# Where are all the OAR snobs now?



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Back in the 2000s, you knew you were talking to a real home theater buff when they started talking about OAR: original aspect ratio. These were the guys who said that every movie should be letterboxed when viewed on an SDTV. It didn't matter if it was shot in super vista vision and you were watching it on a 13" TV, they wanted you to see the entire frame, no matter that Mrs. Robinson's leg was only an inch tall.

When HDTVs became the norm, the really hardcore guys insisted that 16:9 wasn't good enough, even when it was pretty clear that cinematographers were framing shots so that nothing would be missed in that safe zone. Widescreen TV? Not good enough. If it was shown 2.35:1 in the theater, that's how it MUST be seen at home.

Me, I always say that you do what works for you. To me, some stuff looked better when it filled the entire screen.

Now we have a whole new problem. _Friends_ and _Seinfeld_ have been remastered in HD, and the new masters are 16:9. The shows, obviously, were first shown in 4:3 SD.

Don't get me wrong, the difference in quality is night and day. When I compare _Friends_ in HD to the same program shown from an old videotape masters, it's clear which I'd rather watch. But there's no question, the framing is uncomfortably tight in some shots. These programs were shot to be seen on a 25" 4:3 TV and sometimes people's heads are just, plain, huge.

I don't know how these shows were shot. It seems clear they were 35mm masters judging from the quality, but without knowing the lenses and cameras used, I don't know what aspect ratio actually appears on the negatives. In some shots it does seem like there's extra detail on the left and right, but I'm not comparing them scrupulously to the originals. It's more likely they just cropped off the top and bottom in a 21st-century version of the pan-and-scan technique used for TVs in the past.

So where are the snobs? Who's out there complaining that the top of Kramer's head is cut off or we can't see Rachel's designer shoes? Has OAR all of a sudden become irrelevant?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Personally, I hate it when they cut the bottom of the screen off. It looks like the camera operator flunked film school.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

You're asking for it, mister.

I was grateful when they remastered the original _Star Trek_ (TOS) in HD, they didn't do it in 16:9 but instead kept it 4:3. It would have lost a lot going to widescreen. The new effects were done in 16:9 but windowboxed down to 4:3 for the U.S. transfer. As I undertand it, in Japan, TOS is 16:9 all the way. They can have it.

On the other hand, I have always enjoyed _Hogan's Heroes_ in 16:9 on HDNet, as well as _Charlie's Angels_.

I would also say I enjoy _TJ Hooker_ remastered in 16:9 but that would assume I appreciate _TJ Hooker_ at all. That would be a lie. I can say it looks fine in 16:9. That's as far as I will go.

I guess it depends on the series. The original _Twilight Zone_? Remaster it in 4:3, please. I'll take _Seinfeld_ in 16:9. It's still as funny, and as you point out, it fills the screen.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

I am a snob I guess. I prefer my content framed as close to its original content as possible. If that means pillar boxes, give them to me. That is how I have my TVs set up. I do not like obviously zoomed/cropped or stretched content.

Hogans Heros is an interesting case. It looks great in 16:9 HD. I do not know the original film format, but I undertand it was wide screen of some sort. It was one of the earliest TV shows to make it on to an HD network and look authentically HD framed 16:9.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

I too am a OAR snob. Need a comparision? Look at Cinemax's broadcast of The Magnificent Seven (16:9) compared to HDNET's broadcast of the same film (2.35:1). Noticeable difference. Anything short of the director's intent is like reading a abridged version of a novel.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I'll trade in black bars for a full screen quality image any day. 

OAR is fine, but in many cases undercuts the value of large screens.

Given the choice, OAS loses here. Not given a choice, it's tolerable.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Even if Courteney Cox's head is the size of the Goodyear Blimp?


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'll trade in black bars for a full screen quality image any day.
> 
> OAR is fine, but in many cases undercuts the value of large screens.
> 
> Given the choice, OAS loses here. Not given a choice, it's tolerable.


Boo! :lol:

OAR all the way in my house...


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Guys, to be clear, I'm not talking about letterboxing here. I'm not talking about seeing a theatrical property in the same aspect in which it was shown in the theater. I'm talking about old TV shows being cropped to fit 16:9. Are you still so worried about that? Do you even care?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Even if Courteney Cox's head is the size of the Goodyear Blimp?


You mean it really isn't?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Guys, to be clear, I'm not talking about letterboxing here. I'm not talking about seeing a theatrical property in the same aspect in which it was shown in the theater. I'm talking about old TV shows being cropped to fit 16:9. Are you still so worried about that? Do you even care?


I agree with Carl Spock, depends on the series.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Hmmm, I can't find the time nor the interest to watch old shows, so I guess I'm really out of it. If all the scripted TV disappeared I could probably go for two years on what I've saved on external hard drives because we just didn't have time to watch everything.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm not sure that it depends on the series for me, as much as it depends on how well it's done, and how much the editors have to work with. If I had to guess - and this is a guess - _Seinfeld_ was probably shot to a wider aspect ratio than 4:3 because the conversion is consistently more pleasing. More likely _Friends_ was shot 4:3 or close to it (like 1.37:1.) I see a lot more cropping there.

I know they're remastering _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ and I don't know how that was shot or how it is planned to be presented.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> I too am a OAR snob. ..... Anything short of the director's intent is like reading a abridged version of a novel.


Director Sydney Pollack had a cool extra in his film _The Interpreter_. He did a demonstration of what the audience would be missing if they were watching the movie in P&S instead of OAR. Very revealing in terms of what he as a director wanted you to see vs. what you would have seen.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'll trade in black bars for a full screen quality image any day.
> 
> OAR is fine, but in many cases undercuts the value of large screens.


Acually, I think with a larger screen it is better for OAR. I watch 2.35:1 movies all the time on my 70" and don't even notice the bars because the screen is already large.
___________

As for the OT, I think they need to be shown as the director intended and that is 4:3. I can deal with black bars on the sides.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> Acually, I think with a larger screen it is better for OAR. I watch 2.35:1 movies all the time on my 70" and don't even notice the bars because the screen is already large.


Black bars are black bars and big black bars are big black bars. Nothing will change that.

I see OAR content on a 116" screen, and while the image is huge, the black bars are still annoying to some folks, especially on 2:35:1 content.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm not sure that it depends on the series for me, as much as it depends on how well it's done, and how much the editors have to work with. If I had to guess - and this is a guess - _Seinfeld_ was probably shot to a wider aspect ratio than 4:3 because the conversion is consistently more pleasing. More likely _Friends_ was shot 4:3 or close to it (like 1.37:1.) I see a lot more cropping there.
> 
> I know they're remastering _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ and I don't know how that was shot or how it is planned to be presented.


Star Trek: The Next Generation was shot with Lenses and Panaflex Cameras by Panavision. Given that the remastering should look well using 16:9.


----------



## phox_mulder (Nov 1, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I know they're remastering _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ and I don't know how that was shot or how it is planned to be presented.


We were receiving STNG in HD before our contract ran out (TV Station), and it was 4:3.

Not sure if the show was actual HD or they were just giving it to us in HD for the HD commercials though.

It did look better than the previous years SD.

phox


----------



## rrdirectsr (Jan 30, 2011)

As a CSR it always amazes me on how many people insist on stretch format when they are on SD channels that are in a letterbox / pillar box format or when they hook up a SD reciever to a HD tv. They would rather have the full screen then the picture quality.


----------



## phox_mulder (Nov 1, 2007)

First year CBS ran the remastered Rudolph in HD we and they had thousands of phone calls and other complaints that it wasn't really HD and CBS was lying to them.

The next year they ran different promos showing the old and the new and how 4:3 HD was still HD even though it didn't fill the screen.

Still got hundreds of phone calls.

Being that it's airing tonight, I bet there are phone calls.


phox


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I know they're remastering _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ and I don't know how that was shot or how it is planned to be presented.


It will stay 4:3. link

It's too bad they aren't going to 16:9. Given that the original raw film stock still survives, pre-special effects, they could reframe things in 16:9 and keep it looking good. By going out of the safety area on the sides and framing things carefully, they could make a really good looking picture that would fill the screen. They'd have to have a commitment to redoing all of the special effects in HD, which they aren't doing, but this still seems like a wasted opportunity to me.

If you want a hint of this, go to the finale of _Enterprise_, "These Are The Voyages..."  That opens with TNG footage reframed to 16:9. Except for the fact there are two Rikers in Ten Forward (the stock footage has him in the background), it looks very good in HD and 16:9.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Thanks, Mr. Spock! 

Since it was actually shot with enough room to do a passable 16:9 conversion, I guess I could go either way with that one. It would even be interesting to see them clone in a little bit at the top and bottom to fill the frame rather than cropping. I bet they could.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Thank you.

I'm trying to find the test real the TOS remasterers did of TNG in 16:9 but I can't. Maybe it was never released but I thought it was.

I did stumble across this teaser and screen caps of the new Blu-ray footage for TNG. It looks very good. link


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Guys, to be clear, I'm not talking about letterboxing here. I'm not talking about seeing a theatrical property in the same aspect in which it was shown in the theater. I'm talking about old TV shows being cropped to fit 16:9. Are you still so worried about that? Do you even care?


I'm not a fan of that. It requires "zoomig in" and then cropping off the top and bottom.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Has OAR all of a sudden become irrelevant?


Nope, but I haven't seen those shows remastered in HD.

Everything should be seen in it's OAR, regardless of the TV it's being viewed on.


----------



## Eddie501 (Nov 29, 2007)

I think the term 'director's intent' is a little bit different for a TV show vs. a film. People would be furious if Gone With The Wind or Casablanca were cropped for 16x9 for the Blu Ray. Not so much a half hour sitcom aired in syndication. Especially where it's pretty much opened up instead of cropped anyway.

Plus anybody who's truly and OAR snob can still easily obtain these shows on DVD in standard def 4x3, just as they were aired. It's not like there's not a choice.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Guys, to be clear, I'm not talking about letterboxing here. I'm not talking about seeing a *theatrical property in the same aspect in which it was shown in the theater*. I'm talking about old TV shows being cropped to fit 16:9. Are you still so worried about that? Do you even care?


I think this is a long way before the dust settles. Today we view video on everything from something as large as a side of a building down to a watch-size screen.

Is there a perfect size? An eye scientists could probably answer that

And then just when you think you know the perfect size screen, 3D or even a more advance hologram takes over.

I doubt anybody will ever be 100% right on this subject.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

OAR is always the preferred version here.

I've turned off films that I have wanted to see due to a crop job.

However, I've also watched some crop jobs not because I'd rather see them that way, but rather because that was the way in which they were presented to me... for instance, knowing my Blu-ray budget is no more, I recorded several films on Starz this past week... several of which were hatchet jobs.

As said elsewhere, I think there are times when the act is more offensive than others. While I'd prefer them in their OAR, I've seen _some_ comedies in the 2.35:1 AR that honestly didn't affect my viewing experience when cropped to the 1.78:1 AR, but almost any sci-fi, action, or period piece movie cropped to 1.78:1 is *offensive*.

As for TV series, I'd rather always have 4:3 if that's the way it was recorded, but I thought "Quantum Leap" on UniversalHD looked quite good, and what I've seen of "Charlie's Angels", "Seinfeld", "Cheers", "Friends", etc. does not really bother me either... though "Friends" probably more so than the others. I'd like to know what ST:TOS looks like cropped to 16x9, but I'm quite pleased with my 4:3 Blu-ray sets. I'm doubtful I will be able to purchase any of the ST:TNG sets next year, but I'm hopeful Paramount will continue with OAR.

~Alan


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'll trade in black bars for a full screen quality image any day.
> 
> OAR is fine, but in many cases undercuts the value of large screens.
> 
> Given the choice, OAS loses here. Not given a choice, it's tolerable.


I just watched a 16x9 version of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "The Body".

When Buffy is talking to the EMT about what to do, the shots of Buffy's face are ok. When they cut to the EMT, as he's taller, you only see from his top lip down. The rest of his face is completely cut off WHILE HE'S TALKING IN A CLOSE UP!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

djlong said:


> I just watched a 16x9 version of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "The Body".
> 
> When Buffy is talking to the EMT about what to do, the shots of Buffy's face are ok. When they cut to the EMT, as he's taller, you only see from his top lip down. The rest of his face is completely cut off WHILE HE'S TALKING IN A CLOSE UP!!!


Doesn't Buffy have magical powers?


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Eddie501 said:


> I think the term 'director's intent' is a little bit different for a TV show vs. a film. People would be furious if Gone With The Wind or Casablanca were cropped for 16x9 for the Blu Ray. Not so much a half hour sitcom aired in syndication. Especially where it's pretty much opened up instead of cropped anyway.
> 
> Plus anybody who's truly and OAR snob can still easily obtain these shows on DVD in standard def 4x3, just as they were aired. It's not like there's not a choice.


Orson Welles made sure "Citizen Kane" wasn't messed with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Prints


> In the 1980s, this film became the catalyst in the controversy over the colorization of black and white films. When Ted Turner told members of the press that he was considering colorizing Citizen Kane, his comments led to an immediate public outcry. About two weeks before his death, and almost a year before Turner acquired the rights to the MGM catalog, Welles had asked filmmaker Henry Jaglom, "Please do this for me. Don't let Ted Turner deface my movie with his crayons."[100] The uproar was for nothing, as Turner could not have colorized the film had he wanted to. Welles' original contract prevented any alteration to the film without his, and eventually his estate's, express consent.[101] Turner later claimed that this was a joke intended to needle colorization critics, and that he had never had any intention of coloring the film.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

I don't think that cropping a 4:3 picture down to 16:9 is only for comedies. It's for TV programs where composition of the shots was not that critical. "Artistic integrity" and "television" aren't often used in the same sentence.

Upthread I suggested that any transfers of _The Twilight Zone_ should stay 4:3. In the same vein, I'd also want _I Love Lucy_ to stay at 4:3. The whole process of using three cameras to shoot a comedy in front of a live audience was invented for _Lucy_ and to lose that magnificent camera work would be a sin.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

So you'd be ok if _Sanford and Son_ were cropped. Of course that was shot on video so it wouldn't happen.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Yes.

It isn't just that _Lucy _was shot on film. It was the innovative camera work. I wouldn't want to lose that.

Similarly, it would be OK to crop _The Man From U.N.C.L.E. _but not _Mission Impossible_. The production values for _Mission Impossible_ were a couple of steps above the norm.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Carl Spock said:


> Upthread I suggested that any transfers of _The Twilight Zone_ should stay 4:3.


Given that CBS has already done HD transfers of "The Twilight Zone" that are in 4:3 (and they look great on Netflix), I don't think you have to worry _too_ much about them going back and doing a 16:9 version -- I can't believe the market would be there for it to be worth their while to redo them.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

There once was a time that I would probably have cared about OAR in old TV series, but now I have become accustomed to TV series being edited, time-compressed, with the screen half covered with promos.

In other words, I know that commercial TV has no respect whatsoever for its own product, so I generally don't, either. "It's just TV." 

I've given up series TV for movies, which I can see uncut and often in OAR.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> So you'd be ok if _Sanford and Son_ were cropped. Of course that was shot on video so it wouldn't happen.


The AR of analog video can be digitally altered. It's not your father's VHS any more.


----------

