AR again

[netmask]

http://kubrickfilms.warnerbros.com/faq/general_faq.html

# Why are some of Kubrick’s films not available "letterboxed" on home video?

Kubrick had total control over the aspect ratios (ratio of the width of a film image to its height) of his films, in their theatrical release and on home video. He liked to experiment, and he liked to question conventions regarding aspect ratios, so it’s no surprise that there is no real consistency regarding the home video versions of his films.

Spartacus and 2001: A Space Odyssey were the only films he shot using a "widescreen" format (Super Technirama on Spartacus and Super Panavision on 2001), so those would be the only two really hurt by not being letterboxed (both are available on video and DVD letterboxed to approximately their proper aspect ratios).

A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon were shot and released in most theaters in the matted 1.66 : 1 widescreen ratio, and The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut were shot open-matted (or full-frame) and framed for a theatrical release in the American standard ratio of 1.85 : 1.

However, Kubrick preferred on all these films that they be transferred to home video fullscreen (a ratio of about 1.37 : 1). Had he remained alive to see the rising popularity of widescreen and high-definition TVs, he may have eventually changed his mind about these films.
# What is the definition of "letterboxed"?

"Letterboxed" is the term commonly used to describe when a feature film is shown

in its original aspect ratio on TV (meaning that there are black bars on

top of and below the image, to simulate a movie screen).

"Matting" can also be used, but is more commonly a term used in connection with the actual filming process, i.e. "Kubrick normally matted his films for a 1.66 : 1 aspect ratio."

It means putting an actual hard mat inside the camera to cut out part of the image. When referring to home video, "letterboxing" is the more common term.

[Ghitulescu]

Many films were shot in Academy, yet released in the matted versions (for both technical and marketing reasons). Since the DVD employs non-square pixels and there are several standards and recomandations that it has to obey (for MPEG-2, DVD, NTSC/PAL) this issue is difficult to be solved otherway than by trial-and-error. The BD solved at least the geometric aspects.

[yetanotherid]

Yes, phone the mastering engineer and ask him this question. He'll be glad to tell you what source has been used and how this was digitzed.

So you're saying none of your off-topic attempts to share your intimate knowledge of the history of the analogue pixel had any relevance to the discussion of determining DVD PAR and which resizing method to choose when converting a DVD?
I thought not. I can usually pick a dinosaur when I see one.

[Ghitulescu]

Converting is a notion that needs 2 items to become functional: a starting point and a destination. Your cry for help won't get any answer, as the destination is unknown.
I said before and in other occasions why I am against converting DVDs into new codecs, in short, apart from a sligth size reduction (irrelevant today), only problems (if one wants to do a perfect job).

BTW: one of the top 10 mankillers is a dinosaur. Another toptenner is a close relative. Beware! :) :p

[yetanotherid]

Converting is a notion that needs 2 items to become functional: a starting point and a destination. Your cry for help won't get any answer, as the destination is unknown.

So why'd you spend so much time pontificating about DVD PAR in this thread if it's irrelevant.?

I said before and in other occasions why I am against converting DVDs into new codecs, in short, apart from a sligth size reduction (irrelevant today), only problems (if one wants to do a perfect job).

Aside from PAR, which problems are they?
A "slight" as you put it.... if you can consider a half to 3/4 reduction to be "slight".... is still quite relevant unless you want to be lugging discs or transferring 12GB of vob files to a portable device to watch a couple of movies.
And I can think of enough benefits to outweigh a non-existent reason for not doing so. If I encode a DVD anamorphically and do so pixel for pixel, where's the problem? The display aspect ratio of an MKV isn't written in stone and I can change it at any time. I can make one encode using the non-ITU resize method for me, then run it through MKVToolNix and change the DAR for you so you can watch an ITU resized version while you reminisce over your old CRT TV. And if later on I decide I want it to be perfect and resize different sections different ways, I've still got the DVD source from which to make a new original encode.
So where's the reason for not doing so? I'm still not seeing it.

[Ghitulescu]

Sorry, forget an old fool. Of course you're right and I was wrong. Please use your infinite wisdom and enlighten the original poster with some bits of knowledge.

[yetanotherid]

Sorry, forget an old fool. Of course you're right and I was wrong. Please use your infinite wisdom and enlighten the original poster with some bits of knowledge.

Okay. Just the relevant bits, or will you be returning?

[Sharc]

Would it be safe to assume they didn't crop out any of the original active picture and I only need to crop the blanking and apply the DAR informed on the Movie Database (or any film generic AR, 1.85,2.35,1.77...)
This doesn't seem a very orthodox procedure as for a 1:1 DVD conversion, but maybe for a good workaround DVD restoration(?)
I downloaded your sample .m2v. Applying my method and ASSUMING a Movie Aspect Ratio of 1.85:1 the most likely PAR I found is 40:33 (i.e. mpeg-4 for NTSC 16:9 DVD). It's almost within 1 pixel accuracy which may be attributed to the half line scan issue explained by 2bdecided (thanks!), or due to some rounding or pixel ruler errors.
I don't know the title of the movie, so I took 1.85:1 as my initial assumption and everything seems to fit pretty nicely....

[Dogway]

You mean this?:

(64/54)*((716/720)/(468/480))=1.2088
Film is said to be 16:9 in imdb...

[manono]

Film is said to be 16:9 in imdb...
How about a link? Until very recently there were no movies made meant to be shown at 1.78:1, although DVDs do sometimes change the theatrical aspect ratio. For me 16:9 is a DAR and not a movie aspect ratio.

[Dogway]

IMDB (http://amazon.imdb.com/title/tt0089052/)
I read it here or in amazon, but I swear I saw it, they may have changed it.

[Sharc]

You mean this?:

(64/54)*((716/720)/(468/480))=1.2088
Film is said to be 16:9 in imdb...
No, I mean:
Your source DAR is 16:9, format is NTSC, 720x480 for full DVD picture.
I don't believe the movie aspect ratio is 16:9 because letterboxing (borders) have been applied. So looking at the size of the borders my guessing was for 1.85:1 for the movie aspect ratio.

The active height of your picture is 468 pixels.
Now the studio had the choice between applying the Generic 64:54, mpeg-4 40:33 or ITU 5760:4739 PAR.
What is the anamorphic active width when assuming the 40:33 PAR?
=> 468*1.85*33/40=714.3
So one has to add total 6 pixels borders (e.g. 4 left, 2 right) for 720 DVD compliance. This is very close to what has been done to your original picture. Hence I concluded on a PAR of 40:33.
You can do the same calculation for the other PARs and you will find that they deviate more.

As I said, this is my best guess.

[Ghitulescu]

Did ever occured to anyone of you that the film might be side cropped before reaching the DVD? Soemtimes is done to mask the side irregularities or defects.

[manono]

Did ever occured to anyone of you that the film might be side cropped before reaching the DVD? Soemtimes is done to mask the side irregularities or defects.
Hehe, I suspect it's 1.33:1 (cropped on top and bottom) as IMDB says it was both shot and displayed at 35mm (although I suppose it could have been matted during display), and the pics I saw in reviews seem to show it to be 1.33:1 (or maybe Academy Ratio (1.37:1)).

Did you cap this film, Dogway, as there doesn't seem to be an official DVD release? Too bad, as I'd like to see it. It looks like a fine film.

Edit: I take back that last paragraph as Amazon.com lists a DVD of it. But with no mention of the aspect ratio or of the DAR, which is unusual for them.

Edit again: But one of the user reviews at Amazon.com says it's a 16:9 DVD.

[Dogway]

I don't know if I can call it official, its sold by amazon in a DVD-R. I think it was originally widescreen as noted in the amazon trailer

[Sharc]

Hehe, I suspect it's 1.33:1 (cropped on top and bottom) as IMDB says it was both shot and displayed at 35mm (although I suppose it could have been matted during display), and the pics I saw in reviews seem to show it to be 1.33:1 (or maybe Academy Ratio (1.37:1)).

Did you cap this film, Dogway, as there doesn't seem to be an official DVD release? Too bad, as I'd like to see it. It looks like a fine film.

Edit: I take back that last paragraph as Amazon.com lists a DVD of it. But with no mention of the aspect ratio or of the DAR, which is unusual for them.

Edit again: But one of the user reviews at Amazon.com says it's a 16:9 DVD.
1:33 or Academy was my first thought as well, but given the sample clip of Dogway I assumed a 16:9 DAR DVD as source.

[yetanotherid]

Did ever occured to anyone of you that the film might be side cropped before reaching the DVD? Soemtimes is done to mask the side irregularities or defects.

Yes. :)