Stop with the 4:3 SD Window Boxing!!!! (1 Viewer)

[David_B_K]

Color me "even more confused".

 

[Mark-P]

If documentary features were produced in non-anamorphic standard definition, then this is how your blu-ray player is going to display them. Bumping them up to 16X9-enhanced will NOT increase the resolution. So why don't you just hit the zoom button on your display?

 

[smithb]

I get the complaint about 16:9 content being window-boxed, but the 4:3 content example above looks fine to me.

 

[Larry Geller]

Originally Posted by EnricoE /t/322911/stop-with-the-4-3-sd-window-boxing#post_3960333
there... pillar boxed 4:3 in a 16:9 video

I FAR prefer it this way. Otherwise, I have to switch my display to 4X3 or the SD extra will be streched to 16X9, like the SD trailers that precede the episodes on ST TNG (even though the actual show is 4X3 in a 16X9 frame). Leaving everything 16x9 is the way to go, I have no problem with the black sides.

 

[smithb]

If documentary features were produced in non-anamorphic standard definition, then this is how your blu-ray player is going to display them. Bumping them up to 16X9-enhanced will NOT increase the resolution. So why don't you just hit the zoom button on your display?

True, but like any non-anamorphic content if the originating source is of higher quality (even if only 480i) they could go back and make it anamorphic, which would improve the quality of the final result.

 

[Mark-P]

True, but like any non-anamorphic content if the originating source is of higher quality (even if only 480i) they could go back and make it anamorphic, which would improve the quality of the final result.

It's just not fair to expect them to do that for "ported over" documentaries. To reassemble all the original elements a la Star Trek TNG would be a lot of work and I'm sure they were more concerned with putting all their resources into working on the actual movie!

 

[smithb]

It's just not fair to expect them to do that for "ported over" documentaries. To reassemble all the original elements a la Star Trek TNG would be a lot of work and I'm sure they were more concerned with putting all their resources into working on the actual movie!

I agree about the focus on the movie, but porting over non-anamorphic output to anamorphic is not necessarily a lot of work, unlike your Star Trek TNG example. There are cases where the content originated with no bars and the bars were added during the process of making the output for DVD by basically adjusting a setting during the process. So going back to that to author an anamorphic version may not be much effort at all.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by smithb /t/322911/stop-with-the-4-3-sd-window-boxing#post_3960367
I agree about the focus on the movie, but porting over non-anamorphic output to anamorphic is not necessarily a lot of work, unlike your Star Trek TNG example. There are cases where the content originated with no bars and the bars were added during the process of making the output for DVD by basically adjusting a setting during the process. So going back to that to author an anamorphic version may not be much effort at all.

True, but if there's even ONE SHOT in the piece that is 1.33:1 instead of 1.78:1 letterboxed they cannot make the whole thing 1.78:1 16:9 without a) cropping the 1.33:1 shots, or b) re-assembling the content.

The "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures" documentary is a good example. There are sections of that documentary that use 1.33:1 content and other sections that use 1.78:1 content. The cost to re-assemble the documentary from the raw elements would be incredibly expensive, and cropping the 1.33:1 content to 1.78:1 would hardly be desirable, either. So, unfortunately, you'll get a window boxed presentations on 16:9 monitors of the 1.78:1 content.

It's a similar issue as to how Warner had to handle Brainstorm's AR shift of 1.78:1/2.35:1. They simply had to windowbox the 1.78:1 content.

Such is the fate of content with multiple aspect ratios.

I do agree though that any content that is wholly 1.78:1 4x3 should be re-encoded to 1.78:1 16x9.

 

[smithb]

True, but if there's even ONE SHOT in the piece that is 1.33:1 instead of 1.78:1 letterboxed they cannot make the whole thing 1.78:1 16:9 without a) cropping the 1.33:1 shots, or b) re-assembling the content.
The "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures" documentary is a good example. There are sections of that documentary that use 1.33:1 content and other sections that use 1.78:1 content. The cost to re-assemble the documentary from the raw elements would be incredibly expensive, and cropping the 1.33:1 content to 1.78:1 would hardly be desirable, either. So, unfortunately, you'll get a window boxed presentations on 16:9 monitors of the 1.78:1 content.
It's a similar issue as to how Warner had to handle Brainstorm's AR shift of 1.78:1/2.35:1. They simply had to windowbox the 1.78:1 content.
Such is the fate of content with multiple aspect ratios.
I do agree though that any content that is wholly 1.78:1 4x3 should be re-encoded to 1.78:1 16x9.

Good point. I don't watch the documentaries all that much so I never considered there may be mixed aspect ratio's within the same content. If that is the case with the referenced one from Jaws then it is correctly done already.

 

[EnricoE]

True, but if there's even ONE SHOT in the piece that is 1.33:1 instead of 1.78:1 letterboxed they cannot make the whole thing 1.78:1 16:9 without a) cropping the 1.33:1 shots, or b) re-assembling the content.

if one shot like an interview is 4:3 then you can do either a pillar box or zoom to fit.

The "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures" documentary is a good example. There are sections of that documentary that use 1.33:1 content and other sections that use 1.78:1 content. The cost to re-assemble the documentary from the raw elements would be incredibly expensive, and cropping the 1.33:1 content to 1.78:1 would hardly be desirable, either. So, unfortunately, you'll get a window boxed presentations on 16:9 monitors of the 1.78:1 content.

if your 4:3 material is an actual movie clip then it MUST be honored and presented in the oar no matter what.

I do agree though that any content that is wholly 1.78:1 4x3 should be re-encoded to 1.78:1 16x9.

they should just go back to original source they received from the creaters of the documentary. i highly doubt that universal received a 4:3 ltbx version from them. the 2005 documentary might have even produced in hd. who knows. it's just a poor job on universals behalf. but they aren't the only studio who constantly screw up things like this.

 

[Doctorossi]

if your 4:3 material is an actual movie clip then it MUST be honored and presented in the oar no matter what.

I want the entire extras supplement to be in its OAR, no matter how many bars they need to add to do it.

 

[Mark-P]

Okay, now this thread is really starting to irritate me. To Universal: Thank you for giving us such a stellar Blu-ray of Jaws. Also thank you for seeing fit to include documentaries from earlier releases. We are happy to have them included!

 

[Moe Dickstein]

what the hell is wrong with blu-ray producers and their need to put 4:3 material in standard definition into 16:9 sd window boxing? we lose resolution/quality because of it.
if your source material is 4:3 sd and your output will be sd also, then freaking do it in 4:3 and not 16:9 window boxing. the latest offender is universal with the bts for jaws.
stop doing this!!!

Looking at the example you provided below, I think you're unaware of how Blu-Ray works as a format.
Blu is a NATIVE 1.78 format. on DVD, 16x9 material was squeezed and then unsqueezed to fit in a 1.33 NATIVE format (without bars). This anamorphic encoding used all the disc's space for picture information rather than wasting space on black bars.
HOWEVER - with BD, you cannot encode native 1.33 (4x3) material in any other ratio than 1.78 because that is the way the format stores data!
1.33 material with bars on the side in a 1.78 frame is the proper way to encode this content and results in ZERO loss of resolution or quality.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Moe Dickstein /t/322911/stop-with-the-4-3-sd-window-boxing/30#post_3960547
1.33 material with bars on the side in a 1.78 frame is the proper way to encode this content and results in ZERO loss of resolution or quality.

And picture.

 

[EnricoE]

Looking at the example you provided below, I think you're unaware of how Blu-Ray works as a format.
Blu is a NATIVE 1.78 format. on DVD, 16x9 material was squeezed and then unsqueezed to fit in a 1.33 NATIVE format (without bars). This anamorphic encoding used all the disc's space for picture information rather than wasting space on black bars.
HOWEVER - with BD, you cannot encode native 1.33 (4x3) material in any other ratio than 1.78 because that is the way the format stores data!

your comment is FALSE because blu-ray CAN have video that is encoded in standard definition of 720x480 (ntsc) or 720x576 (pal). they CAN be in a 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio.
check wikipedia for more information.

1.33 material with bars on the side in a 1.78 frame is the proper way to encode this content and results in ZERO loss of resolution or quality.

are you serious? you have no bloody idea how encoding with standard def works. putting native 4:3 sd material into 16:9 sd video WILL result in a lose of quality!!!

 

[David Weicker]

I'm going to put in my 2-cents.
First of all, Blu-Ray is not native anything. Blu-Ray is just a larger capacity DVD. Both are just storing digital files. The fact that many Blu-Ray discs contain 16x9 content and are usually played on a 16x9 display does not make it 'native'. You can play a blu-ray disc on a 4x3 display, and it will play fine. (the 'native' aspect relates to how the players normally expect to present the data, but different 'flags' or 'indicators' on the disc can alter that).
Also, there is a difference between the way content is encoded and the way it is presented. Ideally, a 4x3 content is displayed full frame on a 4x3 display, and pillar boxed on a 16x9 display. And 16x9 content is displayed letterboxed on a 4x3 display and full frame on a 16x9 display (wider than 16x9 would be letterboxed either way). The method of encoding determines how the '-boxing' is accomplished. The producer can either 'hard-code' the bars (on the sides or on the top/bottom, thereby transforming one type of content into another, or they can put just the content in its original form and create indicators that the player can read to add or not add bars, depending on the display being used.
While the 'hard-coding' method does add additional data to be stored, it does not necessarily change the picture quality or resolution. A dual-layer Blu-Ray can hold 50gb (single layer 25gb). Depending on the bit-rate chosen, some films use all 50 gb, other use less, sometimes a lot less. I have no idea why they don't fill up the disc, but they don't. If a hard-coded pillar-box film is using 40gb, if they had encoded it with native 4x3 (and let the player add the bars), they might have made the disc 30gb, at exactly the same resolution.
The main point, is that the viewer can not tell how the bars are put there - whether they are stored on the disc, or provided on-the-fly by the player.
David

 

[John Hermes]

I'm going to put in my 2-cents.
First of all, Blu-Ray is not native anything. Blu-Ray is just a larger capacity DVD. Both are just storing digital files. The fact that many Blu-Ray discs contain 16x9 content and are usually played on a 16x9 display does not make it 'native'. You can play a blu-ray disc on a 4x3 display, and it will play fine. (the 'native' aspect relates to how the players normally expect to present the data, but different 'flags' or 'indicators' on the disc can alter that).
Also, there is a difference between the way content is encoded and the way it is presented. Ideally, a 4x3 content is displayed full frame on a 4x3 display, and pillar boxed on a 16x9 display. And 16x9 content is displayed letterboxed on a 4x3 display and full frame on a 16x9 display (wider than 16x9 would be letterboxed either way). The method of encoding determines how the '-boxing' is accomplished. The producer can either 'hard-code' the bars (on the sides or on the top/bottom, thereby transforming one type of content into another, or they can put just the content in its original form and create indicators that the player can read to add or not add bars, depending on the display being used.
While the 'hard-coding' method does add additional data to be stored, it does not necessarily change the picture quality or resolution. A dual-layer Blu-Ray can hold 50gb (single layer 25gb). Depending on the bit-rate chosen, some films use all 50 gb, other use less, sometimes a lot less. I have no idea why they don't fill up the disc, but they don't. If a hard-coded pillar-box film is using 40gb, if they had encoded it with native 4x3 (and let the player add the bars), they might have made the disc 30gb, at exactly the same resolution.
The main point, is that the viewer can not tell how the bars are put there - whether they are stored on the disc, or provided on-the-fly by the player.
David

Nice post. Yeah, I've always wondered why they don't render their file to fill free space of the disc. I'm a videographer and always render the max size file I can for the disc space I have. Sure, there's a point where it won't make any difference, but some of these BD files are surprisingly small.

 

[Ernest]

I understand Enrico frustration I just hate Pillar Bars and have purchased very few 3x4 aspect ratio movies on Blu-ray. It is what it is and if you are not happy about Pillar Bars you do like me and don't spend your money on those titles.

 

[EnricoE]

i have no problem with pillar boxing a movie if it's presented in high-def. in hd it's the only way to properly show the movie. i lived with letterbox the past 35 year and so will i continue to do so in the future. whether the black bars are on the top & bottom (widescreen movies) or on the sides (any movie with a lower aspect ratio of 1.78:1) is absolutely not of my concern.
my problem is the way they handle standard def material. they shouldn't be presented like it was on the jaws br. it could've been done so much better and give the viewer a much more pleasing experience.
some may agree on that and others don't.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Ernest /t/322911/stop-with-the-4-3-sd-window-boxing/30#post_3961092
I understand Enrico frustration I just hate Pillar Bars and have purchased very few 3x4 aspect ratio movies on Blu-ray. It is what it is and if you are not happy about Pillar Bars you do like me and don't spend your money on those titles.

But does that not remove you from purchasing any film before 1952? No CASABLANCA, WIZARD OF OZ, CITIZEN KANE, QUO VADIS, among many others. The films before the advent of scope and widescreen films were filmed with the 1:33 to 1 or 1.37 to 1 and was intended to be presented that way. When MGM re-formatted GONE WITH THE WIND in widescreen in 1954 and 70mm in 1967 and they really messed it up and lost a lot of information that was important to the story. Or look at the reviews of the Blu-ray of the animated GU LIVER'S TRAVELS (1939). Koch Video took a flat film and repositioned as widescreen and it was panned for losing so much information.

I have no problem with Pillar Bars anymore than I had and have with letter-boxing scope films. Seeing all of a movie is what I want.