The Whole Picture....FS VS Wide Screen

[srelliott]

Truly, I apologize if this has been answered, but spent a bit of time googling and didn't find the answer I was looking for.

I thought Blu-Ray discs encode the entire filmed picture, but apparently that isn't the case (at least with the videos I own.) Ok, I do own one BD in 1920x1040 (Arthur Christmas).

I have a lot of Full-Screen DVDs and Blu-Rays of the same movie. It came to my attention that with the FS versions you could see missing film on the top and bottom, that isn't present in the BD Wide-Screen version. Now, I know that 4:3 clips the edges to fit the picture, but what I didn't realize is that the FS version shows missing top and bottom film that the blu-ray's don't have.

Why don't they encode the entire film at 1920x1080 (16:9) and give us the whole picture? Is this just an authoring preference? In my example below, if they had encoded to fill in the "missing" data, we wouldn't have any black bars on a 16:9 screen.

The example I attached shows the BD at 1920x800 (12:5) and the FS at 1440x1080 (4:3). I know there's more picture there because I see it on the FS (look at attachment). I want the whole picture! Are there film transfers at 1920x1080 and I'm just unlucky not to have them?

A secondary question hopefully to someone in the movie industry or in the know.... I've have noticed when they show behind the scenes filming, the movie camera has several boxes that look like cropping. Does this show the director where the 4:3 and 16:9 lines are? Is there actually more footage filmed beyond the edges that we wouldn't see even on a full 1920x1080 transfer? I'm referring to films shot 16:9, not in 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 1.44:1 1.78:1, etc.

[Cornucopia]

I will answer your questions in reverse order...

Most films are NOT shot in 16:9 (nor 4:3), but rather 1.85:1 or higher, up to ~2.41:1. However, if they are shot on actual film as opposed to digital sensor, 35mm film has a native AR of ~3:2. So they are OFTEN shooting more than you ever get to see - whether on DVD or BD or even in the theatre! This is known as soft matte. So they use those mentioned "crop marks" in the viewfinder of the lens to guide them to be able to shoot for their desired AR while also keeping track of what goes on in those other rectangles. Why keep track? Because up until recently this would allow them to show a "full screen's worth" of material without having to either crop too much & resize -losing resolution - or pad/stretch.

So yes, there are FS transfers that include part of the scene not available to those watching WS, but there is also plenty of the scene made visible to WS transfers that aren't available to those watching via a FS print. Which one is the more correct? Well, it is the one that is closest to their intended AR (the one they were composing the shot for originally). This is usually the WS version, but there are exceptions. There plenty of exceptions throughout what I've just said.

The reason you have black bars is because the creatives responsible for the program felt that was the truest representative of the image/story. The other stuff they considered "overhead" (both literally & figuratively)
In other words, "you aren't missing anything" they'd want you to see.

Btw, lately, FS is (rightly so) becoming rarer and rarer. And you are mistaken: there are NO BDs with a 1920x1040 resolution. It is not part of the spec, so not possible. Likely, you have something that's been converted, or maybe have a software that is inaccurate with determining resolutions.

Scott

[redwudz]

srelliott, in the future please use a more descriptive subject title in your posts to allow others to search for similar topics. I will change yours this time. From our rules:

Try to choose a subject that describes your topic.
Please do not use topic subjects like Help me!!! or Problems.

Thanks,
Moderator redwudz

[jagabo]

The example I attached shows the BD at 1920x800 (12:5) and the FS at 1440x1080 (4:3). I know there's more picture there because I see it on the FS (look at attachment). I want the whole picture! Are there film transfers at 1920x1080 and I'm just unlucky not to have them?

Some directors know that many people want (wanted) full screen 4:3 DVDs. So they shoot with that in mind. They frame the movie for both 4:3 TV and 2.35:1 (or whatever AR they're shooting for) theatrical release. So both are pan-and-scan releases. Both are the what the director "intended". If they opened up the full film frame there might be garbage in the corners.

[srelliott]

Cornucopia,

Thank you so much for your response. It shed some light on dark corners of my knowledge. So, it sounds like if it's not shot in 16:9, then it becomes the artistic decision of the director (or whomever) on how to transfer it.

About the 1920x1040 thing, I would like to respectfully present a BD at that resolution. Please take a look at the attached screen shot of Arthur Christmas playing from my BD. I would love to hear your opinion. My best guess; they made an artistic decision to show only that much instead of the full 1920x1080?

[srelliott]

Jagabo,

Thank you for your insights. Much appreciated.

[poisondeathray]

About the 1920x1040 thing, I would like to respectfully present a BD at that resolution. Please take a look at the attached screen shot of Arthur Christmas playing from my BD. I would love to hear your opinion. My best guess; they made an artistic decision to show only that much instead of the full 1920x1080?

This is not blu-ray legal.

How did you take that screenshot ?

[jagabo]

Yes, the image is 1920x1040 (~1.85:1, which matches what IMDB says about the movie) but that is not a legal resolution for Blu-ray:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Media_format

It would have 20 lines of black border (top and bottom) on the disc to fill out the 1080 line frame. The software you used to create the image probably cropped those borders away.

[El Heggunte]

It would have 20 lines of black border (top and bottom) on the disc to fill out the 1080 line frame. The software you used to create the image probably cropped those borders away.

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 85

I had never read or heard about "gd-jpeg" until now.

Anyway, that screen shot suXXX, and so does the movie, I guess.

[manono]

It would have 20 lines of black border (top and bottom) on the disc to fill out the 1080 line frame. The software you used to create the image probably cropped those borders away.

Either that or it's not from a retail Blu-Ray at all, but something reencoded by someone else with the black cropped away.

[jagabo]

I had never read or heard about "gd-jpeg" until now.

You're getting that from the thumbnail image the forum software created, not the image the OP uploaded. IJG JPEG is the software library the forum software uses to read and write jpeg images (I used to use that library myself when I was writing software that had jpeg import and export). It looks like the image the OP uploaded was created by Photoshop.

[El Heggunte]

I had never read or heard about "gd-jpeg" until now.

You're getting that from the thumbnail image the forum software created, not the image the OP uploaded. IJP JPEG is the software library the forum software uses to read and write jpeg images (I used to use that library myself when I was writing software that had jpeg import and export). It looks like the image the OP uploaded was created by Photoshop.

You are right, thanks for correcting me.

[srelliott]

Yes, I used Photoshop. It's a retail blu-ray disc. I simply removee the black lines myself. The disc is encoded 1920x1080 (the black lines are counted). The point of my questions were about why they don't fill up those black lines with content. I was demonstrating that the movie didn't fill in those extra 20 lines top and bottom. Sorry for any confusion.

[manono]

Yes, I used Photoshop ... Sorry for any confusion.

More like conscious deception.

The point of my questions were about why they don't fill up those black lines with content.

Blu-Ray is 1920x1080. That gives an aspect ratio of 1.78:1. The movie is 1.85:1. There are two ways to fill up those black lines with content. One would be to stretch the picture vertically and make people look a little bit too slender. The other would be to cut content from the sides and lose picture. Neither is satisfactory. The film was created at 1.85:1; it should be viewed that way, the entire picture. Thus the black lines are needed to fill in the extra space.

If you don't like 1.85:1, you'll positively hate 2.39:1.

[jagabo]

Nobody complains at the movie theater when the movie doesn't fill the width and height of the screen.

[Island_Dweller]

I've come to actually prefer the wider aspect ratios. For a 2.4 movie on BD, that's 1920x800 active image area. I use the bottom 140 pixels to display subtitles. I even OCR them so I can make them all 2 lines at most. This way, they don't overlap the actual movie.

[srelliott]

More like conscious deception.

More like I'm a newb and figured the experts here I was asking would know that. Was only trying to demo how they came close to using all of the 16:9, but didn't. It's a one off for me. All my other BDs are at 1920x800.

If you don't like 1.85:1, you'll positively hate 2.39:1.

I love 2.39:1. I just wanted to get a better understanding of what the source material is like and what is transferred. I already knew about letter box and "tall people" and the benefits of showing the black bars. I have made a concious effort since DVD's came out to buy only Wide Screen format. I remember watching a program on the subject and they showed a movie in WS and then in 4:3. You lost so much of the depth of the shot going to 4:3 and I was sold then.

What I now understand is that indeed, they do shoot more than we see, but in reality directors are presenting "everything" they want us to see in the WS and even 4:3 nowdays, which is really cool to know. Thanks again to Cornucopia and jagabo for setting me straight. I won't feel like I'm missing something now.

[manono]

More like conscious deception.

More like I'm a newb and figured the experts here I was asking would know that.

Would know what? That you were just kidding when you claimed to have a Blu-Ray at 1920x1040 and presented a picture to prove it without saying you had already cropped away the black?

Ok, I do own one BD in 1920x1040 (Arthur Christmas).

About the 1920x1040 thing, I would like to respectfully present a BD at that resolution.

All my other BDs are at 1920x800.

No they aren't. You might want to say something like "the active video is 1920x800" or "the video with the black bars removed is 1920x800", but you own no BDs at the resolution you claim.

[srelliott]

You might want to say something like "the active video is 1920x800" or "the video with the black bars removed is 1920x800", but you own no BDs at the resolution you claim.

Yes, you are correct. That makes sense to me now that I got all those great responses. At the start of this conversation, I didn't even know how to express what I was asking.

Moving forward, I will now know how to correctly convey that information.