+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 93
@DB83 Btw this is the version I was referring to earlier that has a fuller picture vertically (but as it turns out, the picture is cropped on the sides). The one on the left is sold in Eastern European countries (maybe a VHS capture?), the one on the right is the German DVD.
[Attachment 49753 - Click to enlarge]
Last edited by Knocks; 7th Aug 2019 at 18:44.
@davexnet That problem had already been solved, as described in the original post. Perhaps you overlooked that part:
I started testing different video frame settings and finally got the aspect ratio to display correctly by unchecking "Keep aspect ratio." The playback window got resized to something closer to a 4:3, with a widescreen picture inside the 4:3 window and horizontal black bars on top and bottom.
@davexnet Since cropping required re-encoding, there's no need to keep the video in MPEG-2. HEVC will do fine for now.
Avisynth installed and put to together the simple script as was suggested
then you can encode it in Virtualdub2 setting the compressor to x265.
TFM followed by Vinverse is quick but it is not as high a quality as QTGMC(FPSDivisor=2) (which is much slower )
You should do some tests and look at them your self. Here's a couple of short samples
I also increased the contrast a little, looked a little dull to me
It will probably be difficult for someone who has never worked with filters to decide which ones to use simply by testing them and studying the results. I've looked at the Avisynth wiki entries for these filters, and learning what they actually do will take some time. If these options are to reduce things like combing etc, I will just fix the aspect ratio and be happy with the quality that's on the DVD. It just goes beyond the scope of the issue, and I've already spent lots of time on it. If DB83 gets his disc and decides to clean it up, I will gladly copy his results.
I am not a restorer and need a collar and lead as far as avisynth is concerned. Neither does it bother me to see pillar-boxing+letter-boxing since that was the norm before ws tvs came about. Only when a new scan of film elements is done does one typically get 'the full picture' yet even that is not always the case when certain companies insist in creating ws when it was never there in the first place.
But apart from actually wanting to see this film again after all these years - I do not have any of the versions from that forum - I am equally curious about how the 'official' dvd is presented since, unless my maths is totally screwed neither of the above show the full picture.
^^ Trouble is that any forum that provides links to 'dvd-rips' etc. is no better than those well known torrent sites.
In other words, unless I am mistaken, publicity of these is against this forum's warez rules which I totally respect.
You can see what I'm talking about by imagining overlaying the picture on the left on the one on the right. There are some minor brightness and contrast issues to be worked out, it looks like, but nothing all that difficult, I don't think. Again, though, this assumes the 2 versions are otherwise identical. If they aren't, it can still be done but might require a whole lot more work.
It may be, as Knocks mentioned earlier, that the 'widescreen' version (the one with the black bars) was the one intended for release, with the top and bottom removed. It's just too bad a real 16:9 version wasn't created and released.
I'm not really sure that 1.66:1 as quoted in imdb is correct. The wiki article (not always to be taken with total accuracy) states that the common format was 1.6:1 or 16:10 that the OP was thinking of.
The extra height on one and the extra width on the other is frustrating but that is the way that the cookie often crumbles. Seen many a write up that discusses 'open-matte'.
@davexnet. PM's should not be used to circumvent forum rules. But there are always places to find your 'Vintage Erotica'
I think I see the Wikipedia article to which you refer:
But as far as 1.6:1 being "a standard among several European countries", that's nonsense. There are far more articles stating 1.66:1 is the common European ratio. Ones such as this:
1.66:1, one of the earliest "widescreen" formats, today remains one of the two most popular motion picture aspect ratios, the standard for European theatrical releases. The list of films formatted for 1.66:1 is extensive, and includes many classics of exceptional historical interest.
Transfers optimized for widescreen (via 16x9-enhancement) will enjoy a 16% boost in resolution...
Here's a list of some important films released at 1.66:1 (and sometimes in other ratios):
variable aspect ratio
(usually 1.66:1 or 1.85:1) Open matte is similar to Super 35 in that it involves matting out the top and bottom of the frame for the theatrical release and removing the mattes for the home video release.
Most open matte films are filmed directly on the entire 1.33:1 frame. This can dramatically increase the potential for unexpected material such as boom mikes to appear in the home video version. In fact, some directors simply placed cardboard on the monitors to simulate the matted theatrical version. This would have made them unaware during filming if the boom mikes and so forth were actually on the frame because the cardboard was blocking that part out.
I don't believe I've ever heard of a 1.6:1 ratio film, much less ever watched one.
^^ Appreciate that info. Like I said Wiki is not always an accurate source. Yet the writer seemed convinced even compounding the error when he equated 1.6:1 to 5:3 which is actually nearer to 1.66:1. So since there appears, on second reading, to be two entries for 1.6:1 the second is probably a typo.
It gets really complicated with the different versions of this movie. The German version has the best picture but no English track or subtitles. The Eastern European version is full-screen 4:3 (but cropped at the sides) and has a full professional English dub but no subtitles. It also has a different beginning so hard to match to the German video. There is also a U.S. NTSC version that has both English audio and subtitles, but it has a longer running time and would require tricky syncing. The movie was also broadcast in 1080p on German TV, but it might be just an upscale, judging from the screenshots.
I wonder how much it would cost to purchase distribution rights for a crappy old German movie and just do a proper film scan in HD. No need to make a profit, just sell enough Blu-rays to cover the costs, maybe use the leftovers to buy sandwiches and beer. The people here obviously have more expertise than the current copyright owners.
Last edited by Knocks; 9th Aug 2019 at 00:50.
My disk is on its way so should be dropping through the letter-box in a few days.
AFAIK PAL dvds are always shorter in playback time. Timing difference should be 4% of total time compared with playback of the original film.
An NTSC source would be practically impossible to match with a PAL one even if both had identical elements for the above reason. Some time ago I purchased a VHS in Germany which had different content to the original UK version. I had hoped to replace the German dialog, which was over-dubbed (as if often the case in Germany), with the English one but it proved impossible.
Curious about the 'Eastern European' one. In my experience these are not in English or atleast just English(or original language). One tends to get a dual-audio with a Russian over-dub.
Although my German is not good I would still prefer to watch a film in its original form. In another topic I mentioned my 'love' of the 1943 Munchhausen which has recently been released virtually complete in Blu Ray in Germany. In fact the Blu Ray has three different versions in the pack and the previous releases on dvd in the US and the UK, although identical in content with one of these, actually had different sub-titles.
In my experience it's rare that the exact same cut of a film is released in different regions. Something is almost always different (and I'm just talking about the movie itself, not including the different studio, distributor, etc. logos at the start and end).
And then you have off-air recordings. These are often modified by the broadcaster to fit in an allotted time slot. Even if the film isn't modified by the broadcaster cappers will cut commercials differently, leaving more or less time at the cuts. It may be only half a second here and half a second there but it can add up to several seconds over the length of a movie.
That's true, the NTSC version has a longer shot of the beginning scene (with some very nonsensical added dialog). Not sure why they cut it out in the German one. The English dub is actually kind of funny. In the scene with the angry British lady, in the original she yells at the girl "What language is she speaking? She must be German!" whereas in the English version she says "What language is she speaking? She must be a hippie!" I'm OK with watching in German, as long as there are subtitles. Eventually I will try to sync the subtitles from one of the other versions to the German DVD.
Fully agree that film is often released in slightly different versions for different markets. We Brits almost always had 'clothed' versions . You may be aware of a Vincent Price film 'Witchfinder General' The UK dvd has the 'European' version whereas when they released the Blu Ray the additional footage was only included as an extra in SD.
And do not get me started on tv transmissions although these days they do treat adults as so whereas in the past they would cut whatever time of day the film was shown.
You have another topic where you discuss an attempt to merge different lengths. Is this the film in question ?
Just asking since the quoted run lengths are a few minutes longer than the various releases mentioned in that forum or on IMDB
BTW I could not find the film on the BBFC website. Possibly the home video version came out before all releases required classification and it is equally possible it never had a general release over here (Not listed in Maurice Speed's Film Review either). These type of films tended to go only into specific theaters
@DB83 No the topic about matching different audio lengths is about another film.
By the way, I just found a program based on a python script that analyzes audio and syncs subtitles automatically, even if the audio is in a different language! It kind of blows my mind, almost magic. I am syncing English subs to the German DVD as we speak, and it looks flawless... well, if you ignore how wacky the translation is...
Sounds (pardon the pun) good
A 'machine' translation ? A bit like the original Google translator before it got its act together somewhat.
Looking at Amazon UK I also found this:
However I am suspicious about the authenticity of it. The actual seller is also on fleabay and offers the same for half of this cost.
The other issue with Amazon is that all reviews go in the same title so you never know if the poor one refers to this listing. Plus I would have expected a BBFC certified disk to appear on their website. As I previously stated, I could not find it. This cover is identical to the US release (the one I saw on Amazom.com) and that rarely happens.
It's not really a machine translation. You feed an unsynced SRT to the app, and it matches it to the video and produces a perfectly synced sub. If the SRT doesn't match the language of the video, then it uses dictionary files to match the lines.
Not sure you need a copy of more than one DVD. The German DVD has the best picture anyway. I can share the subs with you once I get them right.
I've now converted the original MPEG-2 stream to HEVC with VidCoder using two different settings. The first one is called "anamorphic," it produced a 720x488 video, which is basically the original with the letterbox bars cropped. The second one is "non-anamorphic," and it's 720x458. They both have a 16:10 AR, which is odd, given that one is 30 pixels shorter. What are these separate modes for? The way I understand anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic in the context of publishing DVDs is that non-anamorphic will have the black bars coded in the picture whereas anamorphic will generate them on the fly if needed. But it escapes me why VidCoder is doing it this way when converting videos.
if your device supports it, it will be stretched to the ratio of 720/458 (1.575), which, as you can see, is wider
EDIT since not all playback devices support non-square pixels, 768x488 is probably a better choice than 720x458
as I mentioned a few posts back. (In Vidcoder you have to set this manually)
Last edited by davexnet; 9th Aug 2019 at 16:36.
Surely those examples will leave you in the same position as you currently are - a stretched picture since they are retaining the AR.
As davexnet points out, and I already stated, you have to think in terms of a 4:3 dvd not 16:9. So your target width must be 768 pixels.
I rarely do this stuff and had issues in getting this out of handbrake (vidcoder uses the same engine). But when you turn anamorphic and aspect ratio off and select a preset greater than 720 both height and width can be selected independently.