http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_and_scan

Nice image on that page to illustrate the P&S process.

But your understanding seems to be basically correct, so what are the particular titles you have in mind?

SHREK was recomposed to 1.33:1, which is why it's full frame, not P&S. Pixar do this as well.

For the other titles, if the intended aspect ratio was achieved via matted widescreen then the 1.33:1 version may just be unmatted, in which case it would be marked as full frame as it has not undergone a P&S process. Whether that's the case in all the titles you've listed though, I don't know.

The problem here is that there is no field for OAR.

Some people have adopted the convention (on their own) that a 1.85 OAR film that is "matted" to 1.33 should be considered "Full Frame" and not "P&S".

I understand this approach, however, it is misleading for the very reason that you point out.  It is easy to "assume" that if the video is listed as "Full Frame" that it means that the film's OAR is 1.33, which may or may not be true.  This assumption is easy to make since every film that was filmed in Academy Ratio is also correctly called "Full Frame".

Technically, calling a film that has an OAR of 1.85 that has been "matted", "Pan and Scan" is incorrect because the camera is not actually moving left and right across the frame depending on what is on the screen.  It is simply cutting the midlle out of the frame and/or increasing the height of the OAR picture or both, but there is no back and forth motion of the camera.  However, you are losing "data" from the original A/R of the film.

So we are left with two  bad choices, because there is no OAR field.  Call it Full Screen and let people think that's the way it was filmed, or call it P&S so people know it is not OAR, but it technically is not P&S.

Quoting Skip:

Quote:
Hal:

This particular topic is far too technivcal for your comprehension.

So, Skip....how'd I do?

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
So we are left with two  bad choices, because there is no OAR field.  Call it Full Screen and let people think that's the way it was filmed, or call it P&S so people know it is not OAR, but it technically is not P&S.

This is the way I've always done it. If it's 1.33:1 OAR then it's Full Frame, otherwise it's P&S. You're right it's not technically accurate, but at least it lets you know if the picture has been reformatted or not.

Be aware that some movies have more than one original aspect ratio. Kubrick and computer animations spring to my mind. A film which is completely open matte (no special effects pan & scan) should be entered as full frame into the database IMO.

Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
So we are left with two  bad choices, because there is no OAR field.  Call it Full Screen and let people think that's the way it was filmed, or call it P&S so people know it is not OAR, but it technically is not P&S.

This is the way I've always done it. If it's 1.33:1 OAR then it's Full Frame, otherwise it's P&S. You're right it's not technically accurate, but at least it lets you know if the picture has been reformatted or not.

That's what I prefer as well.

Agreed also. The more useful info is whether a film is OAR or not, rather than how that change was completed.

How the change was completed is important too.

If you have something like Terminator 3 which has just had the matte opened up to 1.33:1, then you know you're not missing any of the image by watching the 4x3 version (in fact you see more info, even if it's not intended). If it's P&S, then you are.

For full frame versions, I can zoom the image to get a decent enough crop to try and get close to the original matting. With P&S doing this means I would be losing even more image (since it has already been "pre-cropped" so to speak).

So knowing whether it's full frame or P&S is valuable.

Quoting Squirrel.God:

Quote:
How the change was completed is important too.

If you have something like Terminator 3 which has just had the matte opened up to 1.33:1, then you know you're not missing any of the image by watching the 4x3 version (in fact you see more info, even if it's not intended). If it's P&S, then you are.

For full frame versions, I can zoom the image to get a decent enough crop to try and get close to the original matting. With P&S doing this means I would be losing even more image (since it has already been "pre-cropped" so to speak).

So knowing whether it's full frame or P&S is valuable.

I never said it was not important, but in my opinion it is significantly less important, hence my prefence.

Ultimately I agree with Hal, ideally we would be able to record both, but as can't right now we need to agree which way to go to make the info consistant and useful... until DVDP allows us to do both (Ken  )

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Squirrel.God:

Quote:

So knowing whether it's full frame or P&S is valuable.

I agree with that. 

What we need is both peices of information (OAR and F/S or P&S), but we don't have them today.  So we have to reach some kind of agreement as to how best to use the fields that we do have.

Since the field is labeled "Full Frame" and not "OAR" I do have a preference.