Is this clip what's sometimes referred to as "over-matted"? ...

[takearushfan]

It's been too long since I saw it on VHS, so I don't recall how it was framed, but the DVD release of April Fool's Day seems to be heavily letterboxed. However, I'm not certain, due to not knowing much about Aspect Ratios and how they might be altered when put on DVD. According to the IMDB, it was shot 2.35:1 ... now, with that knowledge, does the attached clip look "correct"? I tried to point out shots where the cutting off of heads is most noticeable. I *think* I know Fred Walton's directing style well enough to know something's "off" here. He tends to be a stickler when it comes to making sure a character is entirely within view.
Then again, I just don't know... hence my asking here

[sanlyn]

I don't know what "heavily letterboxed" means. The AVI you posted isn't a piece of the original DVD, it's been processed, lossy compressed with XVid and with bad dot crawl and low-bitrate artifacts. According to mediainfo the aspect ratio is letterboxed to fit a 3:2 frame. The clip appears to have been incorrectly deinterlaced with hard-telecine intact.

General
Complete name                            : SCRIPT.avi
Format                                   : AVI
Format/Info                              : Audio Video Interleave
File size                                : 5.20 MiB
Duration                                 : 44s 11ms
Overall bit rate                         : 991 Kbps
Writing library                          : VirtualDub build 32842/release

Video
ID                                       : 0
Format                                   : MPEG-4 Visual
Format profile                           : Advanced Simple@L5
Format settings, BVOP                    : 2
Format settings, QPel                    : No
Format settings, GMC                     : No warppoints
Format settings, Matrix                  : Default (H.263)
Muxing mode                              : Packed bitstream
Codec ID                                 : XVID
Codec ID/Hint                            : XviD
Duration                                 : 44s 11ms
Bit rate                                 : 983 Kbps
Width                                    : 720 pixels
Height                                   : 480 pixels
Display aspect ratio                     : 3:2
Frame rate                               : 29.970 fps
Standard                                 : NTSC
Color space                              : YUV
Chroma subsampling                       : 4:2:0
Bit depth                                : 8 bits
Scan type                                : Progressive
Compression mode                         : Lossy
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)                       : 0.095
Stream size                              : 5.16 MiB (99%)
Writing library                          : XviD 64

[jagabo]

Though not flagged or encoded properly, that clip is 16:9 DAR. The 2.35:1 movie is letterboxed within that frame. Nothing needed to be cut off. It's possible the video was "over-matted" (ie, zoomed in too much) but you'd have to have the original film or another source to tell for sure.

[jman98]

If people did say "Wow, that looks completely wrong" exactly what would that accomplish?

DVDs have been known to be transferred at aspect ratios different from the theatrical release. As to why this happens, I don't know, but it happens. There's not really anything you as a consumer can do about this except to hope you can find some information on the internet about it and maybe you can find a release in another country at the correct aspect ratio. DVDBeaver sometimes contains this information, but based on the things that interest the OP in his previous posts, it's doubtful that they have this info on the movies that interest him.

[sanlyn]

If you crop the borders from the 3:2 encoded frame, the resulting image has a 16:9 aspect ratio. Because the avi you posted is not an original, unprocessed VOB, can't say what the original VOB looks like. But 16:9 and 2.35:1 are not the same frame size. 2.35:1 is wider than 16:9. So without some cropping to fit a 16:9 DAR, the film would look "skinny".
\
On the other hand, if the playback was supposed to replicate the original 2.35:1 ratio, the letterbox top and bottom would be thicker to accommodate the wider frame on a 16:9 TV. Otherwise, wide screens such as CinemaScope played back at plain 16:9 would look horizontally squished.

[jagabo]

It's obvious the 720x480 video is 16:9 DAR. If you crop away the letterbox bars you're left with 2.35:1 DAR.

[takearushfan]

Just to clarify, sometimes people ask questions merely for the sake of understanding; not necessarily looking to save the world with the knowledge they seek. Some things are simply a matter of curiosity. That said...
Jagabo, even though Ithink you answered my question already, for everyone's benefit, I attached the VOB. Maybe it'll shed something new, or not
In any case, thanks again all

[sanlyn]

It's obvious the 720x480 video is 16:9 DAR. If you crop away the letterbox bars you're left with 2.35:1 DAR.

Yep, that's right. I figured it was. Taking a 720x480 frame from the VOB and expanding its width for 16:9 display, you can see that the letterbox is thicker than for a 16:9 original movie, so the original frame shows as 2:35:1 letterboxed. If the original movie was 16:9 it would fill the frame (no letterbox).

720x480 original:

[Attachment 14788 - Click to enlarge]

16:9 display (2.35:1 frame + letterbox):

[Attachment 14787 - Click to enlarge]

[jman98]

Just to clarify, sometimes people ask questions merely for the sake of understanding; not necessarily looking to save the world with the knowledge they seek. Some things are simply a matter of curiosity.

Fair enough. But do give the DVDBeaver (http://www.dvdbeaver.com) website a look as while they focus on artsy movies, they do have some other types of movies in their database. Sometimes they do comparisons of the same film released on DVD in different countries and there can be very significant differences between the different releases. They will try to comment on things like the film not being released at the correct aspect ratio if it happens.

[manono]

...you can see that the letterbox is thicker than for a 16:9 original movie, so the original frame shows as 2:35:1 letterboxed. If the original movie was 16:9 it would fill the frame (no letterbox).

If you'd confine yourself to using 16:9 as the DAR (which it is) and use '1.78:1' instead when talking about aspect ratio (just as you used 2.35:1), there would be no confusion at all.

The original movie is both 16:9 (the DAR) and 2.35:1 (the aspect ratio (width divided by height)). Even the term 'letterbox' can cause confusion as it's often used to describe widescreen 4:3 films of any aspect ratio, where here's an example of a 16:9 letterboxed DVD. Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves because it causes a lot of unnecessary confusion.

[sanlyn]

Good idea. "1.78:1" is the way I always see it in tech articles on video, while "16:9" is usually used for displays. And the world goes round and round. . . .

[manono]

Thanks. I was afraid you might take it the wrong way. It's mostly directed to all the rookies that confuse themselves and others by using the terms too loosely.

Don't even get me started on the 1080i 59fps lunacy floating around this forum these days.

[takearushfan]

Just to clarify, sometimes people ask questions merely for the sake of understanding; not necessarily looking to save the world with the knowledge they seek. Some things are simply a matter of curiosity.

Fair enough. But do give the DVDBeaver (http://www.dvdbeaver.com) website a look as while they focus on artsy movies, they do have some other types of movies in their database. Sometimes they do comparisons of the same film released on DVD in different countries and there can be very significant differences between the different releases. They will try to comment on things like the film not being released at the correct aspect ratio if it happens.

Thanks. Yeah, I do check it out from time to time. I'm not sure how often you visit but did they revamp the site? There were a couple comparison sites I used to visit but I can't recall the other one. I might just be confusing it with whichever other site I used to look at.

[jagabo]

Jagabo, even though Ithink you answered my question already, for everyone's benefit, I attached the VOB. Maybe it'll shed something new, or not

Yes, the VOB is 16:9 DAR. So the portion of the frame with the picture is 2.35:1, just like the original movie.

[takearushfan]

Hm. It's a bit of a bummer that it originally looked that way. No, it's not horrendous. I just would've thought that at such a pivotal part of the film there weren't be so many instances of heads being chopped off. Even the bottom of Amy Steel's face is cut off a bit when she realizes she's been had.

[jman98]

Yes, DVDBeaver is somewhat redesigned, although if you scroll down the bottom 2/3 or so of the site is more or less what it used to be. April Fool's Day is not a film that they have ever reviewed - I checked.