|
||||||||
Films Shown In Their OAR On TV |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,766
|
Films Shown In Their OAR On TV
Nice to see Channel 4 showing Disney/Pixar's 'Cars' in the full 2.35:1 ratio. Something that the BBC have never done. To this day, even Sky Cinema Disney don't show it in its OAR when they show it!
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,692
|
Quote:
Nice to see Channel 4 showing Disney/Pixar's 'Cars' in the full 2.35:1 ratio. Something that the BBC have never done. To this day, even Sky Cinema Disney don't show it in its OAR when they show it!
BBC are doing that more now but not enough IMHO. Are Sky using the open matte version of Cars? I wouldn't be surprised, they seem to be doing that alot more now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,612
|
ITV1 showed The Fellowship Of The Ring in its OAR on Saturday, pity they didn't do the same with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey that followed though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
|
To be honest I don't really understand OAR, I thought it wasn't an issue anymore now everyone has widescreen TVs? I thought pan and scan was a thing of the past?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,190
|
Quote:
To be honest I don't really understand OAR, I thought it wasn't an issue anymore now everyone has widescreen TVs? I thought pan and scan was a thing of the past?
If they use pan/scan on these films to fit a 16:9 TV, the viewer loses about 24% of what the director intended them to see. On the old 4:3 pan/scan lost about 43% of the intended image
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,612
|
There are actually 21:9 "Ultrawide" TV's available but they've never really taken off and remain a niche product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,469
|
I wish they would zoom in a bit / crop a bit off say 30% zoom as as long as the actors are within frame I feel like i wouldn't miss much
Much like watching a film on Netflix on a iPad, double tap and you've made everything a bit easier to see and less small It's a shame 21:9 ultra wide hasn't taken off, I have this 34" lg monitor as my computer monitor - http://amzn.to/2hU8wPm and have watched a couple mins of 21:9 films and wish I could get a Tv like it Looks fantastic when there are no borders and everything is big versus being shrunken down on a normal Tv. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: TheEssexSunshineCoast Clacton
Posts: 15,212
|
you could just use the zoom button on the remote my samsung UE48H6200 has quite a few zoom modes
also like you said they are 21:9 ultra monitors that some Gaming or video editing people use I think there is a 39 inch one but is very pricey. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,692
|
Quote:
I wish they would zoom in a bit / crop a bit off say 30% zoom as as long as the actors are within frame I feel like i wouldn't miss much
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,612
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,414
|
Quote:
Not sure who would want to stretch old 4:3 shows into super widescreen. They would be unwatchable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,469
|
Quote:
you could just use the zoom button on the remote my samsung UE48H6200 has quite a few zoom modes
also like you said they are 21:9 ultra monitors that some Gaming or video editing people use I think there is a 39 inch one but is very pricey. All the yes zoom functions on my Tv seem to be useless - causing squished heads etc.... Only solution is to find a blu ray player that has a zoom function or find it some other way and manually add a crop with handbrake on the mac |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,469
|
Quote:
Or zoom it yourself and leave the films alone for those that appreciate OAR......!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 15,850
|
Quote:
ITV1 showed The Fellowship Of The Ring in its OAR on Saturday, pity they didn't do the same with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey that followed though.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1290107 |
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Scotland east
Posts: 2,842
|
Movies for men and moviemax show in OAR - 4:3!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,692
|
Quote:
Zoom is useless - it's also disabled whilst using the inbuilt Netflix app
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,469
|
Quote:
So, everyone should lose because you want a crap zoomed version for some odd reason!?
Guess you never watched filmed at 4x3 on vhs It's not 'loosing' if there's a built in zoom option that one can select. It's not like the talent are at the farthest left / right of screen to really notice a slight 10-30% zoom |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Derbyshire / UK
Posts: 3,724
|
Quote:
What crap about making the picture bigger to fill more your 16x9 screen?
Guess you never watched filmed at 4x3 on vhs It's not 'loosing' if there's a built in zoom option that one can select. It's not like the talent are at the farthest left / right of screen to really notice a slight 10-30% zoom But I'd hate anything like a 30% zoom as that's close enough to a third of the available picture thrown away. Some movies and tv shows do have important characters on the extremes of the frame and when cropped to 16:9 it's certainly noticeable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,469
|
I tried it with the revenant - shaved a bit off - probably around 10-15% or 1/3 less black borders. I liked it. Shame I can't just do it using my TVs useless zoom or Netflix
Removing all the borders is too much, just a smidge is fine with me I notice Tiny bars on some content - I assume it was shot in true 4K dimensions which is longer than uhd |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 841
|
Quote:
I wish they would zoom in a bit / crop a bit off say 30% zoom as as long as the actors are within frame I feel like i wouldn't miss much
Much like watching a film on Netflix on a iPad, double tap and you've made everything a bit easier to see and less small It's a shame 21:9 ultra wide hasn't taken off, I have this 34" lg monitor as my computer monitor - http://amzn.to/2hU8wPm and have watched a couple mins of 21:9 films and wish I could get a Tv like it Looks fantastic when there are no borders and everything is big versus being shrunken down on a normal Tv. Also as far as I know most 21:9 media is letterboxed from a resolution point of view too, so (for example) 21:9 HD would typically be 1920x822 effective resolution rather than 2520x1080, so you wouldn't gain there either. It makes sense for a monitor because of games and productivity but not really for a TV in my opinion. I think the ideal would be a 16:9 with a greater than standard resolution such that it could display native 21:9 content at a higher vertical resolution. A 5k display (5120 × 2880) would be ideal for this, but obviously the media would have to be native 21:9 resolution rather than letterboxed 4k. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,692
|
Quote:
What crap about making the picture bigger to fill more your 16x9 screen?
Guess you never watched filmed at 4x3 on vhs It's not 'loosing' if there's a built in zoom option that one can select. It's not like the talent are at the farthest left / right of screen to really notice a slight 10-30% zoom Films should be left as they are. The need to fill an entire screen with a picture is silly and basically demanding that picture be cut off to achieve that is selfish and says a massive f-you to everyone else that wants the full experience of a film as it was intended, not hacked to pieces to suit the silly minority that see a screen and insist it be filled with image! |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 15,850
|
Quote:
I notice Tiny bars on some content - I assume it was shot in true 4K dimensions which is longer than uhd
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,469
|
Quote:
Yes, i did many times. What is this, preschool now!!?
Films should be left as they are. The need to fill an entire screen with a picture is silly and basically demanding that picture be cut off to achieve that is selfish and says a massive f-you to everyone else that wants the full experience of a film as it was intended, not hacked to pieces to suit the silly minority that see a screen and insist it be filled with image! 4x3 vhs as in they take a 21:9 film and pan and scan it to vhs meaning you've watched overly zoomed in films. How is having the ability to zoom in a bit a problem? What you do is don't press the 'zoom' Button. I watched a blu ray last night and gave all the zoom functions a go, all they do is distort the aspect ratio. 'I don't like it therefore everyone else is silly and selfish' you really have no idea what I'm on about |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,469
|
Quote:
You really haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about.
4K - wider than 16x9 UHD - fits 16x9 dimensions I'm sure it was shot at 2323:55353 versus standard wide gamut of 1:6969.1 not my stupid attempt at comprehending a tiny letterbox. I'd imagine it was shot at a different aspect ratio to standard ultra wide. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,000
|
Am pretty sure there is no difference between UHD and 4K when it comes to the picture size.
Something filmed in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 will still be in those dimensions in 4K. The picture will just be sharper. Happy to be corrected if wrong though. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:07.




