|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: I need DVD aspect ratio help
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God
Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 08-06-2008 11:21 PM
To put this situation in perspective, keep one thing in mind:
Film aspect ratios have been strictly defined by SMPTE and industry practice, so 1:85 is just that, no matter who's film you're screening.
DVD's are subject to the whims of the authoring process and engineers, so THERE IS NO STANDARD!!!!
That's why, even on films from the same studio, there are likely size differences on their own films when finally authored on DVD. Take any three or more movies from the same studio, all with the same theatrical aspect ratios, and you will likely find them all to have differing image sizes.
Best bet for those who are doing traveling video presentations, get a range of zoom lenses for your projector so you can fit the picture to most screens.
Some projectors, like many of the Christies, can also electronically resize images, trimming width and height together or independently.
I have a client where we added indepeendant top and bottom maskings to their screening room so they can adjust for off-centered heights on dvds (another common problem.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-11-2008 04:54 PM
quote: Brian Guckian
I believe screening DVDs instead of 35mm prints (so-called "DVD substitution") raises serious ethical problems as the format was never designed for large-screen projection, but rather purely for domestic use.
What about looking at 35mm print non-availability another way - and this requires courage - and saying, well, if a print isn't available, then the title can't be shown?
Brian, I feel your pain. At one venue where I work they spent a lot of $$ on their non-DCI compliant video projector and have taken, as you said, to doing the DVD substitution thing when there is no 35mm print. BUT, that too EASILY morphs into doing the DVD substitution just for convenience. And because they think they can save loads of money. Yes, if they don't mind breaking international copyright laws. Just remind them that even if they happen to get a DVD, they STILL have to pay the same exhibition license to run it as they would booking the 35mm print. That reality takes most of the money incentive out of their sail.
I have actually told the suits that I will not run a DVD if they don't assured me that they have a licence to exhibit it. Buying the DVD doesn't constitute an exhibition license, and they damn well know it; most times they just choose to ignore it. Tell then to read the FBI and Interpol Warning.
They are a lot more likely to book the 35mm print if they have to go to the same distributor and pay the same money to book the DVD exhibtion rights as the do the print. Also remind them that even worse than risking FBI agents decending on their offices, if they get caught running a DVD without obtaining the proper license, they more than likely will be blocked by the studios from booking ANY product regardless of the format. I have seen more than one place blacklisted because of such shenanagans. And it spreads like wildfire -- it's a small cirlce, distributor's bookers; one studio hears about problems at a venue and before you know it, NONE of them will book product. Sober them up, Brian -- put the fear of Interpol into them! Quietly tell them you just happen to have the Dublin Interpol telephone number in your phone directory!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-12-2008 04:48 AM
quote:
At each site I need to know the throw and the aspect ratio to select the right lens to fill the screen. And I'm thoroughly confused!
George,
Take care not to confuse the aspect ratio of the video with that of the image recorded on it; there's also the aspect ratio of the pixels to confuse things further. Note that the ratio of the number of pixels is not the same ans the ratio of the size of the picture; i.e. the pixels are not 'square', ans they normally are when dealing with still photographs.
The number of pixels on a DVD doesn't change whatever the aspect ratio of the video; it's normally 720x576 for PAL and 720x480 for NTSC; certain lower resolutions are allowed, but are seldom used. They are roughly VHS quality, and are mainly used by long play modes in domestic DVD recorders. I can never remember the numbers, and had to look them up. They are:
MPEG-2, 525/60 (NTSC): 720x480, 704x480, 352x480, 352x240
MPEG-2, 625/50 (PAL): 720x576, 704x576, 352x576, 352x288
MPEG-1, 525/60 (NTSC): 352x240
MPEG-1, 625/50 (PAL): 352x288
You can almost certainly forget about these if you're dealing only with commercial recordings of feature films.
The video can be in two aspect ratios, 3:4 or 16:9. Each 'title' on a disk will be in one ratio or the other, but different titles on the same disk can have different aspect ratios, e.g. there might be a 4:3 copyright notice before a 16:9 feature. Dividing both sides by the vertical number, and rounding off to two decimal places, to get them into the same format as film aspect ratios, 4:3 becomes 1.33 and 16:9 becomes 1.78.
Unless you are dealing with silent film, or something smaller than 35mm, these ratios do not exactly match those of the usual film formats, 1.37, 1.66, 1.85 and 2.35, nor indeed the less common ones; either the image must be cropped, or part of the video frame will be black, usually 'letterboxed' with black bars at the top and bottom, but sometimes 'pillarboxed', where the film image is narrower than the video one.
1.37 film is normally used with 4:3 video, and the difference is very slight.
1.66 film is usually letterboxed on 4:3, or simply cropped to 1.78 on 16:9. It is occasionally pillarboxed on 16:9.
1.85 film can be on 4:3 video, either cropped to that ratio, or letterboxed within it, or it can be on 16:9 video, either slightly cropped or slightly letterboxed.
2.35 film is severely cropped or letterboxed when used with 4:3 video, and this is seldom done now, mainly when an old 4:3 master originally made for a VHS or Laserdisc release has been used. 2.35 film is normally letterboxed within 16:9 these days.
What happens when the ratio of the display doesn't match that of the video? Most 4:3 televisions cannot accept 16:9 video, and will display it stretched vertically; a few of the more recent sets, and some 4:3 projectors, can compress the image vertically to compensate. All DVD players can convert 16:9 video to 4:3, either by cropping or by letterboxing. When a DVD is authored it is possible to allow both of these modes, or to set a flag which will disable one of them, and therefore force the other, when 16:9 material is being used with a 4:3 display. With a projector there's also the option of using an anamorphic lens.
16:9 displays normally display 4:3 material pillarboxed in the centre of the screen; this is fine if the image is in that format, but a widescreen image letterboxed on 4:3 video will give a very small picture in the centre of the screen. Widescreen displays can usually enlarge this image to fill the whole screen, but of course the resolution is much less than it would be with 16:9 material.
quote: George May
Here's a selection of the specifications on some DVDs I've seen recently:
"1.85:1 Widescreen" (Sin City)
"1.78 Anamorphic" (Fitzcarraldo)
"Widescreen 2.35:1" (The Talented Mr Ripley(which plays at 16:9!))
"16:9 full height anamorphic" (The Cement Garden)
"1.85:1 Anamorphic" (The Long Day Closes)
"2.35:1 Anamorphic" (La Vie de Jesus)
What's going on?
The labeling on DVDs isn't always clear, and so tends to involve a bit of guesswork, but my best effort at translating your examples would be:
"1.85:1 Widescreen" The original film was in 1.85, and this ratio has been preserved in the video. Whether the video is 4:3 considerably letterboxed or 16:9 slightly so isn't specified. There is a 'Letterbox' logo which is sometime used on the former format.
"1.78 Anamorphic" The word 'Anamorphic' means that the video is in 16:9 format, unless the recording has been mis-labeled of course. I couldn't remember the original aspect ratio of this film; IMDB says it is 1.85; if that is correct then from the wording, it has probably been cropped slightly to fit he video frame, though it is also possible that it has been slightly letterboxed to preserve its original ratio.
"Widescreen 2.35:1" The original film was 2.35. This description tells you nothing about the video format used on the DVD. In this case from what you say it sounds like an error (not uncommon) but if used correctly it should mean that the original ratio has been preserved by letterboxing within the video frame, which could be either 4:3 or 16:9.
"16:9 full height anamorphic" The video is in 16:9 format, and the image is not letterboxed. I don't know this film, or it's original format. It has probably been cropped slightly in one direction or the other if originally 1.66 or 1.85. Films which were originally shot on Super-16 fit the 16:9 frame almost exactly. Of course, this also applies to films shot on high-definition video. It is also possible that it means that the film is 1.85, and slightly letterboxed on the 16:9 frame, but much less so than if it had been on 4:3
"1.85:1 Anamorphic" 'Anamorphic' in this case tells you that the video format is 16:9; the 35mm 1.85 format is not anamorphic. The video should preserve the original ratio, and the picture will therefore be slightly letterboxed within the 16:9 frame.
'Anamorphic' in this case again in this case probably means 16:9 video, not the original film format. Of course, many 2.35 films are shot on Super-35, and are therefore non-anamorphic anyway. Since it says 2.35 this ratio should be preserved by letterboxing within the 16:9 video frame. In this case the black bars will be wider than in the previous example, due to the wider ratio.
As I said, the descriptions are not always clear; do my interpretations match what you actually see in each case. If you play the DVD on a computer, and set it to not play full screen then the border of the window will be in the aspect ratio of the video, 16:9 or 4:3, and the degree of letterboxing can be clearly seen.
Sorry about the long reply, but there's no simple answer.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic