each day. I may not always agree with the topic at hand, but I'm almost always learning something or and the very least entertained by the discussions.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by bigshot

No problem. It's OK really. I've been on the internet for over 20 years now. I know all about internet forums and the kinds of people they attract- both good and bad. People don't have to agree with me, I'm fine with that. I'm having a discussion, and if someone wants to dismiss the discussion with a wave of the hand and an over emotional ad hominem attack, then I'll just continue to speak past them to the people who are actually paying attention and interested.

I do think it's important to quantify the relative size of problems when we talk about them on forums. Unless you actually own the disc, you have to depend on the discernment of others to decide whether something is a deal breaker, or something you can easily live with. Like you say, this isn't just about aspect ratios... it's a whole range of things people do or don't find objectionable. We all object to seeing Oklahoma squished into a CRT TV set with cropping and pan and scan. But I have to say, I don't object to Strategic Air Command in 1.66 instead of 1.85. The degree of the problem should be defined so people can decide for themselves.

We're all serving an audience here... other film fans like us who are reading what we write to decide what movies they want to buy. We owe it to them to give them a fair assessment of the discs we review and speak about. We shouldn't make absolutist proclamations to try to make their minds up for them. I understand that certain personality types have trouble discerning shades of gray and may not be able to modulate their emotional outbursts. That's OK. I understand. But that sort of thing really doesn't help the people reading to pick a movie to buy to watch this weekend. Those are the people I'm speaking with, even if they are just lurkers and don't post.

See, you don't get to play the role of the wounded victim when you're actively lobbing sad little passive aggressive digs (while claiming to speak past us, of course) at anyone who disagrees with you.

For someone pretending to take the high road, you sure seem to be throwing an awful lot of low blows (weak and ineffectual, though they may be.)