DVDizzy Forum

I was so happy when you got your digital capture abilities now you could really examine what's there or what wasn't

oh and show us. From your vast collection too

mvealf wrote:The capture from my R1 DVD shows more picture on all sides, compared to your R1 DVD.

Yup, yours is correct while mine are a little "cropped", cus my captures are done from the analog output of my dvd player into a standart analog video capture card. Both the player and the card crop a few of the pixels in different parts and various ways. The card, for example, since it's following correct video standards assumes 702 of the incoming pixels to be = to the1.33 width (just like a video display does) so it chops off the extra 18. And the analog out stage of my DVD player itself is actually not sending all those 702 horizontal ones nor all the vertical ones neither (Theres a web site that tests DVD players and counts how many pixels they "rob" you from each side . Even some very $$$$ do too.) If I show the full 1.33 capture without cropping, there's little black borders on all sides depending on it's PAL/NTSC output settings specially on the right (see my cap, shows almost the complete image of the left side) and for example if you go to the truble of cropping the PAL image which is just a straight 50% reduction and measuring it you'll see it comes from an image 566 pixels tall, not 576. (i cropped out the black bars). I made this caps quick and dirty with both discs on the same settings and thru the same steps so when i halved the images for posting etc their sizes and qualities would match without having to do different steps or Photoshop resizing for each so both went tru the same procsssing steps.
i'd Ihave to go through a lil more trouble to massage my hardware and do unspeakable things to it with tricks to get it to show more of the image Yeah i need a full 720 pro capture card don't remind me If you blow up my original captures you can even see the analog noise and slight high frequency roll off of analog video. Or I should get me a software DVD player. But those tend to fuzz and blur things shot live on interlaced videotape (like concerts and many supplemennts) or movies not coded with the correct progressive flags on their way to the progressive computer display (by the interlaced to progressive conversion) while my current set up renders live video TACK SHARP just like a progressive movie, so i prefer to watch my movie DVDs 100% sharp overscanned 2% than to watch my concert or other live to videotape dvds 71% fuzzied with 0% overscan . A fair trade, ain't it.
My overscan % falls under the SMPTE projection cropping allowance. Lots better than most displays too. So im happy with it for the time being.

I think I've jokingly posted a couple of times before a "this analog capture reveals the limitations of the analog source" disclaimer mvealf's NTSC capture being from the raw digital data should be showing the full 1.367 wide 480 x 720 image file with no cropping. (remapped and compressing into a 1.33 wide 480 x 640 pic with no loss of image pixels)

My complain iiiiiiis that since all this lil losses ocurr on their way to an average consumer display unless you have fixed pixel rigid standards adhering hardware, why do DVD producers start chopping out the image from the SOURCE? The more you throw out at the begining, the less you end up with in the end.

Even the digital file capture image of the Anthology is cutting off part of the blue head and like half the visible image of the barrel behind it. That is part of the original negative's image too. Who knows exactly how much it's slighly cropping out in any of the other 3 sides (Unless you have an image that shows the full frame, mm like the Japanese Poppins LD seems to be dooing.)(Or an actual film frame on hand) but it should be mising roughly a similar amount.
So if the transfer cuts 5 or 10% and your display/electronics then cut 5 or 10% of what remains, what do you end up with of the image?
And when you finally splurge for that digitally controled $$$$ 0% overscan digital display and you pay $$$ for the installer to adjust the pixel phase so you get a 1 to 1 pixel concordance and put your spanking digitally perfect DVDs there, why should you still be missing 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 % of the original image after you went thru all that trouble?


There's actually NO reason!





Adopt a cropped edge. Save the art of animation and cinema.

deathie mouse wrote:There's actually NO reason!

It's even worse with silent films, because they didn't use any of the film for a soundtrack, the image was actually a little taller. As a result, the heads are almost always chopped off with modern displays. Only recently have they letterboxed the sides of some Charlie Chaplin films to see the whole image.

I just looked at the creature in the bottom right corner of my recent capture, and compared it to the uncensored photo. I see that they also digitally erased the top of his horn, probably because the picaninny was behind the horn. I just noticed that.

Yes , you're right on both counts!

Maybe the tip of the horn was a goof and it fell on the area of the digitally spliced cloned background, or it was easier to do it that way that to trace the angles of the tip of the horn for every frame.

I guess i'll have to rewatch the segment again looking at that!


About the Silent 18 x 24mm 1.33 Aperture to the Academy 15 x 21mm 1.38 Sound Aperture transition, that makes for lots of wrong transfers as you say. Many early sound films and probably some silents made to be compatible with the New Improved sound projectors with their smaller image area were made at various non standard ratios, kind of in between 1.16 to 1.25, so all those movies like the Chaplin films you mention should be "pillarboxed" even on 4:3 displays. I think some of the mickey bw treasure cartoons are that way so those would seem to be correct.
Dracula falls into the wrong category too. Heh on top of that none of the various US Dracula DVDs got all the soundtrack elements right it seems. (My PAL one did and also shows more image on the edges )

Also many older silent films could and would be ruined permanently with new optical soundtracks printed on top of the left side covering part of their image for "sound" re-releases

How many movies we have to discover and "fix" on UD anyhow? I think at this rate we're getting into the thousands by now

Deathie mouse,

Here is another capture. Sorry the quality isn't very good, there was some video noise. I'm not sure I could get the exact same frame. This is from a 16mm source, where the video obviously didn't transfer all of the left side of the image. I believe this actually shows the entire filmed image on the right and top, which seems to be substantially more than what is on any DVD.

So, with your mathimatical mind, if you compe this to your PAL DVD, which has the most image on the left, can you determine how much picture we are losing on the DVDs from over zooming?<p><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/disney_laserdi ... /FANT2.JPG" width="640" height="480"></p>

DVD shows 94%,
6 % overscan.


That is, if we now have the whole image. It still might be a little tight on the left.


Your pic appears to be actually from the 2 frames. Seems you captured the interlaced double image product of two separate fields created by the 3:2 pulldown. The little minsk on the left is moving in those 2 frames (he can't keep still for our captures the lil devil! ) but Bacchus and the background aren't, so it's cool.

I tried to made the 16mm cap look kinda similar (but not quite) in color to the DVDs. Some colors didn't survive.. (Prints are very contrasty sources).
Our little guest star fared the worst since she was very underexposed. She looked like a grey ghost when pasted into the company of the DVD gang . Well I sewed everything up and forced her to have higher contrast and color. She came out vewwry splotchy. I should probably redo it at leisure later.