View Bug Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0002831 | DCP-o-matic | Bugs | public | 2024-06-17 16:49 | 2024-06-18 02:42 |
Reporter | Carsten | Assigned To | carl | ||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
Status | closed | Resolution | duplicate | ||
Platform | Mac | OS | OS X | OS Version | 10.12 |
Product Version | 2.16.x | ||||
Target Version | 2.16.x | Fixed in Version | 2.16.80 | ||
Summary | 0002831: Bug in handling flagged vertical video | ||||
Description | I just came across a smartphone video that could not be successfully rotated and scaled in 2.14.59. I then suggested to try 2.16, and while it was possible there with a custom scaling aspect ratio ( 1/1.78), it is obvious that DCP-o-matic handles vertical/90degree flagged video in the wrong way. DCP-o-matic detects the 90 degree flag and rotates the file correctly, but then applies the wrong aspect ratio of the original format, but not the rotated version. That is - the vertical video is always stretched out horizontally. In DCP-o-matic 2.14.59, I could no nothing to correct this (1.19 was the smallest AR). In 2.16.x, I was at least able to apply a custom 0.56:1 aspect ratio to the 1.78:1 vertical video. I was able to correct the issue by exporting the original smartphone video using QT to a new 1080p quicktime movie. That obviously removed the rotation and the 90 degree flag and created a standard 1080*1920 video, which both DCP-o-matic 2.14.59 and 2.16 handled correctly. It's not a huge deal, but I see a lot of directors or actors greetings recorded with smartphones for festivals now that often get transmitted last minute, and it would be nice if DCP-o-matic could handle them properly. Do you need a sample, Carl? | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
Branch | |||||
Estimated weeks required | |||||
Estimated work required | |||||
|
Do you know which 2.16.x version you used? I thought I might have fixed this in 2.16.80 (bug 0002791). |
|
Oh my bad, it was actually 2.16.79... Yup - just installed 2.16.86 on my own machine, and the issue is gone. |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2024-06-17 16:49 | Carsten | New Bug | |
2024-06-17 16:49 | Carsten | Status | new => assigned |
2024-06-17 16:49 | Carsten | Assigned To | => carl |
2024-06-17 18:34 | carl | Note Added: 0006442 | |
2024-06-17 18:34 | carl | Status | assigned => feedback |
2024-06-18 02:22 | Carsten | Note Added: 0006443 | |
2024-06-18 02:22 | Carsten | Status | feedback => assigned |
2024-06-18 02:40 | Carsten | Note Edited: 0006443 | |
2024-06-18 02:42 | Carsten | Status | assigned => closed |
2024-06-18 02:42 | Carsten | Resolution | open => duplicate |
2024-06-18 02:42 | Carsten | Fixed in Version | => 2.16.80 |
2024-06-18 02:42 | Carsten | Relationship added | duplicate of 0002791 |