Jacob's Ladder (1990) Artisan DVD + Lions Gate 2015 UPDATED

[Darrel_Griffin]

Jacob's Ladder (1990)

---
R1 America - Artisan Special Edition DVD

1. does NOT have:
Teaser Trailer (1:03)

but DOES instead have:
TV spot (1:30) (AR 1.33:1)

I don't own any other DVD editions, so I can't confirm for example whether the R1 Lions Gate DVD has the TV spot.

2. The "3 Additional Scenes" are widescreen AR, but windowboxed within the 4:3 area

3. movie AR is 1.78:1

4. movie runtime is 113:05

source: I own it

---
Lions Gate Blu-ray (2015 re-release) - TO BE ADDED TO DATABASE

1. According to a customer on Amazon, the 2015 re-release is remastered, and better than the original 2010 Lions Gate Blu-ray (already in the database, ASIN: B003TRMLM6), but I can't verify this for certain, although it does get a very positive review on DVDBeaver:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-ray_ ... lu-ray.htm

2. It DOES have the Teaser Trailer (1:03) and NOT the TV spot. It seems to have almost exactly the same specs as the 2010 release (but note points 4 and 5 below), so can be added to the database, with just the different subtitles specs, and perhaps an additional note about it being remastered.

3. It is region A locked (confirmed by me)

4. The "3 Additional Scenes" are widescreen AR, but windowboxed within the 4:3 area. I expect the same is true for the 2010 Blu-ray, but can't confirm.

5. It only has optional English subtitles, NOT English HOH

6. ASIN: B00ZPH4RIO

source: I own the 2015 re-release

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

Updated and Added.

[Darrel_Griffin]

The DVD update looks fine.

But I can't see the 2015 Blu-ray entry.

[Mikael_Pitkänen]

Fixed.

[Darrel_Griffin]

Thanks, all looks fine now

[Brent_Reid]

I've read the Amazon review claiming the remastered transfer, but it's hardly definitive and has a whiff of confirmation bias, as the poster bought both BDs. The later BD makes no mention of a remaster and looks like a simple repackage.

Though I can't find a direct comparison, similar screenshots on Beaver, Caps and BD.com all look the same too. Before this thread is closed down, can we investigate further or move it to the Requests forum?

I don't have either BD yet and want to know which to buy, if any. One thing that does put me off is the egregious horizontal stretching, especially as compared to the DVD.

[Darrel_Griffin]

Thanks Brent for drawing attention to these issues. I have just done a bit more research and checking. Here's what I've found so far:


1. R1 America Artisan DVD:

AR should be changed to 1.82:1

Reason: I was wrong before about the AR. There is only a very thin black bar at the top of the image (about 2 pixels on a 1920x1080 screen), but there is a thicker black bar one at the bottom, about the same as for a typical 1.85:1 image. Therefore the actual AR for this release is about 1.82:1.


2. Blu-ray A America - Lions Gate (2015 release):

References to 'remastered' and 'new transfer' should probably be removed from the listing and the verdict section.

Reason: I cannot confirm whether or not this was remastered, but I suspect not, and that Brent is correct. It seems both the 2010 and 2015 Lions Gate releases have exactly the same total size of 20,913,871,296 bytes, according to the two pages linked to below, and this would be highly unlikely if one of them were remastered, especially given that they both have a variable bit rate. Also the two bitrate patterns on the pages linked to below look similar.

2010 release:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0 ... 44&i=0&l=0

2015 release:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-ray_ ... lu-ray.htm


3. Blu-ray A America - Lions Gate (2015 release):

runtime is 113:32 NOT 113:35


4. As for horizontal stretching, I cannot comment on releases I don't own, but I compared the R1 Artisan DVD and the 2015 Lions Gate Blu-ray, looking at the subway train carriage shot as seen on the pages linked to above (about 7:48 on the DVD, 8:09 on the Blu-ray). I didn't check any other shots. In this shot, the DVD has slightly more image on the right and also slightly less image vertically (mostly lost at the bottom). If there were no stretching/squeezing, both of these differences would reduce the AR of the Blu-ray relative to the DVD, yet the Blu-ray AR is actually higher (Blu-ray = 1.85:1 versus DVD = 1.82:1). By measuring a few points in the image, I estimate that relative to the DVD, the Blu-ray image is stretched horizontally by a factor of about 1.064. If this factor were applied in reverse to the 1.85 AR, it would make an AR of about 1.74:1.

These measurements are relative, and it might be that the Blu-ray transfer is the more accurate one, and that instead the DVD image is squeezed by a factor of about 1.064. Or it could be somewhere in between: that the Blu-ray is stretched a bit and the DVD is squeezed a bit.

It is hard for me to judge which is the truth, but I think Brent is probably correct, and the Lions Gate Blu-ray image is stretched. I have only recently bought the Blu-ray, and haven't actually watched it yet, but I plan to very soon, and I don't think my enjoyment of the movie will be ruined. Having said that, I do think in general it is important for transfers to be done correctly.

The Lions Gate Blu-ray image is unsurprisingly much better definition than the Artisan DVD. I don't know if any of the other Blu-ray releases are sourced from different transfers, but comparing the screenshots on Blu-ray.com of the UK Optimum Blu-ray and American 2010 Lions Gate Blu-ray (e.g. they both show similar shots of a TV with a hairdryer on the floor), it looks like the transfers are similar or the same. I believe Optimum is essentially the same company as Studio Canal, so the French Studio Canal release is likely to be the same transfer as the UK Optimum one. The Optimum and Studio Canal releases have no extra features, so if you can play region A Blu-rays, the Lions Gate releases are probably the best ones to go for, unless you want to stick with a DVD release.

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

Removed the Lionsgate remaster, updated Artisan AR.

[Brent_Reid]

Thanks for another typically detailed, profoundly analytical response, Darrel. Do you write online anywhere else?

I responded to the Amazon poster: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-revi ... 5NNO86NO9M

I completely agree, re the slight stretching on the DVD vs the much worse stretching on the BD, but didn't want to go into quite so much detail! In fact, DVDs are almost always very slightly vertically stretched; does anyone know why?

I'm glad we got the BD question cleared up, but its stretching really puts me off. I think I'm going to stick with the DVD for the time being.

What I'd like to do is learn how to rip and reburn the BD with a corrected AR...

James: is it not worth mentioning the stretched transfer in the comparison? It's obviously been done for many others, like Hitchcock's Blackmail. There are more, for instance the horizontal stretching on Network's BD of The Ghoul (1933) is so bad I can't bear to watch it. But there's there's no mention of it in the comparison or any online review. I'm going to give the French BD a go but would like to see some screenshots, and find out whether its subs are forced.

Optimum and StudioCanal are the same company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StudioCanal#Acquisitions

The German DVD listing is missing its Spanish audio track: https://ssl.ofdb.de/view.php?page=fassu ... &vid=52701

The Caps link needs adding to the DVD comparison.

[Darrel_Griffin]

Hi Brent - thanks for the compliment! I must say you take great care to make sure you post accurate information, and you spot many errors in other people's postings too.

To answer your question about me, no I don't regularly post elsewhere, although I have occasionally done so, on discogs.com for example.


Correcting for stretched or squeezed images

I know almost nothing about ripping DVDs and Blu-rays, but I guess with the right ripping and burning software which gets around copy protection, coupled with the right video manipulation software, it would be possible create discs with corrected aspect ratios. A simpler solution would be to use hardware that has fine user control over the aspect ratio. My own setup is quite basic (Panasonic Blu-ray player + Panasonic TV), and the only AR changes I can make on it are to stretch a 4:3 image to 16:9 or squeeze a 16:9 image to 4:3. These options can be used for example when a disc's anamorphic / non-anamorphic status is incorrectly flagged. But I think some TVs have more comprehensive options, although I can't name any particular models. Certainly some software media players have the option for variable stretching, if you are able to watch movies on a computer.


Why DVDs might have vertically stretched images

I can't say I've noticed this issue myself, and in general I don't really notice this kind of thing unless the change is quite large, but you might be correct. A possible reason for this is that mistakes might often be made during the process of creating the DVDs, perhaps during the transfer process when creating the digital master, or when authoring the DVD. Alternatively, or additionally, mistakes are perhaps being made in the software/firmware of players/TVs/applications, such that the image is not displayed correctly. But why might so many mistakes be made? A likely answer to this is that digital PAL and digital NTSC formats are more complicated than most people would imagine, plus there does not seem to be universal agreement about standards in this area.

The main issue is that with both PAL and NTSC, the pixels are not square, but rectangular. It becomes obvious that this must be the case when you consider the dimensions of the image. For example with digital PAL, it is usually 720x576. This is a ratio of 5:4. Yet the image is displayed in a 4:3 area. Now you might think that the pixels are therefore simply wider than they are tall by the exact amount required to compensate for this. The amount necessary would be (4/3)/(5/4) = 16/15 = 1.0666... But in fact the truth is even more complicated than this. I don't know the exact reasons, but I think that some of the 720 pixels horizontally are considered to be outside of the 4:3 image area. It is beyond my knowledge, so don't take this as solid fact, but I think with analog TV, when the electron gun (which scans more or less horizontally across the screen from left to right) reaches the end of each line, it needs time to get back to the left hand side again. Additionally, due to variations with different analog TV models, in order to ensure the image fills the screen there needs to be a bit of extra image around the edge (this is known as 'overscan' - see link below). Therefore the image as displayed on a TV is in effect slightly cropped compared with the original signal.

An analog PAL signal has 625 lines in total, but only 575 of these are part of the actual image. In addition, each frame is sent as 2 fields, with one field containing the odd-numbered lines and the other containing the even-numbered lines. The electron gun scan is actually not quite horizontal but very slightly diagonal. The first line (or in fact half a line) of the image section of the first field starts halfway across the top of the screen and goes to the right. The next line of the first field starts at the left of the screen and moves right at a slight downward diagonal. The rest of the field is then complete lines, every other line, with gaps in between. The first line of the image section of the second field then starts at the top left of the screen, and the lines of the second field fill in the gaps left by the first field, with the final half line of the second field ending halfway across the bottom. Starting halfway across the screen with this slight diagonal direction allows the fields to interlace with each other (much like the red and white stripes of a barber pole, only with a much shallower gradient). The image section of each field is 287.5 lines, creating a total of 575 lines. For digital PAL, the 287.5 lines of each field is rounded up to 288, creating a total image of 576 lines.

I am not sure there is even a true industry standard regarding video pixel aspect ratios, but one standard that I have heard is that PAL pixels have a width:height ratio of 59:54, while for NTSC pixels it is 10:11. Assuming these are correct, then if we use the PAL pixel ratio and assume that in a 4:3 image we can see all of the 'scan lines' (in other words the vertical resolution is 576 pixels), the number of pixels horizontally will be 576 x (4/3) / (59/54) = approx. 703 . Since the total image is 720 pixels across, this means that to display the image correctly in the 4:3 area, about 17 pixels need to be cropped off. But suppose for example that instead the whole 720 pixels were placed in the 4:3 display area. Then the image will have been slightly squeezed horizontally (which is equivalent to being slightly stretched vertically).

The above is only an example for illustrative purposes, but given the complications of dealing with non-square pixels, plus the overscan issue, plus the fact that there seem to be different competing standards of video pixel aspect ratio within the industry, it is perhaps not surprising that the end result is sometimes inaccurate.

Wikipedia has a couple of good pages:

video pixel aspect ratios:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio


TV overscan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overscan

[Brent_Reid]

Blimey, great essay, thank you! This should be made a reference thread. I'm quite proud of myself just for actually understanding it. I learned something today.

James (or anyone else): please don't overlook the corrections in my last post.

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

Updated the German DVD and capsaholic listing.

[Darrel_Griffin]

James -

A couple of things re: the American Lions Gate Blu-ray:

1. Subtitles

Apologies, I was partly wrong about the subtitles. There IS only one option, not the two originally listed, but - as listed on the back of the case - it is English SDH (for deaf and hard of hearing), or if you prefer, English HOH. I previously thought the were just regular English subtitles, because near the start of the movie there are helicopter sounds but no mention of them. But as the movie progresses, there ARE some mentions of sounds in brackets e.g. (WIND BLOWING).


2. Horizontal Stretching

I started watching the movie on the Lions Gate Blu-ray last night. I didn't finish it due to getting distracted by politics on TV, but anyway I feel certain now that the image on the Blu-ray IS significantly horizontally stretched. For the reasons I gave previously (i.e. very similar screenshots on Blu-ray.com of US Lions Gate vs UK Optimum, plus the fact that the Optimum and Studio Canal releases ae likely to have the same transfer), the same horizontal stretching probably occurs on ALL of the releases currently listed, so it might be worth mentioning this somewhere on the page e.g. in the individual notes for each release or as a general note at the bottom of the page.

[Darrel_Griffin]

A couple of things...


1. Analog TV scan

I must admit I am not all that knowledgeable about analog TV, and some of what I said previously is probably not quite true, but I don't want to go back and re-edit a post that is several days old. In particular, I don't think the diagonal scan is necessary for interlacing purposes - more likely is that the electron gun is moving downwards at a constant rate. I think the main reason for having 2 fields (one containing the odd numbered lines and one containing the even numbered lines) is that it effectively doubles the refresh rate, reducing the sense of flicker to the human eye. But anyway the most important point was that the image portion of each field is 287.5 lines, and I am pretty sure that bit IS correct.


2. The image stretching on the Blu-ray releases, and are they worth buying?

Although I am fairly sure that the image is stretched horizontally on some or all of the Blu-ray releases currently listed, I would still probably recommend them, albeit somewhat cautiously. I own the Lions Gate Blu-ray, and the stretching is not huge, perhaps about 5%. This is quite close to what would happen if a 16:9 image were vertically squeezed to 1.85:1, which is a change of about 4%.

On the plus side, there is much better image detail than the DVD releases, and the sound quality, at least on the Lions Gate Blu-ray, is superb, and really shows off both the fantastic score by Maurice Jarre and the great sound effects.