Confused with cropping/resize issue

[DB83]

I have two video sources. The first is 2.35:1 in a 4:3 pal dvd frame. The second is pal DV 4:3 with slight, probably 16:9, letterboxing.

What I am trying to do is crop/resize the second source so that the height of that clip is identical to the first souce when they are edited together.

This is my workflow(which, as you will see is not quite right)

1. Crop the 2nd source removing 72 lines top, 72 lines bottom. So I now have a 720*432 source and no letterboxing.

2. I figure now that if I resize this source to a height of 328 lines both clips should be the same height. If I do this, the second source is now 544*328.

3. Now what I really want to do is put this resized source back in to the 4:3 720*576 frame and have borders all around to retain the 544*328 size. The problem is when I attempt to do this the video stretches to fill the horizontal frame (the vertical also stretches in proportion) so I end up with practically what I had before cropping and resizing.

A while back, I had a 720*540 source and was able to put that into a 720*576 frame with borders using Vegas. But I have forgetton now how I did that.

Can anyone guide me in the right direction. I do not use avisynth so would prefer the Vegas route if possible.

[intracube]

1. Crop the 2nd source removing 72 lines top, 72 lines bottom. So I now have a 720*432 source and no letterboxing.

2. I figure now that if I resize this source to a height of 328 lines both clips should be the same height. If I do this, the second source is now 544*328.

I'm not sure why you've reduced the width to 544 - surely the active area you want to keep is 720x328?

Another way of achieving what you want is to create a 720x576 image with black bars at the top and bottom and a transparent area across the middle, matching the 2.35 frame. After the editing process, overlay the image to your whole project. This would also give you the option of repositioning shots from the second video source vertically to adjust the framing, (if it hasn't been shot with 2.35 in mind).

[DB83]

The width was reduced to 544 to (hopefully) retain the AR since I was now starting with a 720*432 frame.

Yes, I realise I could 'window' 720*432 frame(or even the original 720*576) down to 720*328 and thus reposition the shots. But that will still lose some vertical detail which I hoped to retain. Hence the 'idea' of having the resized image within the 720*576 frame.

[intracube]

The width was reduced to 544 to (hopefully) retain the AR since I was now starting with a 720*432 frame.

The aspect ratio will be wrong at this point in the processing, but when you pad the 720x328 frame back to 720x576 it will be correct. Rescaling the width down to 544 at this point will certainly soften the image.

Yes, I realise I could 'window' 720*432 frame(or even the original 720*576) down to 720*328 and thus reposition the shots. But that will still lose some vertical detail which I hoped to retain. Hence the 'idea' of having the resized image within the 720*576 frame.

I don't understand why you think it will loose vertical detail. In fact, as there is no resizing involved, it's the best way to minimise any loss of quality. It's purely masking the area that you don't want to see.

[DB83]

Maybe a bad choice of words.

At present the slightly-letterbox DV is effectively a VHS widescreen pan&scan from the 2.35:1 full widscreen. So I have already lost some detail from the left and right edges. I am trying to retain all the detail from the top and bottom edges. The 432 pixel height gives me the full vertical detail. If I 'window' that I certainly lose a further 104 pixels wherever I chose the 'window' to be. But if I can resize down to 544*328, proportionally from 720*432, I retain all the vertical and horizontal image that I have at present.

I realise that this is not an ideal solution and the pillar-bars may well prove more distracting than if I just edit the two sources as 16:9 and have a slightly taller image, but at the correct AR when the DV source kicks in.

Maybe it is better to show a sample. The top image is the 2.35:1 source. The bottom image is approx the same frame in the DV source. So you see that both the height and width of the bottom image need to be resized.

[intracube]

At present the slightly-letterbox DV is effectively a VHS widescreen pan&scan from the 2.35:1 full widscreen.

Ah, I understand. Is this how you want the VHS sourced DV footage to look:

As you say, you could convert both clips to 16:9 and have the pan&scan footage appear taller and fill the width.

But, if you do want to keep a common height to both clips, I would suggest working in 16:9. The examples I posted above would look like this on a 16:9 display set to pillarbox 4:3 footage*:

(*unless the TV has an automatic 'zoom' feature)

If both clips were formatted to 16:9 like this:

it would be better for people with 16:9 TVs. 4:3 viewers with their DVD player set to '4:3 letterbox' would see the same image as the first example I posted.

[DB83]

Yes. This is exactly the effect that I want to create. The full image of the VHS source is retained.

Are you now saying that, if I work in 16:9, the 544*328 image will look exactly like your left picture ?

I can only test this on a 4:3 monitor or a 4:3 tv. My concern was that when I tried this in 4:3 the right image resorted back to what I was showing in the bottom pic.

[DB83]

well I have tried this and am still missing something.

The 2.35 footage crops fine to a 16:9 frame. The resized image still attempts to fill the frame vertically - I suppose it has to to ensure a corrrect dvd height of 576 pixels and there is a sleight pillar box.

The only way I can see how to do this is to add borders at the top and bottom to return the vertical to 576 pixels.

But if there is another way then please enlighten me.

[intracube]

Are you now saying that, if I work in 16:9, the 544*328 image will look exactly like your left picture ?

The middle pair of images I posted show what the top pair of images might look like when displayed on a 16:9 TV - both images reduced in size with thick borders all around.

Working in 16:9 and formatting appropriately; the film will look like the bottom pair on 16:9 TVs, yet still look like the top pair when viewed on 4:3 TVs.

For the 2.35 version; you could crop 72 pixels from the top and bottom, then scale the image back to 720x576 and set the aspect ratio to 16:9 - you'd then have an anamorphic 16:9 video.

I don't have any experience with Vegas - ideally you'd reformat within it to minimise any loss of quality that external conversion programs might introduce. Maybe someone familiar with Vegas could help you with that.

Can I ask a obvious question? Why are you trying to edit together two versions of the same film with different aspect ratios?
Also, what's the film? The set looks like something dreamed up by M.C. Escher

[DB83]

I will answer the last item first. The film is "The Devils - 1971, Ken Russell". It has never been properly issued (aspect ratio wise) on dvd until now.

The 2.35:1 is an official dvd of the US version(released in Spain) with additional cuts. The DV is the VHS of the UK release which is less cut. So the idea is to edit back in those elements which are missing from the official dvd. Missing from both versions are additional cuts some of which are available from an off-tv recording and these will also be spliced back in.

The set designer was Derek Jarman - who also became a film director later.

I am familiar with the 72 top/bottom anamorphic as I have done that before - see my initial comments.

I have now achieved the effect you illustrate by using crop/resize and add border within vdub. From there I can make the 16:9 video for the re-edit. The pillar box does not, in my opinion, detract too much as my eyes are more focused on the vertical. When I have some time I will try again in Vegas as that could minimise the number encodes.

Thank you for your input. It has been much appreciated.