Willy Wonka Widescreen is still cropped! (1 Viewer)

[John P Grosskopf]

I don't see why two seperate transfers need to be made. Can't they add mattes to the full frame transfers?

They could, but then you'd have no anamorphic version (or properly framed transfer even) on the DVD.

For an anamorphic print only the actual picture information intended to be seen is encoded. On a full frame 4x3 TV transfer the entire frame (or most of it anyway) is encoded on the same number of lines as the 16x9 squeezed portion of the intended widescreen frame.

Also, when full frame 1.37 film is transfered to the 1.33 AR of non-anamorphic video, some of both sides has to be cropped off due to the slight difference in shape (1.33 v. 1.37) to make sure the picture fills the TV screen from top to bottom.

When a tranfer goes the 16x9 route, the top edges of the film no longer pose a problem, and do not have to be zoomed in to cover the upper and lower edges of the academy frame. This usually means there is more picture information now seen on the sides in comparrison to the full frame transfer.

The best way to see what I am talking about can be found on Anchor Bay's "Brenda Starr" DVD (yes I know it's crap, but I have this DVD for situations just like this). Though the DVD IS NOT anamorphically encoded, it does illustrate the amount of side information that is lost on a full frame transfer of an open matte film.

For some reason, Anchor Bay chose to author this disc with the full frame and widescreen versions presented as two different angles sharing the same audio stream. While the movie is playing, you can hit the angle button on the remote and switch between the full frame and widescreen versions at will to make comparrisons.

When watching the widescreen version, you see more information on both sides of the screen than the full frame version. On the full frame version, you can see more information across the top and bottom of the frame, but less on the sides.

Also, when you switch from the widescreen to the full frame version, it's very easy to see how the image is "zoomed in on" as everything gets a little larger in comparrison to the widescreen transfer.

A lot of DVDs use the multi angle thing for opening credits in different languages and the like, but they usually lock you out from changing them on the fly (i.e. Phantom Menace and Tarzan). Brenda Starr is the only disc I know of that does not have blocking encoded onto the disc, but I am sure there are others.

I'd be willing to do screen grabs to illustrate the point I'm making, but need someone to voluteer to host the pictures.

Any takers?

 

[Derek Miner]

For some reason, Anchor Bay chose to author this disc with the full frame and widescreen versions presented as two different angles sharing the same audio stream.

I always thought that would be more efficient, and I wonder why more people don't do it. Too complicated?

 

[Jean-Michel]

I always thought that would be more efficient, and I wonder why more people don't do it. Too complicated?

You don't really want that. In all likelihood you'd lose anamorphic enhancement, since it would require authoring the DVD in such a way as to allow the viewer to switch instantly between 4x3 and 16x9 encoded information, and this would be extremely difficult, if not outright impossible. On nonanamorphic titles it's no big deal, but a) widescreen movies shouldn't be nonanamorphic to begin with and b) there are simpler ways of doing it.

(Incidentally, the Bride of the Re-Animator disc does a similar thing, but it has the mattes as a subtitle track and simply masks the top and bottom of the image instead of storing the widescreen version as a separate angle.)

 

[Damin J Toell]

(Incidentally, the Bride of the Re-Animator disc does a similar thing, but it has the mattes as a subtitle track and simply masks the top and bottom of the image instead of storing the widescreen version as a separate angle.)

This is definitely a terrible option, since it negates the possibility of an anamorphic transfer for the widescreen version.

DJ

 

[John P Grosskopf]

(Incidentally, the Bride of the Re-Animator disc does a similar thing, but it has the mattes as a subtitle track and simply masks the top and bottom of the image instead of storing the widescreen version as a separate angle.)

That's cool, other than the fact that this version is not anamorphic, and as I stated above, cuts off side picture information that would most certainly appear on an anamorphic widescreen version or even a letterboxed 4x3 transfer.

 

[Derek Miner]

While we are sure that there are transfers where the framing is altered, Brian Yuzna, director of BRIDE OF RE-ANIMATOR, looked at the transfer and assured us that we were seeing the entire negative image area. He wanted the film to be presented in the letterbox format on DVD, and since it was not possible to do a new 16x9 transfer, he was supportive of implementing TMO in lieu of creating a permanent un-removeable matte on the transfer. We felt that the additional top-and-bottom picture information would facilitate further appreciation of the film's mechanical make-up effects and would appeal to those viewers who "hate the black bars."
The matte itself was approved by Brian Yuzna, and Pioneer's DVD authoring personnel did an outstanding job of making the feature work. This is not something that can just be applied to any existing transfer, but is a viable alternative when no 16x9 transfer is possible. However, it is also necessary that the transfer be representative of the full image as it appears on the negative, and in the case of BRIDE OF RE-ANIMATOR, we made certain that it was before considering this option. The result is a letterbox image exactly as it would appear if a new widescreen transfer were created.

 

[Jorge Montes]

I'm just not sure how to know I'm on the identical frame, Carl!

In theory, couldn't you just base it on the number of frames after a cut? I know that using PowerDVD you can go frame by frame through a movie by hitting "T" (I do this with animated films when I'm bored. :b ), so you'd just pause before a cut, then go frame by frame until you get the very first frame of the new shot.

Or is there a huge flaw in my logic?

 

[cafink]

I always thought that would be more efficient, and I wonder why more people don't do it. Too complicated?

The main reason is that the maximum bit-rate for each version would be cut in half.

The maximum bit-rate for a DVD is a fixed amount (sorry, I don't remember the exact number off the top of my head). ALL of the audio tracks, subtitle tracks, and video angles TOGETHER cannot exceed this total. When you have two separate video angles, you severely limit the allowable bit-rate for each.

 

[David Lambert]

Sounds do-able, Carl, but not tonight...I'm working on three other things while I surf HTF. Maybe tomorrow night.

 

[Derek Miner]

ALL of the audio tracks, subtitle tracks, and video angles TOGETHER cannot exceed this total. When you have two separate video angles, you severely limit the allowable bit-rate for each.

Are you sure? What about those segments with multi-angle comparisons on discs like A Bug's Life? They have something like four views, which would translate to a maximum video bitrate for each view around 2.5 Mbps... that sounds much too low.

 

[cafink]

Quote:

So never mind.

 

[Jorge Montes]

Bah! The newbie and his idea get snubbed! :frowning:
Oh well, I still look forward to seeing the results. Especially since I've yet to purchase this disc and I might have a sudden urge to get "nitpicky" if I ever get around to buying it.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Okay...now what? As much of a stickler as even *I* am...does this REALLY make all that big a difference?

Dave, I'm inclined to say no, it does not.