Mastering errors on legacy bonus features on recent Warner Archive titles (King Solomon’s Mines, The Boy With Green Hair, One Way Passage, etc.) (1 Viewer)

[Will Krupp]

Let me start by saying that a blu-ray disc is no place to be watching standard definition content in the first place as it's always interlaced on any blu-ray disc. If there's SD content you're fond of, you're much better off watching it on DVD, always. I bring this up only because, historically, WAC has ported SD extras directly over to blu-ray and they look inferior even under the best of circumstances.

Getting back to the issue at hand, however, I popped in Flamingo Road. WAC has kept some of the legacy material in SD and some they've upscaled to HD and some has been remastered. There seems to be no rhyme nor reason to it. "Curtain Razor" (Looney Tunes) is a fresh HD remaster with no stretching at all. The "Crawford at Warner" doc is stretched and remains in SD, while both "Breakdowns" and the trailer have been upscaled to 1080p, yet "Breakdowns" is stretched and the trailer (while windowboxed and displaying every interlaced artifact known to man) isn't.

I just can't get worked up over it because if I'm really partial to a specific extra that I need to look as good as it can (which happens almost never) I keep the DVD

this is strange pple are posting it plays fine on their players

I would take that with a grain of salt as specific players might display "Crawford at Warners" correctly, but the two upscaled extras are already encased in a pre-set 16:9 frame so there's really no "other way" for them to display.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

It has nothing to do with the encoding flaw itself. A good processor can handle any aspect ratio/image compression right or wrong.
I have presets that adjust automatically to the input, and for rare cases like these bonus features it's easy to make the correction manually with one button tap.
For example, most 1.85 films are now encoded as 1.85 images instead of being cropped to fit the 16x9 format. This leaves small black bars on the top and bottom of a 16x9 panel. I have a 2.35 screen and I created an automatic preset for 1.85 encodings. When a 1.85 disc plays passed its 16x9 menu, you see the screen image widen past the 16×9 frame limitations to provide a slightly wider image with no top and bottom bars eating into valuable screen space. Even a small increase like this has a noticeable effect on the sense of immersion.
Going back to the bonus feature encoding error, if it ends up becomming more common, I will try creating another automated setting in the processor, but at this point it is so infrequent that one button easily resolves it manually.
Also, if you revisit some early 4x3 DVD's, the entire feature may be subject to this problem. The same processor button corrects that stretch as well. Newer equipment can confuse the "ancient" letterbox encoding developed for playback on CRT television sets. This problem doesn't exist after DVD'S began encoding with anamopphic compression. The automatic detection in most all players delivers higher resolved widescreen images when played back on standard 16x9 panels in comparison to letterboxing for CRT's.
4x3 CRT's were the main method of viewing content back when DVD's first hit the market, and very limited quality letterbox processing was the only way to view widescreen films without resorting to pan and scan images.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Standard definition video is 720x480, but it isn’t displayed in those dimensions; that would be an aspect ratio of 1.5:1. All 720x480 material either displays as 640x480 for 4x3 material, or it is stretched to 853x480 for 16x9 material.

In this case, the 720x480 standard definition source was then upscaled to 1920x1080 without the correction to 640x480 beforehand. Therefore, an image perfectly framed for 4x3 1.33:1 was stretched to 1.5:1 and then enlarged with the wrong proportions built within a 16x9 frame. Set playback to 4x3 and you’ll have a way too-narrow strip in the middle of the screen.

The problem was introduced in the mastering stage, just like stuttering issues with frame rates and combing artifacts from interlaced material. There isn’t a default setting on any player, TV, or computer that can fix this distortion upon display because it is abnormal.

 

[Indy Guy]

Sorry, but you may not have the capability in your setup to correct for legacy bonus content. A lot of the bonus material on the Indiana Jones BR bonus disc has been mastered in the obsolete letterboxed 4×3 format. Having seen the 5th Indy film last week, I decided tonight to watch the Indy box bonus disc. Newer bonus material mastered after the advent of widescreen TV is fine but legacy material carried over from letterboxed 4x3 masters made for LD and early DVD appears stretched. I could take before and after photos showing the stretched image and the corrected image after engaging the 4×3 setting I have on my processor. It would show how easy this can be done with the right equipment. My 4x3 setting restores legacy material to the proper proportions mastered for low resolution 4x3 television sets. Of course the resolution is lousy with letterboxed clips from the widescreen films only having about 270 lines of resolution and the 2.35 image residing in the middle of a small 4×3 portion of my widescreen... Exactly as it would have been viewed on a vintage TV without distortion induced by stretching the 4x3 material to fill a 16x9 frame.

 

[Will Krupp]

I could take before and after photos showing the stretched image and the corrected image after engaging the 4×3 setting I have on my processor. It would show how easy this can be done with the right equipment. My 4x3 setting restores legacy material to the proper proportions mastered for low resolution 4x3 television sets.

First of all, congratulations on having such a great processor!

What Chuck is trying to tell you, though, is that what you're talking about isn't the same issue he's talking about. Your processor may very well be able to change aspect ratios on the fly just as though you were using VLC or some similar computer video player. Legacy SD material that's ported directly onto blu-ray in 480i (like the bonus disc in the 2012 Indiana Jones box) is encoded at 480x720 so, when you use your processor to change the aspect ratio, you're altering the geometry of the entire available image. In these cases, however, the image has already been upscaled to a 1080x1920 frame (with the flawed aspect ratio baked in) before it even gets to your processor. The black sidebars are now an integral part of the image. Your processor may be great but it can't differentiate between black bars and image area in a 1080p frame since, as far as the processor is concerned, it's all image, yes?

When you watch a 1.78/1080p frame at 1.85 or 2.35 to fill your (I assume?) projector screen, you're just engaging a zoom function and, in essence, throwing away the parts of the image you don't want. You aren't changing anything about a specific portion of the original material. I don't know how you could.

 

[Indy Guy]

You are half right. Your perspective focuses on the data available on the disc. My projector is 5K - 2.35 native. When adjusting a 1.85 image to use extra available horizontal pixels, the "zoom" is only in the processor and not the projector. This is the reason I bought this unique projector. As a result, processor adjusted 1.85 images occupy all the projectors native vertical resolution, plus additional pixels to the left and right of a traditional 16x9 frame. Think of it like a jpeg image with fixed resolution. If you print that file in a newspaper it will not be as resolved as in a quality magazine with more pixels per inch. Both would be inferior to a a print on high quality photo paper, even though all 3 used the same data to create their images. The variations in quality are totally on the printed end.
The other issue regarding improperly burned vintage bonus material can be mechanically corrected in real time with a processor allowing for variable aspec ratios. Narrowing a stretched image back to its initial shape will use less of the projectors available pixals, so a slight amount of resolution is lost since fewer projector pixels are in use. Both conditions have nothing to do with zooming the projected image which always remains fixed.

 

[Will Krupp]

As a result, processor adjusted 1.85 images occupy all the projectors native vertical resolution, plus additional pixels to the left and right of a traditional 16x9 frame.

Oh that's great but, with all due respect, it's sort of a distinction without a difference as this conversation goes. My point in bringing up the "zoom" function was simply to illustrate that you're choosing to see just a portion of the available data in the frame, you're not changing any of its geometry.

The other issue regarding improperly burned vintage bonus material can be mechanically corrected in real time with a processor allowing for variable aspec ratios.

Well, it can't be done by just telling the processor to display 4:3 because that would change the aspect ratio of the entire 16:9 frame. You would have to figure out exactly what percentage the image is wider than 4:3 and use that information to "back out' (so to speak) what custom aspect ratio you'd need to display the whole image in. Again, with all due respect, most people don't have that capability and, even if we did, who the hell is going to do that all the time? Why should we have to? Can you at least acknowledge that, for most people, it's a pain in the butt?

 

[Kyle_D]

You would have to figure out exactly what percentage the image is wider than 4:3 and use that information to "back out' (so to speak) what custom aspect ratio you'd need to display the whole image in.

I’m not disagreeing with you at all on your overall point, but I believe there are processors and DIY solutions that can do this (e.g. MadVR). The commercial solutions just cost as much as a used Civic, and they’re not practical for 99.999% of the population.

 

[Indy Guy]

It's a lazy miss on the part of disc authors for sure, but I set up the corrected aspect just once and made it a preset. Now just a single click delivers the corrected image. It's a minor frustration, but not as agravating as trying to go after the studios to correct the flaw when their margins are very low already. Rather than remaster the bonus material, they would likely stop including such material altogether.

 

[JoshZ]

Indy Guy, respectfully, I don't think you're understanding the issue here.

The original 4:3 picture has been erroneously scaled to 1620x1080 pixels. If it had been correctly authored, the active picture should use 1440x1080 pixels pillarboxed within a 1920x1080 frame.

If you use your processor's "4:3" aspect ratio preset, it will squeeze the image to 1200x1080 pixels (a 1.11:1 aspect ratio) and will look like this.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Indy Guy, respectfully, I don't think you're understanding the issue here.

The original 4:3 picture has been erroneously scaled to 1600x1080 pixels. If it had been correctly authored, the active picture should use 1440x1080 pixels pillarboxed within a 1920x1080 frame.

If you use your processor's "4:3" aspect ratio preset, it will squeeze the image to 1200x1080 pixels (a 1.11:1 aspect ratio) and will look like this.

View attachment 187989

He isn’t getting it. A 4x3 image was stretched to 1.5:1 and then enlarged to fit a 16x9 frame, but with no cropping. The distortion is built in. This isn’t a case of a 4x3 letterboxed image within a 16x9 frame,

*sigh*

I’m going to have to make another comparison video, aren’t I?

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Sorry, but you may not have the capability in your setup to correct for legacy bonus content. A lot of the bonus material on the Indiana Jones BR bonus disc has been mastered in the obsolete letterboxed 4×3 format. Having seen the 5th Indy film last week, I decided tonight to watch the Indy box bonus disc. Newer bonus material mastered after the advent of widescreen TV is fine but legacy material carried over from letterboxed 4x3 masters made for LD and early DVD appears stretched. I could take before and after photos showing the stretched image and the corrected image after engaging the 4×3 setting I have on my processor. It would show how easy this can be done with the right equipment. My 4x3 setting restores legacy material to the proper proportions mastered for low resolution 4x3 television sets. Of course the resolution is lousy with letterboxed clips from the widescreen films only having about 270 lines of resolution and the 2.35 image residing in the middle of a small 4×3 portion of my widescreen... Exactly as it would have been viewed on a vintage TV without distortion induced by stretching the 4x3 material to fill a 16x9 frame.

You’re completely missing the point. This isn’t a matter of knowing how to display legacy content correctly. I am not referring to letterboxed material within a 4x3 frame, which itself is then within a 16x9 frame. I’m talking about 1.33:1 content that has been incorrectly stretched to 1.5:1 and then fit inside a 1.78:1 frame. There is no standard setting on any equipment to squeeze the image by 11% to correct for this built-in distortion.

Do I need to make another video?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

With respect you guys are talking over each other. Chuck is correct that the material was encoded poorly and that there is no standard switch one can flip to correct that mastering error from the consumer point of view. Tony is correct in pointing out that expensive, customized post-processing software like madVR can extract the approx 1.5:1 image out of a 16x9 frame and correct the distortion to play it at the proper 1.33:1 ratio. Will is correct that the overwhelming majority of consumers do not have the interest, technical knowledge or resources to purchase and utilize such equipment.

 

[Will Krupp]

With respect you guys are talking over each other. Chuck is correct that the material was encoded poorly and that there is no standard switch one can flip to correct that mastering error from the consumer point of view. Tony is correct in pointing out that expensive, customized post-processing software like madVR can extract the approx 1.5:1 image out of a 16x9 frame and correct the distortion to play it at the proper 1.33:1 ratio. Will is correct that the overwhelming majority of consumers do not have the interest, technical knowledge or resources to purchase and utilize such equipment.

You should work for the UN!!

 

[Paul Penna]

Let's just try to make WAC know about this and take corrective measures.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Warner Archive Blu-ray releases I’ve identified with 1.33:1 content stretched to 1.5:1 and then mastered within a 1.78:1 frame with 11% horizontal distortion built-in to the image:

The Boy With Green Hair (1948) - “A Really Important Person” short

Flamingo Road (1949) - “Crawford at Warners” featurette and “Breakdown of 1949” short

*Goodbye Mr. Chips (1939) - theatrical trailer

King Solomon’s Mines (1950) - theatrical trailer

The Long, Long Trailer (1954) - theatrical trailer

One Way Passage (1932) - theatrical trailer

Safe in Hell (1931) - theatrical trailer and “George Jessel and His Art Choir” short

Storm Warning (1951) - theatrical trailer

*The Strawberry Blonde (1941) - theatrical trailer

*identified as an issue by someone else but not witnessed by me personally

 

[Chuck Pennington]

You should work for the UN!!

IndyGuy is wrong though in his understanding of the issue; this is not a case of not knowing how to display legacy content properly. I don’t think anyone here needed a primer on letterboxed video within a 4x3 frame within a 16x9 frame.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You should work for the UN!!

When one has 3 year old twins, 95% of the day is mediation

 

[Mark-P]

The 1.5:1 aspect ratio definitely stems from the DVD format and whoever encoded the Archive Blu-rays not understanding how it all works. The DVD format is 720X480 (1.5:1) and if flagged as FF the image is squeezed to 1.33:1, or if flagged as WS stretched to 1.78:1. Both 1.33:1 and 1.78:1 had the exact same pixels on DVD. DVD players would allow you to select a screen type, and if you chose 1.33:1 the player would show FF content unaltered and for WS content would add letterbox bars to the top and bottom of your screen, at the expense of vertical resolution. If you chose 1.78:1 setting, it would show WS content unaltered and for FF content would add pillar box bars to the sides, at the expense of horizontal resolution. However, my first DVD player wouldn’t even do the pillar box method, so that you actually had to use the TV’s aspect ratio control to show 1.33:1 with gray side bars!

 

[JoshZ]

When one has 3 year old twins, 95% of the day is mediation

My twins are 9, and 95% of my day is yelling at them and pulling my hair out.