Conversion 4:3 to 16:9

[DB83]

Well that cover is the 2011 1.66:1. Scroll down the listing and you will see the 2022 cover which you also showed yourself earlier in the thread plus the back (not an MGM issue).

But if you can suffer the sidebars you will get a better version than the dvd you work from right now.


Do prove me wrong tho.

[cholla]

@DB83,
You may be correct about the blu ray I ordered.
As posted I will see.
Of course the blu ray will be a better version than the DVD.
If not sure a lot of wasted GBs of data.

[Sharc]

@cholla: These 2 BD releases have a different cover: First 1.66. Second 1.85.

Apart from (hopefully) better quality, another benefit of using a BD release (be it 1.66 or 1.85 or 1.778 or 2.35 ....) is that BD's use square pixels which take the anamorph (non-square pixel) as well as pulldown (telecine) "mysteries" of DVDs out of the equation.

But again: Put these into your Blu-ray player and just watch them on your 16:9 TV. Full stop. Either will play correctly as intended.

[cholla]

@Sharc,
I believe that the one I will get is the 1.66:1 based on the cover.
I had already ordered it when this was pointed out to me by DB83.
As DB83 pointed out I had even posted the cover for the 1.85:1.
That was to show the resolution on the back cover.
The one I ordered has a free shipping for return.
I will watch it to see how it looks on my TV but I plan to return it.
If the seller had been able to give me the resolution I would not have ordered this blu ray.
The sales department could not have the warehouse pull it & look.
So they can pay the shipping both ways.

I did a "Save Image" from MPC-BE .
It is from a clip of the DVD rip before any conversion or encoding.
It is the only one I have that has the wheel actually a circle.
None of the conversions posted by me or anyone else measure a true circle.
Even from this clip if from VDub2 or from VLC the wheel is a bit wider than high.
I have been making the measurements with Irfanview's Measure tool in its' "Show Paint dialog" function.
This is the image:

[Attachment 80965 - Click to enlarge]

[Sharc]

This original, unprocessed picture looks correct. It is displayed as 4:3 (640/480=4:3 including the top and bottom bars) like on a 4:3 TV, exactly as it is supposed to be. Movie aspect ratio ~640/388 = ~1.65 (aka 1.66) as discussed.
The slightly flat wheel is because the camera does not exactly point perpendicular to the wheel hub, but above it. So one sees the wheel slightly from the top which introduces little ellipticity. The rest is measurement and rounding inaccuracy. Nitpicking.
Of course when you play this on a 16:9 TV screen, large sideborders will be added by the TV, as the picture is 4:3 on a 16:9 canvas. So you have 4 borders on all sides. That's how this DVD has been designed: to be played on legacy 4:3 TV screens where one won't get the side bars.

Now head for your 1.85 widescreen Blu-ray release.

[davexnet]

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film10/blu-ray_review_154/the_horse_soldiers_blu-ray.htm
"I never could find a reasoning for that edition's 1.66:1 aspect ratio. So, anyway, this Kino 1080P is, the presumably accurate,
1.85:1 but we only see information lost at the top and bottom of the frame - none gained on the side edges."

[Sharc]

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film10/blu-ray_review_154/the_horse_soldiers_blu-ray.htm
"I never could find a reasoning for that edition's 1.66:1 aspect ratio. So, anyway, this Kino 1080P is, the presumably accurate,
1.85:1 but we only see information lost at the top and bottom of the frame - none gained on the side edges."

Shame. So that's another 1.85 fake by just cropping top and bottom off from a 1.66 version. Nevertheles, the 16:9 TV screen should be reasonably filled (small bars of 21 pixels top and bottom each).

A resoning for 1.66 could be legacy 4:3 TV, maybe. It made the letterboxes on a 4:3 screen smaller for all those widescreen movies (1.778, 1.85, 2.35, 2.39)

[DB83]

I had not seen that review. But it appears to concur with what I wrote in post #199 when I made that small clip from the online version.

So, yes, I know I 'faked' the 1.85 but a respectable company like Kino Lorber ?

[davexnet]

Something topical to this mystery:
https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/thanks-for-cleavering-4k-horse-soldiers-kino/

[lollo]

Something topical to this mystery:
https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/thanks-for-cleavering-4k-horse-soldiers-kino/

The author is even worse than me about cropping

[DB83]

And to quote Arte Johnson from 'Laugh-In' - "Very Interesting"

[cholla]

I was looking at a Kino Lorber version on ebay today.
Glad now I was not ready to order yet.
I will have to see what else is available if any are.
For me I wanted the 1.85:1 version because of more side picture but I did not want to lose top & bottom picture either.
So not a trade off.
Funny how this is what was done to a movie I want.

I posted a link to an interesting article on 1.66:1 in post #175.
I'm not sold on it but the article was good & has an explanation for using 1.66:1.

[Alwyn]

Disregarding the squareness/roundness, here's what's missing from the DVD:

DVD (from Cholla's post 214, blown up):

[Attachment 80976 - Click to enlarge]

Snap from the video on m4uhd.in

[Attachment 80977 - Click to enlarge]

Below is an image comparison: drag the slider to compare. Not lined up super-accurately but there's a bit of a difference. I am pretty sure I wasn't responsible for the distortion either.

https://imgsli.com/MjgxOTk5

Now that is a hatchet job!

[DB83]

From the Wiki article regarding film aspect ratios, I quote a section about dvd and blu ray creation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)#:~:text=The%20common%20film%20aspec...%2016%3A9%20(1.


"With television, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, converting formats of unequal ratios is achieved by enlarging the original image to fill the receiving format's display area and cutting off any excess picture information (zooming and cropping), by adding horizontal mattes (letterboxing) or vertical mattes (pillarboxing) to retain the original format's aspect ratio,......."



So maybe it is not possible to scan direct to 1.85:1 and Kino Lorber did it in the traditional way just like the previous Blu Ray deliberately created a 'false' 1.66:1 image but with a more open-matte approach.

[Sharc]

"With television, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, converting formats of unequal ratios is achieved by enlarging the original image to fill the receiving format's display area and cutting off any excess picture information (zooming and cropping), by adding horizontal mattes (letterboxing) or vertical mattes (pillarboxing) to retain the original format's aspect ratio,......."

Sure, FWIW I explained these transformation options principally (including the insane stretching) with the figures in post#165 and #178 .....

Added re. "Fake 1.85":
1.66 cropped to 1.85 and scaled into 16:9, loosing top and bottom content (all within simple drawing accuracy).

[Attachment 80982 - Click to enlarge]

P.S. There seem even to exist "fake 1.778 (16:9)" releases (!) which would crop the 1.66 version a little different from the above, but fill the screen without leaving any borders. Means like d) in post#165. The part outside of the TV screen is vertically cropped.
Maybe not available globally.

[cholla]

I have not received the 1.66:1 blu ray yet.( I do not expect it for at least another week.Media Mail is always slow.)
I decided to keep it anyway as it was only $5.99. Customers spend more than that on a Starbucks coffee.

@ Sharc,
I could not tell from the picture in post #225 does the b) Cropped picture in 16:9 TV have cropping on the sides ?
I assume not because it would be an example of the "fake 1.85:1" from a 1.66:1 blu ray.

The Snap from the video on m4uhd.in in post #223 has more image on the sides.(Top & Bottom also)
This video may be from an actual 1.85:1 instead of the "fake 1.85:1" from a 1.66:1 blu ray.

[DB83]

^^ Like I previously stated, and if I did not then I will say it now, the m4uhd active video is 1200*720. That is 1.66:1 and it makes no sense to arrive at that from a true 1.85:1 source. Neither did I appreciate any stretching or other manipulation in the video (and I now have the whole thing - may even watch it one day)

The 2011 Blu Ray is 'zone-free' so would play on A,B and C equipment. So I would expect it be be 29.97/30fps whereas the m4uhd is 25fps so not from that source. Now there are screencaps of this Blu Ray on at least one review site but not, unfortunatley, identical ones to the later Blu Ray so a direct comparison is not possible. But I do know that the m4uhd has more information both top and bottom than the so-called 1.85:1 Blu Ray.


But all this discussion is now moot. We have what we have and are not gonna get anything else.

[Sharc]

I have not received the 1.66:1 blu ray yet.( I do not expect it for at least another week.Media Mail is always slow.)
I decided to keep it anyway as it was only $5.99. Customers spend more than that on a Starbucks coffee.

good decision

@ Sharc,
I could not tell from the picture in post #225 does the b) Cropped picture in 16:9 TV have cropping on the sides ?
I assume not because it would be an example of the "fake 1.85:1" from a 1.66:1 blu ray.

No, it doesn't crop the sides. It only crops top and bottom.

[Alwyn]

the m4uhd active video is 1200*720. That is 1.66:1 and it makes no sense to arrive at that from a true 1.85:1 source.

As per the article linked-to before by Cholla, 1.66:1 seemed to be popular in Europe, so it's conceivable that it was decided to go with that for distribution on TV and therefore onto DVD as a compromise between the original 1.85:1 and 4:3. Chop off the sides and a bit off the top and bottom and wa la! I have done the same side chop with the Bluray of Topgun 2 and it looks great on my 16:9 TV.

That article again:
https://noamkroll.com/the-magic-of-the-1-661-aspect-ratio-how-i-plan-to-use-it-on-my-feature-film/

[cholla]

@ DB83,
What software or downloader did you use to download the "the m4uhd active video" ?
The downloaders I have could not download it.

[Sharc]

That article again:
https://noamkroll.com/the-magic-of-the-1-661-aspect-ratio-how-i-plan-to-use-it-on-my-feature-film/

So why not just leave it in peace?

All this fuzz. How many times are people going to watch their "resized + reencoded to personal preference" movies? (I don't expect an answer to this retorical question).

[lollo]

Chop off the sides and a bit off the top and bottom and wa la!

And "voilà", a massacre is done

I have done the same side chop with the Bluray of Topgun 2 and it looks great on my 16:9 TV.

It looks great (only) to you!

BTW, in Europe we have a preference for 2.35:1 and 1.85:1. Of course!

So why not just leave it in peace?

All this fuzz. How many times are people going to watch their "resized + reencoded to personal preference" movies? (I don't expect an answer to this retorical question).

It will never end

[Alwyn]

How many times are people going to watch their "resized + reencoded to personal preference" movies?

Had it for 12 months, probably 5 times so far, including on my tablet, where any black bars are a travesty. Try watching a 2.35:1 movie on a 9.7in ipad. Get your magnifying glass out.

[DB83]

@cholla

The sofware used is called TubeDigger. But it is not as easy as it sounds. This was a 'real time' download - the 120 min movie took 2 hours to download as it played back in the TubeDigger browser. So plenty of time to go out for a lazy lunch.


@Alwyn


I read that article. Your quotation is 'out of context' or misunderstood since what I was attempting to convey that if one already has a 1.85:1 source there is no point to reverse that back to 1.66:1. On the other hand, it is quite easy to start with a 1.66 source and create a 1.85:1 version


So just for the hell of it I have created a longer clip from the 1.66:1 HD source rescaled and cropped back to 1080p. Neither the rescaling nor the cropping is intended to match the new Blu Ray other than the total of 42 pixels of letterboxing top and bottom.


And before anyone asks I do not, under any circumstance, intend to do the whole darn thing.

[jagabo]

What software or downloader did you use to download the "the m4uhd active video" ?

I downloaded with yt-dlp. It took a few minutes.

[DB83]

^^ Ok. I do not do command-line and rely on a number of GUIs all of which use yt-dlp.

I guess the issue was not knowing the actual url since however I tried to edit the url as presented the GUIs borked. And the site appears to have malware issues so I never checked the stream stats.


I also recall you mentioning that the video had a higher spec than what is offered viz 360p or 720p

[davexnet]

Yeah I'm not up on all that particularly myself.
I used the Web Video Caster app on my phone to give me a link to the m3u8,
copy it to my PC, then yt-dlp.
But even that, I found uploads from their hosting site(s) to be particularly slow

[jagabo]

From this site: https://ww1.m4uhd.tv/watch-movie-the-horse-soldiers-1959-235949.html I used a Firefox plugin called "The Stream Detector" to get a URL (and the rest of the yt-dlp command line) from the "#Backup" server:

yt-dlp --no-part --restrict-filenames -N 8 --user-agent "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0" --cookies-from-browser firefox --referer "https://vid2v11.site/" "https://mnlx.v4322a77e96.site/_v2-npxb/9a701df34da7e4ae16c25b01dd7fefae2a1975c4551681eb8d9a78fe4fcd06741ae3e719f0ef63837c6cf62e8daaecb28d7ff9aa0d734593957b6ecbd106443f79fd37946899f0e86494f37084539685009d7fa9fbb3cc1e90794ceee2c4e5f72c36999658b448f72d62/h/list;9d705ee448b4e4e553dc06568f6feda3345b239e1c12c8.m3u8"

Of course, the exact command line may vary with time and where you're coming from.

[davexnet]

Thanks for the info jagabo. I see the version on VH is the same version as found in FF using add-ons/search.
I just used the basic command -
yt-dlp.exe "url.m3u8" without the referrer and other options you showed.
Perhaps that's why it was so slow.

[jagabo]

I just tried without the extra arguments and it downloaded about the same speed. I have The Stream Detector set up to include the other arguments because some servers require them.