Has Anyone Else Noticed The Aspect Ratios Of Many DVDs Are Not As Advertised? (1 Viewer)

[David Von Pein]

I've noticed another (slight) annoyance on the "Rear Window" disc. -- There's a "sync" problem, ever-so-subtle, noticeable in parts of the film (Chapter 10 particularly). The lips and audio don't quite match at times.

Damn, I'm looking too hard to find things wrong now. Damn! Anybody else guilty of over-analyzing your favorite DVDs?? It can lead to a strait-jacket, I imagine.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Rear Window is indeed 1.66:1. However, on most TV's, the image is going to be overscanned.

Except for the Image DVD of Modern Times (which has a HUGE amount of windowboxing), all of my windowboxed or pillarboxed DVD's nearly fill my TV screen. Titles include A Hard Day's Night (1.66:1), City Lights (1.20:1), Deliverance (2.35:1, but windowboxed), and Victory Through Air Power (1.33:1, windowboxed).

However, my laptop and PowerDVD reveal the true full image.

On the other hand, the overscan can help. Many DVD's (such as the Image DVD's of The Circus, The Great Dictator, The Kid, and The Gold Rush) were transferred totally full aperture, exposing even the framelines and edges of sprockets. When overscanned, you get your correct framing (of course, depending on the amount of overscan). The DVD transfer for My Fair Lady used the entire width of the 65mm frame, in anticipation of being slightly cropped on TV's. It's 2.35:1, but instead of being cropped on the top and bottom from 2.20:1, it's actually a little wider than the regular 70mm print.

I think the bottom line is to not worry about framing until you've seen the DVD on your computer, via DVD-ROM.

 

[David Von Pein]

Since Anamorphic 1.66:1 films are quite rare, I'm wondering it this "Appears Wider Than What It Really Is" phenomenon is something that is inherent to 1.66 material being "enhanced" for 16x9, and is something that ONLY occurs with regard to 1.66:1 DVD transfers.

I think I've answered my own question (based on the 2 Enhanced 1.66 DVDs I have).......

Just checked my only other 1.66 enhanced disc ("The City Of The Dead", 1960, starring Christopher Lee) -- And that disc, just like "Rear Window", also shows up as 1.85.

Therefore, it appears that ALL 1.66:1 Enhanced discs will show up as 1.85 on a 4x3 TV screen (for whatever reason).

Anyone that can expand upon this topic, please do.....

 

[David Von Pein]

Rear Window is indeed 1.66:1. However, on most TV's, the image is going to be overscanned.

Yes. Obviously. I know this. But this "overscan" will only affect the left/right sides. NOT the top & bottom (on my 4x3 TV). So the ratio (not accounting for any overscan) can easily be measured.

I'm viewing "Rear Window" on a 4x3 set (with "squeeze"), NOT on a 16x9 set.

Therefore, I can visibly SEE where the top & bottom of this supposed 1.66 image end. And the "bars" at top/bottom are IDENTICAL to that of all other 1.85 material.

So...Rear Window (while it might have started out 1.66 somehow) is NOT displaying as 1.66 after compression on a 4x3 TV.

And "The City Of The Dead" shows up exactly the same way (1.85), as I eluded to above. Even though that film, too, shows a 1.66 Enhanced transfer.

 

[Patrick McCart]

This is roughly what a 1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen DVD looks like on my monitor. The blue box is what I see on my TV, the red box is the full DVD image:

 

[David Von Pein]

Thanks Patrick.

That "red box" above measures EXACTLY 1.85:1. Accounting for the overscan you show there, you see a 1.80:1 image on screen. Which is exactly the ratio I see on my TV on both of my 1.66 Enhanced examples I gave.

Still seems curious to me that a 1.66 AR can't somehow end up as 1.66 after "anamorphic-ization".

 

[nolesrule]

The top and bottom bars of an anamorphic 1.66 movie should be the same size as that of a 1.78 (16x9) movie. The difference is in how far the image extends on the sides. As shown in the image above, 1.66 has slight pillar-boxing, which is hidden by oerscan on most TVs. 1.78 does not have that pillar-boxing, but will still have the same area of the frame lost to overscan.

So, unless the overscan is small enough for the pillar-box to appear on screen, 1.78 and 1.66 will appear identical.

 

[David Von Pein]

So, unless the overscan is small enough for the pillar-box to appear on screen, 1.78 and 1.66 will appear identical.

Copy. I got that part.

But should 1.66 Anamorphic and 1.85 Anamorphic look absolutely identical on a 4x3 TV? Because that's what I'm facing. They ARE identical...to the millimeter.

 

[Patrick McCart]

David, you might have your monitor setting for horizontal "pull" a little wide. The source image for the DVD cap is exactly 1.78:1 in Photoshop. The actual image part (minus the pillar-boxes) is exactly 1.66:1.

1.66:1 and 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen will have the exact same height, but 1.66:1 will have pillarboxes. 1.85:1 will normally be a tiny bit shorter due to extra matting on the top and bottom.

 

[David Von Pein]

The actual image part (minus the pillar-boxes) is exactly 1.66:1.

Wonder WHY, then, on my (4x3) TV an anamorphic 1.66 image measures exactly 1.80:1 (image on screen) -- obviously indicating a 1.85 format.

Just to repeat again (for those who might want to call me crazy later -- but I'm not, because I've checked half-a-dozen times):

REAR WINDOW IS NOT DISPLAYING A 1.66 IMAGE -- IT'S DEFINITELY, WITHOUT QUESTION, 1.85:1 ON THE CURRENT UNIVERSAL DVD.

Based on the height of the image, which can easily be measured without worrying about overscan, IF "Rear Window" were IN FACT a 1.66 image on my TV screen -- I would HAVE to see the "pillarboxes" on the side. The pillars would HAVE to remove three full inches of image from the width of my screen.

And, seeing as how I cannot see ANY sign of the side "pillars", and there is picture information all the way to the edges of the screen, left & right -- this obviously means I'm watching a picture that is NOT 1.66:1, but a wider image. (And it has NOT been "stretched" either. There is no distortion of the image visible.)

The image, it seems to me, has been "over-matted" to form the 1.85 image The film actually looks very good in this 1.85 state (better than the 1.66, IMO).

Anyone else care to check their "Rear Window" DVD (on a 4x3 set, that is -- since it's much easier to measure the top/bottom of the image edges)??

I'd appreciate a double/triple-check by others on this crazy "1.66 enhanced always comes out 1.85 for some reason" phenomenon.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

REAR WINDOW IS NOT DISPLAYING A 1.66 IMAGE -- IT'S DEFINITELY, WITHOUT QUESTION, 1.85:1 ON THE CURRENT UNIVERSAL DVD.

David, this is not true.

I just took a screen cap of the DVD and placed it into Photoshop. There are clearly black pillars on the left and right of the image. Now here's where it can proved that the DVD is presenting a 1.66 image: If I measure the image size with the pillars, I get 854x480 pixels, which equals the correct 1.78 (16x9) frame; when I remove the pillars from the image, I get 792x480 pixels, which equals 1.65, thus the disc is correct. As posted above, the image height of a 1.78 movie and a 1.66 movie - if they are both enhanced transfers - will be exactly the same. 1.85 anamorphic transfer will have a very slight bar on the top and bottom and should be a hair shorter on your display.

I'll bet it's an equipment issue - many (most) DVD players have pixel cropping, where they crop the edges of the image. Secrets of Home Theater reports on that. Another issue is if your set is doing the 16x9 squeeze, there may be vertical blanking "shutters" that intrude on the image and actually make the height of 1.78 and 1.85 equal, which would account for your noting that 1.85 and 1.66 have the same height. Someone on the HTF reported about that issue with their Sony set and mentioned how they corrected it. My front projector needed adjusting to remove a similar phenomenon.

Pete

 

[Damin J Toell]

Wonder WHY, then, on my (4x3) TV an anamorphic 1.66 image measures exactly 1.80:1 (image on screen) -- obviously indicating a 1.85 format.

Just to repeat again (for those who might want to call me crazy later -- but I'm not, because I've checked half-a-dozen times):

REAR WINDOW IS NOT DISPLAYING A 1.66 IMAGE -- IT'S DEFINITELY, WITHOUT QUESTION, 1.85:1 ON THE CURRENT UNIVERSAL DVD.

What don't you understand about overscan? Overscan, depending on how severe it is, generally covers up significant portions of all 4 sides of the screen. Since the top and the bottom of a 1.66:1 anamorphic image are made up of black bars generated by your DVD player, the overscan as to the top and bottom of the screen has no meaningful effect. That is, you lose no picture information on the top and bottom, as you only lose some of the black bars. As for the sides, overscan crops them, as well. Your set therefore displays the correct height of the image but an incorrect width. The cropping of the width gives you a false impression of the dimensions of the image. 1.66:1, 1.78:1, and 1.85:1 will all look basically exactly the same to you until you're able to change the amount of overscan on your set.

The Rear Window disc has a proper 1.66:1 anamorphic image encoded on it. Your TV set is simply incapable of displaying the far edges of the image in order to make that apparent to you.

DJ

 

[David Von Pein]

The Rear Window disc has a proper 1.66:1 anamorphic image encoded on it. Your TV set is simply incapable of displaying the far edges of the image in order to make that apparent to you.

Does this "incapability" include the set's incapability to show an "overscanned" image at the top/bottom on a 4x3 TV?!

Never heard of that before. Because on a 4x3 set, there is no overscan with regard to the top & bottom of the image, because it (appears anyway) that you can SEE IT ALL vertical-wise.

Is this not true with Anamorphic 1.66 material? It certainly IS the case with every other ratio.

 

[David Von Pein]

Can someone confirm that the following paragraph is an accurate assessment with regard to the "Rear Window" DVD? .......

>> The packaging shows the ratio on this DVD is supposed to be 1.66:1. And evidently it IS that ratio. But, due to something inherent to the "anamorphic" transfer process with regard to this particular ratio (1.66:1), this DVD will display the image on your TV in a wider-looking ratio (closer to 1.85:1). That is, if your TV is a "standard" set (with a 4x3 shaped screen). If you're watching this DVD on a "Widescreen 16x9" set, then the image should fill the entire screen (except for small "pillarboxed" bars on the left and right sides of the screen). But on some 16x9 TVs, these "side bars" aren't visible due to the "overscan".

 

[Damin J Toell]

Never heard of that before. Because on a 4x3 set, there is no overscan with regard to the top & bottom of the image, because it (appears anyway) that you can SEE IT ALL vertical-wise.

Of course overscan occurs at the top and bottom of a 4x3 set, although it doesn't affect the active image area when there is letterboxing. If any of the picture at the top and/or bottom of an anamorphic image is being lost on your set, a scan line or two is likely being cut off due to pixel cropping by your player.

It boils down to this: as you noted earlier, 1.66:1 anamorphic transfers look exactly the same on your set as do 1.85:1 anamorphic transfers. You say both have the same viewable area on your screen. The explanation for this is simple:

1. The two image areas have approximately the same height. All anamorphic images are created within a 1.78:1 area. A 1.66:1 anamorphic image will have the exact same height as a 1.78:1 anamorphic image. The height will also be virtually indistingushable from 1.85:1 anamorphic images. The 1.66:1 transfer gets its less-narrow AR from the fact that black bars are present on either side of the image, not a difference in height.

2. Overscan is cropping the black bars from the sides of the 1.66:1 image.

This is why 1.66:1 anamorphic and 1.85:1 anamorphic look the same on your set. Same image height, no black bars visible on the 1.66:1 image. Thus, the two images look the same to you. It's not the fault of the discs, and it's not some crazy inexplicable phenomenon. It's what happens to the vast majority of people who view 1.66:1 anamorphic DVDs on their 4x3 sets and have no control over their overscan.

DJ

 

[David Von Pein]

Thanks for the explanation, Damin (and everyone else who has tried to chisel the explanation into my rock-hard brain).

It's sinking in now (kinda).

I just have to remember than 1.66 Anamorphic = identical image to that of 1.85 Anamorphic -- even though I can see NONE of the "side bars" on my 4x3 TV, which I, of course, SHOULD be able to see if I'm viewing a true 1.66 ratio in the "guise" of a 1.85/1.78 frame....correct?

THE TOTAL VIEWABLE ON-SCREEN IMAGE of a 1.66 Enhanced disc, "Rear Window" (on a 50-inch 4x3 TV) = 40 inches of width (without a hint of "pillars"); and exactly 22.25 inches of height. What AR does this equal ........

1.80:1. Which doesn't even account for any left/right overscan. Which, of course, is a far cry from 1.66.

Still think I'm seeing a 1.66 image?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

David, here's the screenshot I mentioned in my post above - you can see exactly how the DVD is formatted. Note the pillars on the left and right and that the height of the image is *exactly* the same as a 1.78 transfer (and a smidgen higher than a 1.85 transfer). This screenshot is uncropped.

 

[David Von Pein]

Thanks Peter.

But that screenshot is proving my point, it appears. Just from an "eyeballing" quick look, you can see that image frame is wider than 1.66.

Upon measuring it (although my screen might be a tad off, bad not THAT much) .... Peter's example image (just the image, inside the pillars) is a 1.80:1 AR. (9.45" x 5.25".)

 

[Dan Rudolph]

David, how do you mean? The aspect ratio of the total image is roughly 1.78:1. Inside the pillars is obviously less. Don't put a ruler up against your screen. That's dependent on monitor calibration and can be horribly inaccurate. I used photostudio and found the image inside the pillars to be just over 1.65:1, more or less as advertised.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

David,

No, it's approx. 1.65 (the full frame is 1.78 - measure everything including the pillars, if it's not, the geometry of your computer monitor is off). I'll quote my own post regarding the size of the image:

Now here's where it can proved that the DVD is presenting a 1.66 image: If I measure the image size with the pillars, I get 854x480 pixels, which equals the correct 1.78 (16x9) frame; when I remove the pillars from the image, I get 792x480 pixels, which equals 1.65, thus the disc is correct.