Blu-ray movies inferior to Starz Movies

[mike_mgoblue]

SUBJECT: Blu-ray movies are visually inferior to Starz movies. ... I want to know "Why?"

I recently watched a Blu-ray movie called Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

This Blu-ray movie claims to have a resolution of 1920x1080 - as all Blu-ray movies do. In reality, the movie only uses a resolution of 1920x1036. There are very small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

What really surprised me about Dirty Rotten Scoundrels on Blu-ray was the incredibly poor visual quality with all the digital noise in the background.

I then saw Dirty Rotten Scoundrels on Starz today on Comcast. Two things surprised me. First, there was not nearly as much digital noise in the Starz version of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Second, the Starz version of the movie used all 1920x1080 pixels. I initially presumed this was because the screen was either slightly stretched or slightly zoomed to use all 1920x1080 pixels in the 16:9 format. But this was not the case. What I discovered SHOCKED me!

I simultaneously played Dirty Rotten Scoundrels on Starz HD on Comcast at the same time I was watching the Blu-ray version on my laptop computer. At the start of this movie, the screen stays focused on the same area for quite a long time while the opening credits are displayed. It is incredibly obvious that Starz has access to a version of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels that actually does have a Native Resolution that was originally recorded at 1920x1080, and that the Blu-ray version "should" include that detail, too.

The proof of this is that there is "detail" at the top of the screen (i.e., stars in the sky) seen in the Starz HD version that fills the 1920x1080 16:9 HDTV, while those stars are not seen in the sky at all in the Blu-ray version.

Further proof is that there is "detail" at the bottom of the screen (i.e., detail in the fence) seen in the Starz HD version that fills the 1920x1080 16:9 HDTV, while that detail in the fence is not seen at all in the Blu-ray version.

Does anyone know "why" the Blu-ray version that claims to run at 1920x1080, but actually only runs at 1920x1036 is missing that detail? ... I have quite a few Blu-rays that run at resolutions slightly lower that 1920x1080 in this way. Now, I can only presume that they are missing detail that would appear on TV broadcasts, as well.

It seems very terrible that Cable TV channels have access to superior versions of movies when these Blu-ray movies are so expensive and show "cropped" versions that are inferior. The movie clearly was recorded and meant to be played at a resolution of 1920x1080.

I presume Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is not the only Blu-ray like this. I actually do not like those black bars at the top and bottom of movies - especially the movies with an aspect ratio of 2:4 to 1. I realize you can "Zoom" in at the expense of cropping the sides. The problem is the "Zoom" is "centered," but that often leaves out text on the screen that appears on the left or right. And it often leaves out important conversations appearing on the side. I can live with the black bars appearing at the top and bottom in movies that were originally filmed in an aspect ratio of 2:4 to 1, because in that scenario the entire "reason" why you are seeing those "black bars" is because it allows you to have the privilege of seeing "all" the "detail" as it was "originally filmed."

But with Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, that is NOT the case! ... In Dirty Rotten Scoundrels on Blu-ray, you are seeing small "black bars" in a movie displayed at 1920x1036 resolution, even though it clearly was "originally recorded" and "meant to be seen" in 1920x1080 resolution. The Blu-ray version running at 1920x1036 resolution "leaves out" that detail.

Any help and technological explanation would be appreciated.

[mike_mgoblue]

UPDATE: I have also confirmed that the movie Deadpool on Blu-ray is inferior to Deadpool broadcast on the Cable FXM channel.

The Blu-ray version of Deadpool is shown at the ratio of 2.4:1.

The TV version of Deadpool is shown at the ratio of 16:9.

The media and manufacturers are telling us this means the Blu-ray version is "better" because it displays "more detail" on the "sides." They say you "see it as it was originally filmed." ... But I have confirmed this is definitely NOT the case!!!

I looked at multiple scenes simultaneously on my HDTV with the FXM Comcast TV 16:9 version and compared it to the Blu-ray 2.4:1 version. There is NO DOUBT the TV version contains more detail and is superior.

The TV version stars out by saying "This film has been modified for the screen." ... I always thought that meant detail was being left out. In reality, detail is somehow being added!!! ... It is as if these movies originally were recorded in 16:9, but were sent to the theater in 2.4:1, and then put on Blu-ray at the same resolution of 2.4:1.

This is truly terrible! ... In Deadpool, in the opening scenes where the song "Angel of the Morning" is playing, that entire scene is set up on TV so the "top" of the screen is identical to the "top" of the Blu-ray version. And the "sides" are 100% identical - there is ZERO missing detail in the 16:9 version shown on TV. ... The ONLY difference is that the 16:9 TV version shown on the FXM TV channel is that the "bottom" of the screen contains "additional" detail NOT found in the Blu-ray version!!!

As the song "Angel of the Morning" is coming to an end, there is a scene where you see a drawing of Deadpool chopping off the head of a character. When the lowercase letter "e" is at the "top" of the screen," it is at the "top" of the screen in both the TV and Blu-ray versions. In the TV version, there is a slight cropping on the left "side" and the right "side" - which means there is a small amount of detail missing compared to the Blu-ray version. However, at the "bottom" of the TV version, there is quite a bit of additional detail in the TV version that is not found the Blu-ray version.

When the song "Angel of the Morning" has come to an end, you see Deadpool sitting in the car in the same spot for quite a while. I did a comparison and again was STUNNED that the TV version contains "extra" detail NOT FOUND AT ALL in the Blu-ray version! ... First, the "top" of the TV and Blu-ray versions are identical in terms of "detail." However, the TV version "top" is actually at the "top" of the "screen," while the Blu-ray version of the "top" is located under a "black bar." The "sides" show that the TV version has been very slightly cropped on both the left and the right - which means you do not see the one sword of Deadpool on the life "side" of the screen, and you do not see a small bit of the seat on the right "side" of the screen in the TV version. I used MPC-BE to "move" the "top" of the Blu-ray version up to the "top" of the "screen," and then I "cropped" out the appropriate amount of detail on the left "side" and right "side." This caused the "black bar" on the bottom of the Blu-ray version to be twice as big - because now all the "black bar" space was on the bottom. This is when I was SHOCKED!!! The TV version shown on channel FXM actually has detail on the outfit of Blu-ray that "fills" that entire "black bar" area - detail that is NOT FOUND AT ALL in the "blu-ray" version!!!

It is TERRIBLE that we pay all that money for Blu-ray movies that are INFERIOR!!! ... These Blu-ray movies are supposed to be 1920x1080 anyways, so why not do what FXM and Starz are doing in order to add the additional detail rather than showing us useless black bars on the top and bottom!

Does anyone know how these TV channels such as Starz and FXM get these true 1920x1080 16:9 versions of these movies that have additional detail not found in the 2.4:1 versions?

[Woodstock]

You need to ask disk authors. We, in the unwashed general public, are not privy to why disk authors do ANYTHING.

Some guesses:

As for cropping, most BDs are authored in the original aspect ratio, so they'll have letterboxing if that doesn't work out to the 16:9 ratio that defines BD video. Broadcast/streaming usually clips the video to fit their broadcast format.

[mike_mgoblue]

You need to ask disk authors. We, in the unwashed general public, are not privy to why disk authors do ANYTHING.

Some guesses:

As for cropping, most BDs are authored in the original aspect ratio, so they'll have letterboxing if that doesn't work out to the 16:9 ratio that defines BD video. Broadcast/streaming usually clips the video to fit their broadcast format.

Is there any phone number or contact info you might have for me to contact any authors?

I have updated the post I wrote about Deadpool even more since you responded. It is simply unbelievable to me that Deadpool could contain extra detail in his uniform in the TV version that was not found in the Blu-ray version. This is simply unreal. ... It makes George Lucas look like a BIG hypocrite with all of his "Ultra Widescreen 2.4:1 ratio allows you to see all the detail as it was originally recorded." ... I have now confirmed that is simply not true.

Both Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and Deadpool (the only two movies I have done this type of comparison with) clearly show there is "some source" of information out there that contains extra film data not found in the Blu-ray version. I doubt channel FXM or channel Starz could "add" extra detail like that, so it must have come from some source who has access to the original recording that was originally recording in a ratio other than 2.4:1 (for Deadpool) and other than 1920x1036 for Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

[mike_mgoblue]

I wish those TV channels such as FXM and Starz would start selling their "versions" of these movies. They contain "detail" not found in the Blu-ray versions.

[Woodstock]

It is a choice. DVD and BD have defined aspect ratios and pixel resolutions. You can use anamorphic settings to "stretch" pixels, but, at the end of the disk, you are stuck with 640x480 and 1920x1080 pixels of information.

Few TVs/monitors have resolutions that aren't a multiple of 1920x1080, so, even if you stretch the horizontal pixel width to simulate wider than 16:9, your end up with the monitor cropping things, and you get no additional detail, and what you have is "blurred" horizontally.

You either dedicate the 1920x1080 pixels to better detail in a smaller width, or showing the whole picture.

This has been the way of the world since Panavision was introduced to the world to keep movie theaters alive in the age of 4:3 television, which was at that ratio because movies USED to be 4:3. When 16:9 TV came out, studios went to 2.4:1 to stay ahead.

You can be shocked if you want to be, but it isn't going to help matters. As for Starz et al issuing their own versions of films, probably not going to happen. They "modified the motion picture to fit your television" (as they used to say when SD was "normal" resolution), and the studios aren't going to sell that.

[mike_mgoblue]

It is a choice. DVD and BD have defined aspect ratios and pixel resolutions. You can use anamorphic settings to "stretch" pixels, but, at the end of the disk, you are stuck with 640x480 and 1920x1080 pixels of information.

Few TVs/monitors have resolutions that aren't a multiple of 1920x1080, so, even if you stretch the horizontal pixel width to simulate wider than 16:9, your end up with the monitor cropping things, and you get no additional detail, and what you have is "blurred" horizontally.

You either dedicate the 1920x1080 pixels to better detail in a smaller width, or showing the whole picture.

This has been the way of the world since Panavision was introduced to the world to keep movie theaters alive in the age of 4:3 television, which was at that ratio because movies USED to be 4:3. When 16:9 TV came out, studios went to 2.4:1 to stay ahead.

You can be shocked if you want to be, but it isn't going to help matters. As for Starz et al issuing their own versions of films, probably not going to happen. They "modified the motion picture to fit your television" (as they used to say when SD was "normal" resolution), and the studios aren't going to sell that.

Woodstock, I understand what you are trying to say. The ole' George Lucas concept of 4:3 ratio and "anamorphic" and "black bars" on the "sides" and "black bars" on the "top" and "bottom" are things I am very familiar with.

Previously, this was very simply to understand. It was just a simple matter of "If a movie is filmed with a ratio of 2.4:1, it means that there will be black bars on the "top" and "bottom" of a 16:9 HDTV and the only way to see this as a "Full Screen" movie is if you "crop out" the "sides."

But, I now realize this is COMPLETELY FALSE!!! ... These TV channels such as FXM and Starz are NOT doing that! ... Instead, they are somehow "adding" footage to the "top" and "bottom" of these movies in order to "fill" the 16:9 screen WITHOUT "cropping" - even though that "top" and "bottom" material is NOT found at all in the 2.4:1 Blu-ray version.

I just starting doing this comparison on the movie X-Men First Class Theatrical Edition. I watched the TV version from the TNT Cable TV Channel and the Blu-ray version simultaneously in order to do a comparison. Initially, it seemed like things were "normal" in the sense that the Blu-ray version had "black bars" at the top and bottom, but clearly displayed more film data on the "sides" than the TNT TV version. It was like this for the first three scenes I compared.

But, then I looked at 28:09 in the Blu-ray movie version of X-Men First Class Theatrical Edition. In the TNT TV version, there is a slight amount of film data shown at the bottom of the screen that is not found at all in the Blu-ray version. This is not "blurry." It is still very clear.

Another example is at 28:53 in the movie X-men First Class Theatrical Edition. The "sides" have been "cropped" a bit in the TNT TV version - as all of us have been told to expect in order to fill the 16:9 screen. But, the COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED PART is that in the TNT TV version there is a slight amount of "additional" detail at the top and at the bottom - which is NOT FOUND AT ALL in the Blu-ray version!!! ... This means there INDISPUTABLY was "extra detail" that could have been placed on the "top" and placed on the "bottom" of the Blu-ray version without causing any loss of detail on the "sides." ... Something is WRONG with that!

Perhaps the best example of what I'm referring to is the "Credits" of movies. In almost every Blu-ray movie with a 2.4:1 ratio, when you see the TV version you are seeing a version that has not had anything "cut" from the "sides." Instead, the TV version has had data "added" to the "top" and "bottom." ... In other words, the 2.4:1 Blu-ray version is "missing" that data found in the TV 16:9 version.

I really think Blu-ray is a format I hate now. ... I remember many DVD movies would come with both a "Widescreen" version that was either 16:9 or 2.4:1, and also come with a 4:3 version. ... Blu-ray NEEDS to do this - the Blu-rays should come with both the 2.4:1 version that is missing film detail on the "top" and "bottom," and also include the 16:9 version that will be seen on TV. This is obviously not "asking too much," because DVD already successfully did this.

[Grauhaar]

I really think Blu-ray is a format I hate now. ... I remember many DVD movies would come with both a "Widescreen" version that was either 16:9 or 2.4:1, and also come with a 4:3 version. ... Blu-ray NEEDS to do this - the Blu-rays should come with both the 2.4:1 version that is missing film detail on the "top" and "bottom," and also include the 16:9 version that will be seen on TV. This is obviously not "asking too much," because DVD already successfully did this.

What the hell has this to do with the "Blu-ray or DVD" formats? This is a problem which can only be addressed to the Movie Studios and Authors. I can understand that you are frustated but you must address to right people (But I can tell you, without any success!). Not the format decided what is on the disc. 99,999% of the cosumers does not care about any format, they just wnat to see something. They don't know what is the right aspect ratio, they simply consum.

If I read "Blu-ray NEEDS to do this - the Blu-rays should come" I can only roll by eys Sorry

[Woodstock]

I have not seen evidence of what you type of, Mike, so I cannot know.

I do know this - outside the central 4:3 box is considered "filler area" by most directors. I've seen the cameras they use for filming; the view finders have a 4:3 box centered in the viewer, and the "native format" area around it. Action that is important to the plot is kept within the 4:3 box as much as possible.

Why? How our vision works. Only the central 3 degrees of our vision is "sharp" enough to see detail. Everything else is blurry, but our brains move our eyes around enough to fill in the sharpness, and remembers it, making it seem sharp. There's a module on this in modern motorcycle training. Probably in many drivers education courses, too, because it's an important part of proper decision making in traffic.

Don't believe it? Track down Season 2 Episode 1 of National Geographics' "Brain Games", "Hocus Focus", and watch it. It's available on Netflix, and probably other streaming services.

[Reiver]

In regards to the framing differences you're essentially talking about Open Matte.

For widescreen television, the aspect ratio of 16:9 was essentially chosen as compromise between all the aspect ratios in use. You're not loosing image on a bluray or dvd with black bars as you seem to perceive it but the authoring is actually including image not intended to be used by the original director to fill a televisions screen.

It's subjective, some people like to see a movie as the director intended and some people prefer that the picture fills the TV screen by zooming or using open matte regardless of them being utterly, utterly wrong. If you don''t like black bars, get an OLED tv.

[st4evr]

What the hell has this to do with the "Blu-ray or DVD" formats?

Lol. Well to add to that, my question would be, what the hell does this have to do with MakeMKV?

Like, realistically. The OP just went on a huge freaking rant on the MakeMKV Support Forum for which not a single person here has any control over or relation to. To be honest, this discussion would be more suited over at the blu-ray.com forum where there are dozens of discussions like this already and in certain cases industry professionals sometimes get involved in. I mean, a bit of common sense is needed here.