OAR, Pan and Scan, Fullscreen, 4x3 etc...

[kd2005]

so I'm new to this DVD forum, and really the overall discussion of DVD's period. While I've been a huge movie-fan my whole life, only since late 2001 have I started buying DVDs (i never have bought a VHS in my entire life). By the way, I'm 20 years old in case anyone is wondering. Anyways, just recently I discovered this site, and decided to start reading the boards. Lately I have noticed the terms fullscreen, pan and scan, OAR etc, 4x3, 16x9, widescreen etc.. Obviously I know what Fullscreen and widescreen are, and can figure out 4x3 and 16x9. But, I've heard people say OAR, pan and scan, fullscreen etc...are all different (and all bad i believe), and I'm a bit confused about all that. Yes I do only purchase widescreen DVD's, as the day I finally buy a WS HDTv, i want to fully experience it, and not worry about have black bars on the sides. Also, I hate how FS cuts off the edges. Also, do any of these terms have to do with why some of my DVD's have thicker black bars than others, as if one of more widescreen than the other? Anyways, whats the different between all these different terms, why are they bad? I want to know once and for all, and I figure you guys are the perfect group to ask. Thanks!!

[tqpix]

Originally Posted by kd2005

...I have noticed the terms fullscreen, pan and scan, OAR etc, 4x3, 16x9, widescreen etc.. Obviously I know what Fullscreen and widescreen are, and can figure out 4x3 and 16x9. But, I've heard people say OAR, pan and scan, fullscreen etc...are all different (and all bad i believe), and I'm a bit confused about all that.

OAR = Original Aspect Ratio. It's the ratio that the movie
was shot in.

If the movie was shot fullframe/fullscreen then it should only be watched in fullscreen, and not widescreen; if shot in widescreen, then widescreen is the way to go. However, if the film is open-matte--this is where the black bars are intentionally added on the top and bottom portions of the movie--the viewers are split; some people prefer to get the fullest picture (i.e. without the black bars), while some people prefer widescreen to get the theater experience.

Pan and Scan is when the sides of the picture are taken off in order to fit your TV; pan and scan = bad.

Also, do any of these terms have to do with why some of my DVD's have thicker black bars than others, as if one of more widescreen than the other?

The thicker the black bars, the wider the picture. (I know that it sounds strange, but it's true.)

[kd2005]

how do you know what the film was originally shot in? Like are films always shot in widescreen?

[tqpix]

This is where you do your research. (e.g. Sites like the IMDb give you information like this).

[Gandalf]

Almost all films made now are shot in widescreen format (maybe all, but I'm not an expert). Some earlier classic movies were shot 4x3 (or full frame). It's A Wonderful Life is an example of a movie in full frame, but using the OAR. Hope that helps.

[PorkChopXpress]

Yeah, the thickness of the black bars has to do with the aspect ratio. 1.78:1 will fill your 16x9 widescreen tv and will be the thinnest black bars on a 4x3 tv set. Some dvd's will have aspect ratios of 2.35:1 up to 2.76:1(in rare cases like Ben-Hur), which will result in the thickest black bars on a 4x3 set and will still result black bars on your widescreen set.

Films shot on digital video are full-frame unless the director chooses to matte the shots for widescreen. And like Gandalf said, many older films were shot in full-frame. When in doubt just check imdb as tqpix suggested, they are an invaluable resource. If anyone thinks I misstated anything, please correct me. Hope this helps.

[Riedenschneider]

Okay, OAR, FS and WS are the most widely misinterpreted acronyms and have several meanings in discussions around here.

OAR:

Off Axis Ratio - The highest tolerated ratio you can put a disc off-axis and the player still accepting it.
Open Air Range - The estimated range you can throw a disc.
Opportunities, Alternatives and Resources - The DVD features, the DVD you should've bought instead and the ways to finance a DVD purchase.

FS:

Finish to Start - the running time on the Memento (Limited Edition) DVD
Frank Sinatra - used by the in-crowd

WS:

Waylon Smithers - when discussing the Simpsons


(and VHS stands here for Volks-Hoch-Schule, German: Public School)

FYI.

[Frank Gunn]

FYI

...what the hell does *that* mean?

[Marq]

Originally Posted by Frank Gunn

...what the hell does *that* mean?

Flatulent Yodelling Instructor.
A high-ranking position in German public schools.

[papibear]

Originally Posted by Frank Gunn

...what the hell does *that* mean?

Marq's kidding aside, it means "for your information".

[Frank Gunn]

Thanks, Papi.













*Frank furiously writes on his palm: REMEMBER TO USE WINKING EMOTICON *

[larphillips]

From the following thread: Do you own both Widescreen & PanScan versions of same dvd?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by dvdlover
There's a difference between Pan&Scan and Fullscreen?? I thought it's the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, it's used interchangebly an awful lot, but the difference is that a fullscreen transfer is of a program that has an aspect ratio close enough to TV that the transfer camera is locked down to one framing of the master print. A pan & scan transfer is when the transfer camera makes artificial edits and camera moves across the image in order to convey all of the information that is lost by the differing aspect ratios.

The hateful thing about P&S is that the new version is presented in a way fully unintended by the filmmaker. A movie draws certain flow and power from the movement of the camera and the type and frequency of the edits. By forcing these elements in a movie for no other purpose than to make sure the scene makes logical sense, you basically ruin whatever intention and art was there in the original. Now, I'm sure there is probably a much better definition of the two, but that is what I could pull off the top of my head.

[papibear]

Originally Posted by porkChopXpress

1.78:1 will fill your 16x9 widescreen tv and will be the thinnest black bars on a 4x3 tv set. Some dvd's will have aspect ratios of 2.35:1 up to 2.76:1(in rare cases like Ben-Hur), which will result in the thickest black bars on a 4x3 set and will still result black bars on your widescreen set.

Just a couple of things. I would think an AR of 1.66:1 (or possibly 1.37:1, the true AR of most pre-1953 films) would be the "thinnest" black bars on a 4x3 set, and considering that a 16x9 set's screen dimensions equal the aspect ratio of 1.78:1 (as tomdkat pointed out to me the other day), there'd be no black bars visible at all (however, few films are presented in 1.78:1 - Academy standard for the past couple of decades has been 1.85:1. Which brings up my other point -- there really are a whole host of widescreen aspect ratios available to filmmakers - usually from 1.66:1 on up to the aforementioned 2.76:1.

kd2005, you might want to check out the incredible American Widescreen Museum, which REALLY sheds a lot of light on the various widescreen film processes used over the years. Try HERE for specifics on aspect ratios. Also important is to try HERE to understand how all the various widescreen processes fit in with DVD presentation on both 4:3 TVs and 16:9 TVs.

[PorkChopXpress]

papibear, you are correct sir. I was thinking of aspect ratios in regard to a widescreen set and totally forgot about 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 AR. And while I was aware many features use the 1.85:1 ratio, again I was thinking of 16:9 standard for widescreen sets when providing this info. Thanks again for the correction, I would hate to spread any misinformation.

[MJZ]

I think everything has been said and some useful links included too.

What an informative thread.

Oh, and Riedenschneider/Marq !

EDIT: I'm a widescreen junkie, at least for movies, unless it's a release that you have no option like the And 1 DVDs for example.

[Nexus 6]

By the way, welcome to the forum, kd2005. Glad you found us.

Most films nowadays are intended to be shown in widescreen. Some look really bad in fullscreen, some not quite as much, but WS is still usually the way to go.

Here's where it gets confusing; here are the major filming processes used today:

Flat Ratio: 1.85:1

Open-Matte: Film is shot with "spherical" lenses, yielding a picture of approximately 1.37:1, which is just a hair wider than the 1.33:1 ratio of most TVs. However, these films are usually intended to be shown in a ratio of 1.85:1. The picture is "matted" during projection (through a "flat" lens). The top and bottom are cut off, but they are supposed to be. When a full-frame video transfer is made, the top and bottom can be opened up a bit if needed. This results in less panning-and-scanning, but there is still usually some image lost on the sides. In addition, many effects shots are rendered at whatever ratio the film will be shown at theatrically, so those will be panned-and-scanned.

Hard-Matting: Sometimes filmmakers will use spherical lenses but go aheard and matte the film to 1.85:1 while they are shooting it. It comes on the film print at that ratio, and so when it is projected, a 1.85:1 ratio is shown, but there is nothing at the top and bottom to mask. This also results in a straight pan-and-scan video transfer if you're going for full-frame.

Scope Ratio: 2.35:1 (2.39:1)

Anamorphic Panavision: Film is shot with an anamorphic lens, which takes the image and vertically squeezes it onto the frame. The frame is the same size as if it were a flat film, but when the film is projected through the correct lens ("scope"), it yields a the wider ratio of 2.35:1. Then the projector further mattes it to 2.39:1. When a 1.33:1 (4X3) video transfer is made, the entire film must be panned-and-scanned, and much information is lost. These are the films that look the worst in pan-and-scan.

Super35: This is a process that is becoming more and more popular. The film is shot with spherical lenses, and the exposed ratio is approximately 4:3, but it is then the top and bottom are cropped to whatever ratio is to be used (usually 2.35:1) during the printing process. Then the theater gets a regular anamorphic print to be shown through the scope lens, the same as a Panavision film. A 4X3 video transfer of a Super35 film is usually made from the original negative, so there is usually more top and bottom image shown. However, very rarely is the whole frame shown, just enough to reduce panning-and-scanning. Once again, any CGI work will usually only be rendered for the theatrical ratio, and therefore will have to be panned-and-scanned.

And once again, the widescreen ratio is almost always the one the filmmakers frame for first, and the one they intend.

I hope all that made some sense. For more info, go to the link papibear provided. Widescreen Museum is a terrific site; check it out.

[mtcarmel00]

Nexus 6 thanks! That was very informative. The subject has never been presented clearer to me than that.

[Oscar Antonio M]

Originally Posted by Nexus 6

By the way, welcome to the forum, kd2005. Glad you found us.

Most films nowadays are intended to be shown in widescreen. Some look really bad in fullscreen, some not quite as much, but WS is still usually the way to go.

Here's where it gets confusing; here are the major filming processes used today:

Flat Ratio: 1.85:1

Open-Matte: Film is shot with "spherical" lenses, yielding a picture of approximately 1.37:1, which is just a hair wider than the 1.33:1 ratio of most TVs. However, these films are usually intended to be shown in a ratio of 1.85:1. The picture is "matted" during projection (through a "flat" lens). The top and bottom are cut off, but they are supposed to be. When a full-frame video transfer is made, the top and bottom can be opened up a bit if needed. This results in less panning-and-scanning, but there is still usually some image lost on the sides. In addition, many effects shots are rendered at whatever ratio the film will be shown at theatrically, so those will be panned-and-scanned.

Hard-Matting: Sometimes filmmakers will use spherical lenses but go aheard and matte the film to 1.85:1 while they are shooting it. It comes on the film print at that ratio, and so when it is projected, a 1.85:1 ratio is shown, but there is nothing at the top and bottom to mask. This also results in a straight pan-and-scan video transfer if you're going for full-frame.

Scope Ratio: 2.35:1 (2.39:1)

Anamorphic Panavision: Film is shot with an anamorphic lens, which takes the image and vertically squeezes it onto the frame. The frame is the same size as if it were a flat film, but when the film is projected through the correct lens ("scope"), it yields a the wider ratio of 2.35:1. Then the projector further mattes it to 2.39:1. When a 1.33:1 (4X3) video transfer is made, the entire film must be panned-and-scanned, and much information is lost. These are the films that look the worst in pan-and-scan.

Super35: This is a process that is becoming more and more popular. The film is shot with spherical lenses, and the exposed ratio is approximately 4:3, but it is then the top and bottom are cropped to whatever ratio is to be used (usually 2.35:1) during the printing process. Then the theater gets a regular anamorphic print to be shown through the scope lens, the same as a Panavision film. A 4X3 video transfer of a Super35 film is usually made from the original negative, so there is usually more top and bottom image shown. However, very rarely is the whole frame shown, just enough to reduce panning-and-scanning. Once again, any CGI work will usually only be rendered for the theatrical ratio, and therefore will have to be panned-and-scanned.

And once again, the widescreen ratio is almost always the one the filmmakers frame for first, and the one they intend.

I hope all that made some sense. For more info, go to the link papibear provided. Widescreen Museum is a terrific site; check it out.

If there is a thing ive noticed lately in many Super35 films is that the image is not hard-matted anymore to 2.35:1, for example a lot of the shots in Harry Potter have more info in the top and bottom of the frame.

Ive also noticed that the Full-Frame versions of many 1.85:1 films have an odd composition In My Big Fat Greek Wedding a lot of the shots are pan and scan, others have more info in the bottom of the frame but not in the top and other shots have more on the top and the bottom has a lot less, same goes for Field of Dreams and i noticed that in the Pan and Scan version of Nutty Professor: II there is a lot more info in the bottom than in the top but is still cropped. Now, i suspect that they were done in Super35 as well, but i doubt it since im not sure if Super35 applies to 1.85:1 films as well.

[Nexus 6]

originally posted by mtcarmel00:

Nexus 6 thanks! That was very informative. The subject has never been presented clearer to me than that.

Hey, no prob! It actually took me a while to get all that straight. It is kind of confusing. Happy to help out

originally posted by Oscar Antonio M:

If there is a thing ive noticed lately in many Super35 films is that the image is not hard-matted anymore to 2.35:1, for example a lot of the shots in Harry Potter have more info in the top and bottom of the frame.

That is true. LOTR is like this, too. Many of the CGI shots were rendered for 16:9, I believe. This was most likely done because there was so much CGI involved, but that's just a guess.

Ive also noticed that the Full-Frame versions of many 1.85:1 films have an odd composition In My Big Fat Greek Wedding a lot of the shots are pan and scan, others have more info in the bottom of the frame but not in the top and other shots have more on the top and the bottom has a lot less, same goes for Field of Dreams and i noticed that in the Pan and Scan version of Nutty Professor: II there is a lot more info in the bottom than in the top but is still cropped.

A lot of open-matte films are opened up more at the bottom than at the top when they get to video. Usually, this is due to boom mikes hanging down in the frame, or possibly because of too much headroom. I guess if there's more at the top than the bottom, it may be because of power cords on the floor (see Pee-Wee's Big Adventure ) or something like that. Suffice it to say, you're still usually better off with widescreen.

Now, i suspect that they were done in Super35 as well, but i doubt it since im not sure if Super35 applies to 1.85:1 films as well.

Super35 has been used for some 1.85:1 films (can't think of any titles off the top of my head), but it's usually used for 2.35:1. Most of the time, filmmakers go open-matte if they're going to frame for 1.85:1.

[moviezzz]

Pan and scan is used all the time on DVD forums, but it is rarely used correctly.

Pan and scan is when they take a widescreen film (normally 2.35:1) and reformat down, adding artificial pans and scanning of the frame in the process.

For example, in a scene where two people are on either side of the widescreen, only one could be seen when tranferred to TV. Panning and scanning would add a fake pan from one side of the screen to the other so that you can see each person when they are talking. This is really harmful to the film since the director did not intend for this to happen. Sometimes the director is involved in the process, but not always.

People use the term P&S to talk about every fullframe release and that is not the case. Many have no panning and scanning at all.

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by moviezzz

Pan and scan is used all the time on DVD forums, but it is rarely used correctly.

Pan and scan is when they take a widescreen film (normally 2.35:1) and reformat down, adding artificial pans and scanning of the frame in the process.

They also artificially add cuts too, again unintended by the filmmakers.

[disclover]

Originally Posted by larphillips

They also artificially add cuts too, again unintended by the filmmakers.

Absolutely true. I have been amazed, when seeing some widescreen films that I had previously only seen in cropped fullscreen versions, that what appears to be a series of shots is actually one unbroken shot, with people on either side of the frame. Sometimes, to make fullscreen, rather than panning they just cut back and forth, showing one side of the frame at a time, thus adding shots that were never there in the original movie!