Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Stop with the 4:3 SD Window Boxing!!!!


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 of 41 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted August 09 2012 - 03:15 AM

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!!!

#2 of 41 Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg

  • 7,031 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted August 09 2012 - 03:41 AM

I'm not sure I'm understanding your complaint.


Are you talking about 1.78:1 AR content in 4:3 video encodes? Then yes it should be 16:9 instead of 4:3. But in my experience there's always one part of the featurette - such as a title page or random clip - that is 1.33:1 during that featurette. If that's the case then keeping it 4:3 is the only way not to crop the 1.33:1 material without re-editing the entire bonus feature, which is quite expensive.


"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#3 of 41 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted August 09 2012 - 03:51 AM

no... i'm talking about featurettes that are produced in 4:3 and now included on blu-ray or even on dvd and that have been re-encoded into 16:9 window boxing. all of the jaws btw, except the ones in hd, are window boxed because their source files are 4:3. the 2005 bts are even worse because they are actual 16:9 produced videos and are now have black bars all around them.

#4 of 41 Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor

  • 833 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted August 09 2012 - 03:55 AM

i'm talking about featurettes that are produced in 4:3 and now included on blu-ray or even on dvd and that have been re-encoded into 16:9 window boxing.

:confused: I'm not sure how "16:9 window-boxing" could work, considering that Blu-ray is a 16:9 format. Do you mean "pillar-boxing"?

#5 of 41 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted August 09 2012 - 04:03 AM

:confused: I'm not sure how "16:9 window-boxing" could work, considering that Blu-ray is a 16:9 format. Do you mean "pillar-boxing"?

the original laserdisc documentary is pillar boxed the 2005 bts is window boxed both are embedded into 16:9 video picture of the 2005 bts to illustrate

#6 of 41 Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor

  • 833 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted August 09 2012 - 04:10 AM

the original laserdisc documentary is pillar boxed

It was pillar-boxed on 4:3 laserdisc? So... it was in a narrower aspect-ratio than 4:3? :confused:

the 2005 bts is window boxed

What is "bts"?

#7 of 41 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted August 09 2012 - 04:12 AM

It was pillar-boxed on 4:3 laserdisc? So... it was in a narrower aspect-ratio than 4:3?

no... it was 4:3. on blu-ray it's pillar boxed

:confused: What is "bts"?

behind the scenes

#8 of 41 Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor

  • 833 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted August 09 2012 - 04:28 AM

on blu-ray it's pillar boxed

How else could it be (except in an incorrect aspect-ratio)?

#9 of 41 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted August 09 2012 - 04:48 AM

How else could it be (except in an incorrect aspect-ratio)?

how about 4:3 :rolleyes:

#10 of 41 smithb

smithb

    Screenwriter

  • 1,536 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 27 2008

Posted August 09 2012 - 04:49 AM

I think what Enrico is saying in his example is that the original aspect-ratio was closer to 16:9 but they added bars at the top and bottom for the laserdisc so it would fit the 4:3 output at the time. But instead of opening it up for the blu-ray they treated it like it is still 4:3 content and further boxed it in on the sides. My guess is that it was originally non-anamorphic and they didn't want to take the time to redo it to make it anamorphic, which would have made it easy to accomodate the wider screen. Basically, there is no need for bars on the top and bottom anymore.

#11 of 41 Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor

  • 833 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted August 09 2012 - 04:51 AM

how about 4:3 :rolleyes:

That's what pillar-boxing would produce (unless they squeezed or pan-and-scanned it into a different ratio), so I still don't understand your complaint.

#12 of 41 Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor

  • 833 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted August 09 2012 - 04:53 AM

I think what Enrico is saying in his example is that the original aspect-ratio was closer to 16:9 but they added bars at the top and bottom for the laserdisc so it would fit the 4:3 output at the time.

Adding bars to the top and bottom of a (close to) 16:9 image cannot make a 4:3 image.

But instead of opening it up for the blu-ray they treated it like it is still 4:3 content and further boxed it in on the sides.

That would make more sense, but Enrico described it as 4:3 content.

#13 of 41 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted August 09 2012 - 05:09 AM

That's what pillar-boxing would produce (unless they squeezed or pan-and-scanned it into a different ratio), so I still don't understand your complaint.

what's not to understand? blu-ray can have true 4:3 sd files. this means there is no need to pillar box anything unless a hd version is released, e.g. movies with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. as for the 2005 bts it's even worse because it was originally produced in 16:9 and put on blu-ray in a window boxed format.

#14 of 41 Mark B

Mark B

    Supporting Actor

  • 724 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 27 2003
  • Real Name:Mark
  • LocationSaranac Lake, NY

Posted August 09 2012 - 05:11 AM

But it was produced in 16X9 480i which is technically 4X3.

#15 of 41 smithb

smithb

    Screenwriter

  • 1,536 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 27 2008

Posted August 09 2012 - 05:18 AM

Adding bars to the top and bottom of a (close to) 16:9 image cannot make a 4:3 image.

Really? Then what were they doing all through the 90's when they released wide screen films on DVD? I saw bars on the top and bottom to fill it out to make a 4:3 image.

#16 of 41 Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor

  • 833 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted August 09 2012 - 05:42 AM

blu-ray can have true 4:3 sd files. this means there is no need to pillar box anything unless a hd version is released

I don't think you understand the terminology you're using. Any 4:3 material on Blu-ray is necessarily pillar-boxed unless it is cropped into another aspect-ratio.

#17 of 41 Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor

  • 833 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted August 09 2012 - 05:45 AM

Really? Then what were they doing all through the 90's when they released wide screen films on DVD? I saw bars on the top and bottom to fill it out to make a 4:3 image.

Sorry- I misunderstood you.

#18 of 41 smithb

smithb

    Screenwriter

  • 1,536 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 27 2008

Posted August 09 2012 - 06:08 AM

Enrico, the old "a picture is worth a 1000 words" could apply here. I think we get the idea about the 16:9 content being window-boxed, but the 4:3 SD content is still a bit confusing. Could you provide an example?

#19 of 41 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted August 09 2012 - 06:48 AM

Enrico, the old "a picture is worth a 1000 words" could apply here. I think we get the idea about the 16:9 content being window-boxed, but the 4:3 SD content is still a bit confusing. Could you provide an example?

there... pillar boxed 4:3 in a 16:9 video

#20 of 41 Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor

  • 833 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted August 09 2012 - 06:58 AM

there... pillar boxed 4:3 in a 16:9 video

Ok. So, what do you propose be done instead?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users