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?