OAR widescreen, or non-pan-and-scan fullscreen?

[Brent212]

I've noticed sometimes that when a movie that was shown in theaters as widescreen is formated for fullscreen, they actually show the full width and add additional picture information to the top and bottom of the screen. So the fullscreen version shows more than the original aspect ratio version did.

In this situation, which version would you choose? I'd probably go with the widescreen version since it appears that's what the director intended to be seen, but I can easily see someone preferring the bigger picture, especially if viewing on a 4:3 TV.

Another similar situation I've seen that sort of boggles my mind is when the OAR is fullscreen (4:3), and they include on the DVD an additional widescreen version that just chops off the top and bottom of the picture. Is this just so people with widescreen TVs don't have to use bars on the sides of the screen to fill their TV? That's ridiculous. I can see people with regular 4:3 TVs (wrongfully) preferring a fullscreen pan-and-scan version of a widescreen movie, but you'd think people with widescreen movies would know better than to prefer a widescreen version of a fullscreen movie.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I'm just sort of think aloud...er, on my keyboard.

[adam]

Ok, the second part is easy. Those movies are simply shot in 1.33:1. Its a common aspect ratio and is essentially fullscreen, in that the width is the same on both widescreen and full screen releases. The widescreen version just adds letterboxing, but this is how the movie is supposed to be viewed. That is what the director was looking at when he filmed it. Even though the camera captures more picture above and below, he's got that nifty taped off area representing what will actually be shown in theatres. In this instance, more is actually less. The picture above and below is not meant to be seen. This added area can ruin framing shots, ie: director wants it to look like the building is a skyscraper, but with no matte you can see its just a little apartment. Also you often see things which aren't supposed to be there, like boom mikes or out of period items like power lines in the background.

As for your first example, a FS release very often will show more top and bottom information for any given scene. This is because they open the matte when doing the pan and scan. Since they have to really edit the film quite a bit to keep all the action centered, they pan the picture up and down and show parts of the image not intended to be seen. As with my description above, this is often not preferable.

The point is that the director has a vision, and he films as such. That is how it is always shown in the theatre. You do get more top and bottom information with FS releases sometimes, depending on how it was shot and formatted, but if the director never intended this portion of the screen to be shown what's the point?

[Brent212]

Hmm... I think your explanation for the second part was actually an explanation for the first part. That's what I was saying anyway in the first - that the director didn't intend for that extra top and bottom picture information to be shown.

In the second part, I was talking about movies that were actually intended to be shown in fullscreen by the director.

[adam]

You can take a fullscreen source, crop top (and bottom if you had to) and make it anamorphic. It increases picture quality, but its never done by just cropping off film that was supposed to be shown. I still think you are just talking about 1.33:1 films. It essentially is shot in FS with letterboxing added. But that is still how it was shown in theatres and how it was intended to be watched.

If you look up a movie on imdb.com you can see the OAR it was filmed in and compare it to the aspect ratio of the DVD release, to get an idea of what they did to it.

[Brent212]

yeah, actually, I posted this because of a specific movie ("Elephant"). If you look on imdb (http://imdb.com/title/tt0363589/technical), it says it's OAR was 4:3 (or 1.33:1, whichever you prefer). It was shown in theaters that way (some movies ARE shown in theaters as fullscreen, I thought that was a given). But if you watch the DVD, there are two selectable versions, the original fullscreen version (4:3), and a widescreen version that has the same width shown in any given scene, but is missing some of the top and bottom picture throughout. It's essentially a pan-and-scan for widescreen TV's.

Doesn't anamorphic just mean the same thing as OAR? I always thought both of those just refer to whatever aspect ratio the director intended the movie to be viewed in.

So by cropping the top and bottom (and losing the OAR), you increase the picture quality... that's probably the reason they do it. I think I'd sacrifice some PQ for the OAR.

[adam]

Movies shown in theatres at fullscreen? Not typically, because theatre screens are not 4:3. Imagine what the typical viewer would think if they saw blank screen on either side. Milk Duds would roll.

Simply put, when Elephant was played in theatres the top and bottom part of the picture extended above and below the screen such that it was not visible. The letterboxing on the DVD accomplishes the same thing. This is the case with all movies shot in 1.33:1 and the movie is filmed with this in mind. The areas cut off are not meant to be seen.

Making a movie anamorphic stretches the picture so that you only encode the viewable image. At playback it is squeezed back down and letterboxing fills the gap. Its more efficient then physically encoding the letterboxing into the picture. A movie can have its OAR and still not be anamorphic. Its just an encoding technique.

[Brent212]

ahhhh, so that's what anamorphic means.

Are you saying that no director ever makes a movie with the intention of having it viewed at a 4:3 ratio? I still think some movies (such as elephant) are intended by the director to be viewed in a fullscreen aspect ratio, and are shown in fullscreen in theaters (I'm sure some places do as you say and cut off the top and bottom to cater to the audience). I do acknowledge that the amount of these is tiny... mostly just special interest films. I can definitely see the milk duds hitting the fan if something like spiderman 2 was shown with the sides cut off.

[guns1inger]

Some do. James Cameron shoots 1.33 and frames for both. His intention is always for widescreen projection, but he also protects himself somewhat from the vagaries of a studio pan & scan. I haven't seen Elephant, so I can't comment on that particular film, but there is no technical reason why a director cannot use 1.33 for projection if that is what they want.

[adam]

Tons and tons of movies are filmed in 1.33:1. The standard presentation method is to let the top and bottom extend off the edge of the screen. The director can do whatever they want, but this is the industry standard.

If the DVD is in 1.33:1 and contains both FS and WS presentation, then you can be pretty well assured that it was displayed in theatres with the top and bottom cut off.

If the movie was truly only supposed to be viewed in fullscreen, then I imagine that is the only release you'd get. I doubt they would alter a FS movie so much just to make it anamorphic.