Open Matte/Alternate aspect ratio releases

[frodawgg]

So, lately I've been doing research on how many movies have been presented open matte, and in my honest opinion, much of the time, the picture looks better that way, even if widescreen is the intended presentation. I've found quite a few boards online with people who agree that, even if "full-screen" isn't better per se, it still gives an alternate way to watch a movie and should be offered on home releases.

What I'm getting to is: what are your thoughts on how big that market actually is? Do you think there's actually enough people out there to warrant distributors including different ARs on releases, even if just for special editions or limited releases?

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.

Let's be honest, a lot of matted movies, such as the aforementioned in my opinion, look cramped. In the case of "The Shining", which I know has been released a million times before, even in open matte on DVD, I would like an HD release with the all of the following: 1.33, 1.66, 1.85.

I'm aware that some movies have intermittent or even frequent irregularities, like boom mics and what not, but I think if it's already out there, why not let the consumer choose what they want to watch and ignore these if they choose? Side note: honestly, a shadow of helicopter could be explained away as, well, a shadow of a helicopter. Helicopters fly in the real world--not just to shoot movies. (And I don't think the blades kill the movie.)

Back to my idea. Wouldn't it be possible to start a petition or something to request the studios to do this? That is, if enough people want it?

Oh, and obviously not P&S, as that's just a bastardized version of whatever ratio. F that noise.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by frodawgg

So, lately I've been doing research on how many movies have been presented open matte, and in my honest opinion, much of the time, the picture looks better that way, even if widescreen is the intended presentation. I've found quite a few boards online with people who agree that, even if "full-screen" isn't better per se, it still gives an alternate way to watch a movie and should be offered on home releases.

What I'm getting to is: what are your thoughts on how big that market actually is? Do you think there's actually enough people out there to warrant distributors including different ARs on releases, even if just for special editions or limited releases?

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.

Let's be honest, a lot of matted movies, such as the aforementioned in my opinion, look cramped. In the case of "The Shining", which I know has been released a million times before, even in open matte on DVD, I would like an HD release with the all of the following: 1.33, 1.66, 1.85.

I'm aware that some movies have intermittent or even frequent irregularities, like boom mics and what not, but I think if it's already out there, why not let the consumer choose what they want to watch and ignore these if they choose? Side note: honestly, a shadow of helicopter could be explained away as, well, a shadow of a helicopter. Helicopters fly in the real world--not just to shoot movies. (And I don't think the blades kill the movie.)

Back to my idea. Wouldn't it be possible to start a petition or something to request the studios to do this? That is, if enough people want it?

Oh, and obviously not P&S, as that's just a bastardized version of whatever ratio. F that noise.

No.

It isn't presented in multiple ratios in the theater, where it was intended to be seen. You also seem to think cinematography is not important, but movie are shot and composed with ONE aspect ratio in mind.

The Shining was shot and composed for 1.85, and it's been very well documented that that's how it was meant to be seen. Studios are already taking leeway and opening the mattes up to 1.78 for HDTV. But in no way should The Shining ever be presented again at 1.33. It also wasn't "shot in 1.33." That's just the size of the negative.

Ad let's be honest, matted films don't look cramped to me, they look like they are intended to look.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by frodawgg

So, lately I've been doing research on how many movies have been presented open matte, and in my honest opinion, much of the time, the picture looks better that way, even if widescreen is the intended presentation. I've found quite a few boards online with people who agree that, even if "full-screen" isn't better per se, it still gives an alternate way to watch a movie and should be offered on home releases.

What I'm getting to is: what are your thoughts on how big that market actually is? Do you think there's actually enough people out there to warrant distributors including different ARs on releases, even if just for special editions or limited releases?

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.

Let's be honest, a lot of matted movies, such as the aforementioned in my opinion, look cramped. In the case of "The Shining", which I know has been released a million times before, even in open matte on DVD, I would like an HD release with the all of the following: 1.33, 1.66, 1.85.

I'm aware that some movies have intermittent or even frequent irregularities, like boom mics and what not, but I think if it's already out there, why not let the consumer choose what they want to watch and ignore these if they choose? Side note: honestly, a shadow of helicopter could be explained away as, well, a shadow of a helicopter. Helicopters fly in the real world--not just to shoot movies. (And I don't think the blades kill the movie.)

Back to my idea. Wouldn't it be possible to start a petition or something to request the studios to do this? That is, if enough people want it?

Oh, and obviously not P&S, as that's just a bastardized version of whatever ratio. F that noise.

I don't think enough people would want this and I think a petition to the studio(s) would be a waste of time considering they barely listen to the requests of their home media customers anyway. Just because some people saw an open matte version of The Shining on TV (which was only shown that way to accommodate the screen size and is thus not all that different in practice than the P&S versions you purport to dislike) doesn't mean it should now be offered as an alternate way to view the film. Pee-Wee's Big Adventure shows the chain that Pee-Wee pulls out of his bicycle storage container to be fed up through the bottom in the open matte version - are you proposing that because that's "out there" that this is now a legit way to view the film on blu-ray?

I think this proposal is monumentally silly and without merit.

[TripleHBK]

Originally Posted by frodawgg

What I'm getting to is: what are your thoughts on how big that market actually is? Do you think there's actually enough people out there to warrant distributors including different ARs on releases, even if just for special editions or limited releases?

I enjoy having the option to see Open Matte preservation's whenever provided the chance and have slowly been snagging them when possible. I do agree that they provide an interesting alternate view of the film that some might prefer... With that said, there are barely enough of us keeping Blu Ray afloat at this point if we are to believe what some people are claiming online (and on this board) so unless a new golden age of media arrives, it's unlikely we'll ever see most of these in physical presentations.

I will say that if/when things do switch to digital however that it could certainly open the door for more of these to see the light of day. Pressing/packaging/selling physical discs has a whole lot more cost involved then simply presenting a list of options on a digital store front, and the allure of having "no black bars" could potentially persuade a few casual movie fans to make a purchase.

[wormraper]

this thread is not going to end well

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by wormraper

this thread is not going to end well

Or begin well.

[StingingVelvet]

Theatrical aspect ratio thank you goodnight drop the mic Obama out!

[murphywmm]

I never understood why people are so bothered by black bars. Watch the movie, not the bars!

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by wormraper

this thread is not going to end well

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Or begin well.

Or middle well.

[crissrudd4554]

Originally Posted by murphywmm

I never understood why people are so bothered by black bars. Watch the movie, not the bars!

My thoughts even when I would watch widescreen movies on 4X3 TVs! In answer to the topic well I too miss open matte but I also like having my movies presented as close to their original theater presentation as possible so OAR for me!

[bigshot]

Generally, theatrical aspect is best. But I can think of a few exceptions... Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space is much better full aperture, and Arrow just released full aperture versions of several H G Lewis films, which I think is an a good idea. Low budget films may have been designed differently than big studio pictures. In the era of widescreen, it's not inconceivable that they might have had an eye on ending up on television. Little Shop of Horrors by Corman might fit into that category. I'm not dogmatic on aspect ratios, but it's pretty easy to look at a film in a particular format and see if it works or not.

[I KEEL YOU]

There are many movies from the VHS era that were composed with both wide screen and full screen in mind, especially the smaller ones that weren't expected to be huge box office draws at the theater and instead were expected to make bigger money on home video.

Five movies that I would really like to have alternate aspect ratios along with the ones currently available on blu ray are:

The Shining (1.33:1)
Full Metal Jacket (1.33:1)
Eyes Wide Shut (1.33:1)
Koyaanisqatsi (1.33:1)
Terminator 2 (1.85:1)

[DaBargainHunta]

The Blu-ray for The Big Trail has two different aspect ratios:

- "Grandeur": 2.10:1
- "Academy Aspect Ratio": 1.33:1

[silentbob]

When they released Avatar in theatres. They released the Digital 3D print in both the Flat and Scope ratio. All 35mm prints were in the Scope format and i have no idea why they did that but they did. My theatre got the Scope 3D print but would of been better off with the Flat version with the masking being left in the open Flat format for all the movies playing there. Was at the time our only 3D/Digital projector and had masking issues too.

[bigshot]

I have no clue why anyone would want to watch The Big Trail in Academy format.

[JasonHensley]

I'm amazed that aspect ratios are still a very confusing thing to people.

[Zhorik]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

No.

It isn't presented in multiple ratios in the theater, where it was intended to be seen. You also seem to think cinematography is not important, but movie are shot and composed with ONE aspect ratio in mind.

The Shining was shot and composed for 1.85, and it's been very well documented that that's how it was meant to be seen. Studios are already taking leeway and opening the mattes up to 1.78 for HDTV. But in no way should The Shining ever be presented again at 1.33. It also wasn't "shot in 1.33." That's just the size of the negative.

Ad let's be honest, matted films don't look cramped to me, they look like they are intended to look.

I agree with you and want the original theatrical aspect ratio on home media.

However, are IMAX sequences an exception to the highlighted? (not talking about Shining)

[PenguinMaster]

Certain scenes work better in 1.78, others work better 2.35, some even look best in 1.33. This is true for every movie regardless of what the original aspect ratio is. On average open matte isn't a good solution, but it can certainly help some scenes.

Personally I'd like more movies to have shifting aspect ratios. It would be great if directors chose what aspect ratio works best for each scene rather than the whole movie. But it's pretty rare that any movie uses shifting aspect ratios well: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is the best example. I certainly don't want more of Christopher Nolan's haphazard approach of filming with IMAX cameras (and therefore composing for 1.43) when it's easy to do so.

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I have no clue why anyone would want to watch The Big Trail in Academy format.

It was a blind buy for me, so can you elaborate? Thanks.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I have no clue why anyone would want to watch The Big Trail in Academy format.

Because the Academy format version has different takes versus the Grandeur.