View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
Some DV camcorders do shoot 16:9 DAR in the standard frame size. That's why there's a 16:9 flag in the DV data.
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 45 of 45
Thread
-
-
We'll see. He hasn't said anything about it showing as 1024x576 in FCP. So far the only square-pixel resolution mentioned is 768x576.Originally Posted by jagabo
-
Sorry manono, I'm in agreement with jagabo here. There are DV cams that just shoot 4:3, DV cams that shoot 4:3 and pseudo-16:9 (while really shooting letterboxed 4:3), and there are a number of cams (usually higher end) that shoot 4:3 and true 16:9 ("anamorphic") using the same 720x480/576 grid (usu. 12/11 PAR for 4:3 PAL DAR and 16/11 PAR for 16:9 PAL DAR).
On a 16:9 HDTV, the 4:3 should be pillarboxed, the psuedo-16:9 should be pillarbox3d+letterboxed, but the true 16:9 material would just fit the screen.
Capturing should be done basically the same way, however, if I were in zoranb's position, I would cap all the 4:3 material to a 4:3 project and then cap all the 16:9 material to a 16:9 project. Then, I'd create a combined project, if necessary, that favored the material with the highest "importance", whether that was 4:3 or 16:9 and then conform the other DAR material to it. Either by letterboxing/pillarboxing or by zoom/crop (aka pan&scan), or heaven forbid by non-proportional stretch/shrink.
ScottLast edited by Cornucopia; 26th Sep 2014 at 23:41.
-
Eh? I didn't disagree with him. All I said is we've seen no evidence zoranb has any true 16:9 material. How often have we seen people calling something 16:9 when all it is is some 1.78 ratio with black bars above and below and really 4:3 video? At this point I don't think I'm wrong. Maybe I'll be proven wrong in the near future.Originally Posted by Cornucopia
Yes, and my money is on black on all four sides. Except I wouldn't call it 'pseudo-16:9'. It's 4:3, nothing more. Or widescreen 4:3, if you prefer. But there's nothing 16:9 about it as 16:9 is a DAR when referring to video. 1.78:1, maybe.On a 16:9 HDTV, the 4:3 should be pillarboxed, the psuedo-16:9 should be pillarbox3d+letterboxed, but the true 16:9 material would just fit the screen. -
Oh. Yeah, that's for sure. I don't think we've gotten a single MediaInfo post yet (not counting my own example), even though I've asked a few times. So who knows?...
I was calling it pseudo. It's letterboxed 4:3, just like lots of old "widescreen" SD material from the '90s was. It's 16:9 DAR for the "active picture" but 4:3 DAR for the encoded pixels.
This post (along with a few more from the OP, and many others' recently) seem to be of the "piecemeal divulgement" sort.
Scott -
If you're mixing aspect ratios there's an argument to be made for upscaling to HD first. At least you don't have to lose any of the limited amount of resolution you have to start with, which is what can happen when you resize while working in SD.Originally Posted by Cornucopia
I'm not claiming that the results will be visibly better (or even different) in the end, but with a very good SD source they just might be.
(I don't use HD when editing SD-only material without mixing aspect ratios.)
Cheers,
David. -
I'm with you in a sense - I feel there are 2 principles that can guide getting optimal quality: super-sampling/over-sampling and straight-wire/least-harm.
For analog material or for doing alias-free resize work, using supersampling/oversampling can be an improvement (sometimes substantial, sometimes just noticeable) over straight sampling.
But, the OP's case was one of pre-existing Digital (DV) material, not analog, and so the quality savings possible to analog material would not be available in this instance.
And then you have the least harm philosophy: make as little changes as possible (and usually toward the end of the signal chain) in order to do the least quality harm to the signal. Since both capped DV signals already exist (we assume - need more OP info) on tape, the digital firewire transfer doesn't change anything yet. Then, to get the non-desired image ratio to the desired image ratio, we could do a SINGLE resize, or we could do what you are suggesting: a resize first to HD and then down to SD. The latter may enjoy the benefit of supersampling/oversampling, but it does have the greater harm impact of being 2 adjustments rather than 1. Which to choose?...
If this were my material, I'd have to do some tests and decide what to do for each case individually.
Note: if I misunderstood you, please clarify...
Scott -
Guys thank you indeed all of you, very very much for the great interest shown to my issue. I want to provide you all of the info you ask for and info that i will be able to derive from my footage. Sorry that i haven't done this so far leaving most of you in the dark. Please let me know in small steps (1,2,3...) what info you want me to derive so i get ASAP to it straight away.
-
This thread is in danger of getting seriously overcomplicated, so back to basics:Originally Posted by zoranb
1) We need to establish whether your footage is true 16:9, or just a 4:3 picture masked with black bars into faux widescreen. The easiest thing to do is capture a few seconds and play it back in VLC. Does VLC play it with bars at the top and bottom or not?
2) Whatever your answer to the first question, things will be relatively simple if you're going to be keeping your widescreen and your 4:3 footage completely separate. On the other hand, if you're hoping to join clips of two different aspect ratios, things will quickly get very complicated. It's achievable, but you'll be opening up a huge can of worms and a whole host of confusing options. So, which is it to be? -
-
Do you mind if I ask why not? As far as I can see, the only technical issue that needs to be established is whether the widescreen footage is true 16:9 or masked 4:3. Bearing in mind that zoranb has asked for things to be kept relatively simple, what could be more straightforward than checking whether it plays back in VLC with black bars at the top and bottom? Is there anything relevant that MediaInfo would tell us that simply eyeballing the footage wouldn't?Originally Posted by Cornucopia
On the other hand, I suppose a short clip upload (as you suggested) wouldn't hurt either. -
It depends on how Windows is set up to deal with multiple displays. Things may have changed in more recent versions of Windows but when I ran XP with two displays (one graphics card, a Matrox Parhelia) it was possible for Windows to treat the two displays as one Desktop. You could play a video full screen with any player (or when an application was maximized) and it would cover both displays. Ie, Windows (or the graphics driver?) handled splitting of the picture over multiple displays, not the player/application. I don't know if this worked with multiple graphics cards, I only ever used it on a single graphics card with dual DVI outputs.Originally Posted by Mr Chris
Do you mind if I ask why not?Originally Posted by Cornucopia
I don't know if Win7 and 8 still support this mode. I have one computer running Win7 with two monitors (one Nvidia graphics card) but when the media play goes full screen it's only on one display. It's possible to manually resize the player window across both monitors, but using the maximize button only maximizes the window on one monitor. -
Well, fair enough, but for some reason I wasn't imagining the OP with dualhead displays or anything. I could be wrong, of course, but here's what I'd do (if you're still reading this, zoranb):Originally Posted by jagabo
It depends on how Windows is set up to deal with multiple displays. Things may have changed in more recent versions of Windows but when I ran XP with two displays (one graphics card, a Matrox Parhelia) it was possible for Windows to treat the two displays as one Desktop. You could play a video full screen with any player (or when an application was maximized) and it would cover both displays. Ie, Windows (or the graphics driver?) handled splitting of the picture over multiple displays, not the player/application. I don't know if this worked with multiple graphics cards, I only ever used it on a single graphics card with dual DVI outputs.Originally Posted by Mr Chris
Do you mind if I ask why not?Originally Posted by Cornucopia
I don't know if Win7 and 8 still support this mode. I have one computer running Win7 with two monitors (one Nvidia graphics card) but when the media play goes full screen it's only on one display. It's possible to manually resize the player window across both monitors, but using the maximize button only maximizes the window on one monitor.
1) Capture a few seconds of the widescreen footage.
2) Play it in VLC.
3) Make sure the window is not maximised and you're not in full screen mode.
4) Press the Z key until it says "Zoom mode: 1:1 original".
5) Press the A key until it says "Aspect ratio: 16:9".
Does it look right? If so, and everything isn't all short and fat with black bars at the top and bottom, then it's true widescreen. If in doubt, upload your captured clip and we'll be able to tell.
In the meantime, you still haven't told us whether you'll be joining 4:3 clips to 16:9 clips, or whether you're happy to keep the different aspect ratios completely separate. This is an important question. -
Oh, I had this thread confused with another one about playing videos across multiple displays. Ignore my last post.
-
Yes, Mr Chris, the OP could use VLC. But just as you described, the app would have to be checked to verify that it has the windowing, zooming, AR defaults set right. That's not that hard, but it's much more straightforward to not even have to do those things and just post the MI readout, eh?
Scott
Quote
