View Bug Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0002831DCP-o-maticBugspublic2024-06-18 02:42
ReporterCarsten Assigned Tocarl  
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilityalways
Status closedResolutionduplicate 
PlatformMacOSOS XOS Version10.12
Product Version2.16.x 
Target Version2.16.xFixed in Version2.16.80 
Summary0002831: 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?

TagsNo tags attached.
Branch
Estimated weeks required
Estimated work required

Relationships

duplicate of 0002791 closedcarl Video with displaymatrix rotation of 90 degrees scaled wrongly 

Activities

carl

2024-06-17 18:34

administrator   ~0006442

Do you know which 2.16.x version you used? I thought I might have fixed this in 2.16.80 (bug 0002791).

Carsten

2024-06-18 02:22

manager   ~0006443

Last edited: 2024-06-18 02:40

Oh my bad, it was actually 2.16.79...

Yup - just installed 2.16.86 on my own machine, and the issue is gone.

Bug History

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