Wondering about two "identical" WS versions of a film...

[takearushfan]

Hey all,
I used to have the original DVD release of When A Stranger Calls, which had Fullscreen on one side and WS on the other. I recall that the WS version had thin borders at the top/bottom of the picture but none on the sides.
That version was damaged so I purchased a newer release, only containing the WS version. Can someone shed some light on why this version not only have the same bars on the top/bottom, but also a slightly larger border on the left? There's none on the right side of the picture. What's this about?

[mazinz]

Sounds more like a framing issue when they did the transfer. Also seems like the side black bars are info you would normally not see due to tv overscan.

if you still have both WS versions of the film snap a picture from each and this will tell you exactly what they may or may not have done. It is possible one print zoomed in more to eliminate any side borders at all

[netmask56]

According to IMDb it was shot as 1.85:1 but shown theatrically as 1.78:1 http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/95471/When-A-Stranger-Calls/theatrical-aspect-ratio.html - so it shouldn't have any black bars on a normal 16:9 TV but on an older style 4:3 TV bars top and bottom.

[mazinz]

According to IMDb it was shot as 1.85:1 but shown theatrically as 1.78:1 http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/95471/When-A-Stranger-Calls/theatrical-aspect-ratio.html - so it shouldn't have any black bars on a normal 16:9 TV but on an older style 4:3 TV bars top and bottom.

The problem with the imdb is they are notoriously wrong most of the time. Many films on there were actually shot full frame open matte but still listed as being shot in a 1:85;1 ratio. Now I am not saying that is the case here, but that is another option that would explain the framing

[intracube]

Can someone shed some light on why this version not only have the same bars on the top/bottom, but also a slightly larger border on the left? There's none on the right side of the picture. What's this about?

It could be another case of the 720x480 vs 704x480 (or 714x480) active area issue. See last two paragraphs here.

Sometimes the picture isn't properly centred in the frame, so you'd see a narrower border or none at all on one side.

[takearushfan]

I don't have the old version anymore. I bought the new one due to the old one being damaged.

[netmask56]

What type of TV do you have? Have you played the new DVD on another set up to see if the problem is on the disc (authoring mistake) or the TV? Maybe post (text) MediaInfo report of one of the vob files.

[takearushfan]

I haven't tried it on a TV yet, just my monitor, an HD w/HDMI.
Here's the Mediainfo:
General
Complete name : C:\Users\Justin\Desktop\W_A_S_C-EXP\VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.VOB
Format : MPEG-PS
File size : 830 MiB
Duration : 21mn 43s
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 5 340 Kbps

Video
ID : 224 (0xE0)
Format : MPEG Video
Format version : Version 2
Format profile : Main@Main
Format settings, BVOP : Yes
Format settings, Matrix : Custom
Duration : 21mn 43s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 5 042 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 9 800 Kbps
Width : 720 pixels
Height : 480 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 29.970 fps
Standard : NTSC
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Compression mode : Lossy
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.487
Stream size : 783 MiB (94%)

Audio
ID : 189 (0xBD)-128 (0x80)
Format : AC-3
Format/Info : Audio Coding 3
Mode extension : CM (complete main)
Muxing mode : DVD-Video
Duration : 21mn 43s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 192 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Bit depth : 16 bits
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 29.8 MiB (4%)

Text
ID : 224 (0xE0)-DVD-2
Format : EIA-608
Muxing mode : DVD-Video
Muxing mode, more info : Muxed in Video #1
Bit rate mode : Constant
Stream size : 0.00 Byte (0%)

Menu

[intracube]

I haven't tried it on a TV yet, just my monitor, an HD w/HDMI.
Here's the Mediainfo:
..

Mediainfo doesn't report anything out of the ordinary. Can you upload a still from the DVD?

[netmask56]

So all of this discussion is about how a DVD displays on a computer screen and not in a standalone dvd player and TV? A popular expression amongst teenagers is "too much information!" But not here there is never enough information to make an informed opinion as to what the problem may be!!! So a few more questions to flesh out the problem

what is the media player you are using on your PC/Laptop/? and O/S
do you normally view dvd's on your PC or your TV ?
please try the disc on a TV and let us know if it is a 4:3 or 16:9 screen

I suspect it will be ok on a TV and the problem is maybe in the file player settings of the PC
btw what is the aspect ratio of the PC screen ? 16:9 or 16:10 as many are?

[mazinz]

ahh computer that is why. A computer will never hide tv overscan (at least not with the media player I use,-- mainly mphc) so yes you will see any border or other noise that otherwise would not appear on your tv set. In that case I would say do not even worry about it.

However if you play the disc on your set and you can see the issues than we can look into it a bit further

[Vidd]

Old "flipper" DVDs had fullscreen on one side and letterboxed fullscreen on the other side. Newer DVDs are anamorphic widescreen.

[takearushfan]

So all of this discussion is about how a DVD displays on a computer screen and not in a standalone dvd player and TV? A popular expression amongst teenagers is "too much information!" But not here there is never enough information to make an informed opinion as to what the problem may be!!! So a few more questions to flesh out the problem

what is the media player you are using on your PC/Laptop/? and O/S
do you normally view dvd's on your PC or your TV ?
please try the disc on a TV and let us know if it is a 4:3 or 16:9 screen

I suspect it will be ok on a TV and the problem is maybe in the file player settings of the PC
btw what is the aspect ratio of the PC screen ? 16:9 or 16:10 as many are?

I've tried it on various media players and miscellaneous apps, such as MPC, PowerDVD, VDub and the preview displays of DVDShrink and TMPGEnc. My OS is Win7 Home Premium. The disc is reported as 16:9. I haven't tried it on my TV yet, as my player is terrible.
My monitor is 1920x1080p... as for 16:9 or 16:10, I'm confused; never heard/read of 16:10.

[jagabo]

DVDs come in only two aspect ratios: 4:3 and 16:9. Any movie that's not 4:3 or 16:9 will have letterbox or pillarbox bars added to fill out the frame. Or the frame will be cropped.

An example of a 16:10 computer monitor:

http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/dell-ultrasharp-u2412m/4505-3174_7-35002356.html

Regarding the 704x480 vs 720x480 issue:

The BT.601 digital TV spec says the 4:3 or 16:9 frame is contained in a 704x480 frame. When analog video is captured the source or capture might be a little off center so a slightly wider frame is captured, 720x480, to be sure none of the picture is missed. But the 4:3 or 16:9 image is supposed in a 704x480 portion of the frame. The DVD spec refers to the MPEG 2 spec regarding aspect ratios, and the MPEG 2 spec is very clear: the entire 720x480 frame comprises the 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio. That is at odds with the BT.601 spec.

For the most part the difference between the two specs is ignored. Some DVDs follow one, some the other. And DVD players may follow one or the other, or may vary depending on which output is used. DVDs made from analog tape sources usually follow the BT.601 spec because capture is done with digital TV equipment that follows the BT.601 spec, then they just make a DVD from that cap.

[takearushfan]

Hm,
So my newer version is most likely a downgrade, IMHO? What I mean is that since the original release was 16:9 and didn't have that left bar, then due to your explanation this latest release might be cropped...? I don't like that at all! This would apparently be a case of a more recent release not necessarily being better than an older one. Frankly I'm rather p*ssed about that if true.
Will DGIndex still report a 16:9 as 720x480 even if it's really 704x480? I very well might be imagining it, but could've sworn that DGIndex reported Scream 1 as 704x480... or 716 (?)x480. I don't think I imagined the 704x480 as I recall it being the only DVD that previewed with those specs. As for the 716x480, that I most likely am falsely recalling, since I don't think I've ever read about that AR. I'm not sure what's going on with the DVD releases of that film. Remember my post where I brought up how it's "widescreen" (non-anamorphic) but looks wrong somehow, the top/bottom bars being enormous and such? What a mess.
Finally, just FYI, here's my monitor: http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/display/display/1/storefronts/XP598AA%2523ABA

[netmask56]

The first version of anything you view tends to be a reference point but you need to be objective and take the new DVD to a friends place who does have a good 16:9 TV and an equally good DVD player and make your judgement. A laptop is hardly a good reference point for judging DVD's or any video files IMO. Too many possible variables at play.

Anyway I found a review of what appears to be your original version here http://www.dvdmg.com/whenastrangercalls.shtml

When a Stranger Calls appears in both an aspect ratio of approximately 1.85:1 and in a fullscreen version on this double-sided, single-layered DVD; the widescreen image has been enhanced for 16X9 televisions. Only the widescreen picture was reviewed for this article. As an inexpensive thriller from the late Seventies, I anticipated little from the image of Stranger, and the result matched my expectations, as the movie looked watchable but problematic.

Your new version wouldn't be inferior necessarily to the original as the new authoring process would most probably be taken off the studios archive digital tape or even from the dupe neg of the film using telecine and reverse polarity or from a dupe positive. Lots of combos possible - they wouldn't just copy an old DVD.

Also remember it was shot on film using a spherical lens with an aspect ratio of 1.85 with the camera framing typically looking at the essential area bounded by a traditional 4:3. In Cinemas depending on their equipment the image would be mechanically cropped to suit - take a look at the velvet blacks as they are known around a theatre screen. This film could be shown open matte ie what the camera man see's in his view finder, 1.85:1 typical theatre or 16:9 fullscreen ie to fill a 16:9 TV without black bars or 4:3 for older TV's or even 2.35:1. You would really have to talk to the director to find out what his vision was... good luck!

So go and look at it on a decent home theatre system ....

[jagabo]

Will DGIndex still report a 16:9 as 720x480 even if it's really 704x480?

DgIndex only reports the frame size. It has no way of telling if the studio used BT.601 or MPEG 2 PAR.

I very well might be imagining it, but could've sworn that DGIndex reported Scream 1 as 704x480... or 716 (?)x480.

716x480 isn't a legal frame size for DVD. 704x480 is a legal frame size for DVD but I've never seen a commercial DVD use it.

Nobody can tell you for sure what was done with the DVD without seeing samples of the original, the new DVD, and/or the film itself.

Open the VOB files with VirtualDub or VirtualDubMod. It will show you the actual contents of the frames, pixel for pixel. That's a place to start.

[intracube]

According to IMDb it was shot as 1.85:1 but shown theatrically as 1.78:1 http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/95471/When-A-Stranger-Calls/theatrical-aspect-ratio.html - so it shouldn't have any black bars on a normal 16:9 TV but on an older style 4:3 TV bars top and bottom.

The problem with the imdb is they are notoriously wrong most of the time. Many films on there were actually shot full frame open matte but still listed as being shot in a 1:85;1 ratio. Now I am not saying that is the case here, but that is another option that would explain the framing

A 4:3 trailer of the film on YouTube shows more picture at the top and bottom compared to the letterboxed version - so it was matted 1.85:1 and the framing examples on the TCM page are wrong. But I don't think this issue of slight bars at the side is related to the original film format used.

Hm,
So my newer version is most likely a downgrade, IMHO? What I mean is that since the original release was 16:9 and didn't have that left bar, then due to your explanation this latest release might be cropped...?

Not necessarily. As netmask56 said, there are many routes the film might have taken before ending up on DVD which could lead to slight framing differences.

[takearushfan]

I tried to find a section that doesn't already have darkness on the sides of the image:

[jagabo]

Why are you so concerned about tiny black borders?

[takearushfan]

Why are you so concerned about tiny black borders?

Because I thought you guys were implying that some of the image data is potentially missing.

[intracube]

Why are you so concerned about tiny black borders?

Because I thought you guys were implying that some of the image data is potentially missing.

Other than the matted 1.85:1 issue, no. There's nothing to suggest there's any less picture on the DVD than there should be.

The sample you posted has a visible image width of around 715px, which is close to the digitised active line width of NTSC ~714px (using Rec.601) - so this DVD could have been sourced from a broadcast tape or been produced to that spec. The slight image shift to the right would be a minor error.

But as jagabo said, it's not something out of the ordinary and of concern - many commercial DVDs have this kind of variation. Where the differences can be an issue is in a broadcast environment, where small inconsistencies can accumulate through the broadcast chain.

[jagabo]

I suspect that video uses BT.601 PAR and has retained the full film frame. If you scale the 720x480 frame to 873x480 (40:33 PAR) and crop away the black borders you're left with 866x468. 866/468 = 1.85.

On the other hand, anything is possible. I've seen widescreen movies cropped to make fullscreen, then that fullscreen cropped again to make a widescreen DVD!