# Thread: 4:3 to 16:9 pillarboxed

1. I have some older 4:3 content which has an aspect ratio of 720x540 and I am trying to up convert it to 16:9 pillar boxed. Could someone please explain what the resulting 16:9 pillar boxed output dimensions should be? Do I need any filters?
2. Use fitcd to calculate it.

But this is not any blu-ray ripping/conversion....moving you to our video conversion section.
3. I have tried using the tool but it is pretty confusing..is there a standard dimension?
4. For 1280x720 , 960x720 with 160px pillarbox left and right each

For 1920x1080, 1440x1080 with 240px pillarbox left and right each

Because

For 1280x720
960/720 in square pixels =4/3
1280 - 960 = 320
320/2 =160

For 1920x1080
1440/1080 in square pixels =4/3
1920-1440 = 480
480/2 = 240
5. Thanks poisondeathray.

Sorry but I am still a bit confused. So I take my input which file which is 720x540 and I output a new video to: 1920x1080 and add a crop filter of 240 for both the left and right sides?
6. Originally Posted by LouSkunt
Thanks poisondeathray.

Sorry but I am still a bit confused. So I take my input which file which is 720x540 and I output a new video to: 1920x1080 and add a crop filter of 240 for both the left and right sides?

Is the active image area full? or are there black borders to begin with?

Assuming there is no black borders, and it's square pixels (720x540 should be) , you resize it to 1440x1080 then add 240 pixels to the left, 240 to the right . The pillarbars are 240x1080 each

240 + 1440 + 240 = 1920
7. You can do it the other way as well, (add borders, then upscale)

For 16:9 with 540 height, the square pixel equivalent is 960x540 (because 960 / 540 = 16:9)

So that means you need 960 - 720 = 240 added letterbox width of black borders to your original image

240 /2 = 120 pixel width for each side, left and right

Double check:
120 + 720 + 120 = 960

Then upscale that directly to 1920x1080 and it will be in the right proportion
8. I suspect the OP may be a little confused when he said "up convert it to 16:9". I'm not sure he meant upsample to HD.
9. Originally Posted by Hoser Rob
I suspect the OP may be a little confused when he said "up convert it to 16:9". I'm not sure he meant upsample to HD.

That's a good point...but it was originally posted in blu-ray authoring forum, so I assumed he was upscaling to HD for blu-ray

If this isn't the case, please clarify Lou Skunt
10. The idea is to upscale the content the 4:3 source to 16:9 with pillar boxing. This is not really intended for Blu-ray my apologizes for posting into the wrong forum. I have tried a view conversions but it is coming out as a 4:3 center cut instead. The bottom and top are filling the entire region.
11. Is this for DVD or a video file for computer ? What is the final format goal / how do you intend to view it ?

For a computer file, 960x540 is 16:9 . Do the same thing in post #7, just don't upscale it. Just add the 120 pixels to the left, 120 to the right
12. The source 4:3 (720x540) content does have black borders on both the left and right..
13. Originally Posted by LouSkunt
The source 4:3 (720x540) content does have black borders on both the left and right..
Then you'd better post a video sample or use fitcd

14. Originally Posted by LouSkunt
The idea is to upscale the content the 4:3 source to 16:9 with pillar boxing.
Why? Do you know you lose resolution in doing that? Now, if it's intended to join other videos that are 16:9, that's one thing, but there no benefit at all and some loss to doing it for a 4:3 video alone.

The source 4:3 (720x540) content does have black borders on both the left and right..
Like the others I think you're confused. What's your source? A DVD, an AVI, what? What's your intended final output? A DVD, an AVI, what?

If you don't know what your source is post a text version of what MediaInfo shows.
15. I realize that I will loose quality but this is older content. It will be MPG to MP4.
Here is the the MediaInfo:

General
ID : 0 (0x0)
Complete name : C:\test_3.mpg
Format : MPEG-TS
File size : 6.10 GiB
Duration : 29mn 7s
Overall bit rate mode : Constant
Overall bit rate : 30.0 Mbps

Video
ID : 481 (0x1E1)
Format : MPEG Video
Format version : Version 2
Format profile : Main@High
Format settings, BVOP : Yes
Format settings, Matrix : Default
Format settings, GOP : Variable
Codec ID : 2
Duration : 29mn 6s
Bit rate : 28.0 Mbps
Width : 720 pixels
Height : 540 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 1.185
Frame rate : 29.970 fps
Standard : NTSC
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Compression mode : Lossy
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 2.403
Stream size : 5.74 GiB (94%)
Color primaries : BT.601 NTSC
Transfer characteristics : BT.709
Matrix coefficients : BT.601

Audio
ID : 482 (0x1E2)
Format : AAC
Format version : Version 4
Format profile : LC
Codec ID : 15
Duration : 29mn 6s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 309 Kbps
Channel(s) : 6 channels
Channel positions : Front: L C R, Side: L R, LFE
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 64.4 MiB (1%)

Text
ID : 481 (0x1E1)-1
Format : EIA-708
Muxing mode : A/53 / DTVCC Transport
Duration : 29mn 6s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Stream size : 0.00 Byte (0%)
16. Width : 720 pixels
Height : 540 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 1.185
This is interesting, where is this from? The DAR is 1.185 . Is this from a set top box recording, like a DVR ?

I think it would be helpful if you posted a video sample, because unless you know how many pixels of black borders are in the source, it's nearly impossible to help you

You might cut a sample with mpg2cut2 , but it might not work since this is a transport stream. You could use tsmuxer (split & cut tab, split by timecodes)
17. if you are trying to 'improve' this to play via DVD to an HDTV
you are doing a lot of work for nothing
it will automatically piller box, play as 4:3 full size, with black borders, when played on a DVD player connected to an HDTV

if you cropped the top & bottom to a height of 406 pixels it would be 720*406 / 16:9
convert to DVD at 720*480 with 36 padding top & bottom at 16:9 dar
it would play full screen

i THINK , i stated that correctly, somebody will correct me if i said it wrong
18. Originally Posted by poisondeathray
Width : 720 pixels
Height : 540 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 1.185
This is interesting, where is this from? The DAR is 1.185 . Is this from a set top box recording, like a DVR ?
1.185 is Panavision, isn't it?
19. Originally Posted by sanlyn
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
Width : 720 pixels
Height : 540 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 1.185
This is interesting, where is this from? The DAR is 1.185 . Is this from a set top box recording, like a DVR ?
1.185 is Panavision, isn't it?

mediainfo doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the actual content AR . Also he said it had black borders to begin with .

And sometimes borders are put there by the player. It's important to examine the actual video to see how many black pixels are actually encoded

I found it interesting, because it's not a common format - mpeg2, 720x540, with that DAR
20. 1,185 is usually the PAR which belongs to NTSC with a DAR 16:9.
But 720x540 is 4:3 (usually in PAL). Because the 4:3 format of NTSC usually is 640x480.
21. I agree, we need a sample frame(s) from the original video. If the O.P. isn't confused, then we certainly are. He described a 1.33:1 "video content" that is pillar-boxed (I believe he means "pillared", then posts an image of a 1.333:1 black frame with a smaller 1.333:1 frame inside it. The image posted is both pillared and letterboxed. I'd also guess that the O.P. doesn't know how to make an image directly from the video but only does PC screen captures---which won't help. All the O.P. has to do is ask. Otherwise, this thread is starting to get silly.

And apparently the vid has been deinterlaced. Let's hope the original wasn't telecined.
22. Originally Posted by brusno
1,185 is usually the PAR which belongs to NTSC with a DAR 16:9.
Yes, that's correct for NTSC non-ITU PAR , or 32:27

But 720x540 is 4:3 (usually in PAL). Because the 4:3 format of NTSC usually is 640x480.
Yes, in square pixel equivalents, which is why this is a bizarre case.

Regardless of the actual content AR, mediainfo would report DAR as 4:3 if it had a PAR of 1:1 (square pixels). This video apparently isn't using square pixels, which complicates matters (of course assuming mediainfo is correct - it can make mistakes)
23. Originally Posted by LouSkunt
I realize that I will loose quality but this is older content.
You should be concerned precisely because it's older stuff.

Remember when people used to complain about the low quality of analog ?
24. TS?
720x540?
1.185 DAR?
28Mbps?
AAC VBR audio?

What a mess! Where to start? Nothing matches standard setups.
Not much can be correctly done to this until we get actual clips of the SOURCE...

Scott

edit: BTW, @sanlyn, you were probably thinking of 1.85:1 not 1.185:1.
The former is common Film widescreen. Panavision used an Anamorphic lens on TOP of that, extending the outputted AR to ~2.35:1. The "1.185:1" ratio is not any standard ratio that I know of.
25. Originally Posted by Cornucopia
edit: BTW, @sanlyn, you were probably thinking of 1.85:1 not 1.185:1.
The former is common Film widescreen. Panavision used an Anamorphic lens on TOP of that, extending the outputted AR to ~2.35:1. The "1.185:1" ratio is not any standard ratio that I know of.
My bad choice of terms. By "Panavision" I mean wide-screen (you'll have to excuse an old film-school generalization, where Panavision meant anything wider than 4:3, at least at one time in the past). Panavision is not 1.85:1. Panavision is the name of a line of cameras and lenses, not a format. The earliest Panavision films were shot in 2.35:1, or pretty much like CinemaScope back then. Panavision equipment has been used to shoot 2.35:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 19:10, and what have you. I think many film makers settled on 1.78 as generic "Panavision", but I got tired of paying that much attention to brand names in film credits a long time ago.

What I mean is, the 1.185 is a pixel aspect ratio (PAR) for 16:9 NTSC DAR. So how does the "DAR" in that MediaInfo text became a PAR number is anyone's guess.

Apparently the O.P. isn't too worried about it. But if the mediainfo data is accurate, that video doesn't display correctly anywhere, period.
26. MediaInfo does so much rounding when it comes to aspect ratios I sometimes wonder why it even bothers displaying one. If I want to know exactly what the aspect ratio of a video is I open it with MPC-HC and look at it's properties. Not the MediaInfo stuff, just the info under the Details tab. MPC-HC displays it like this if the resolution and aspect ratio aren't one and the same:

720x576 (AR 4:3)

or something like this:

704x568 (AR 756:568)

You just need to convert it to decimal form (1.77, 2.35 etc) using a calculator.
27. MPC-HC isn't always correct. I have some music videos DVD with PAR 10:11 which MPC-HC assumes to have PAR 8:9.
28. Originally Posted by Island_Dweller
MPC-HC isn't always correct. I have some music videos DVD with PAR 10:11 which MPC-HC assumes to have PAR 8:9.
A PAR of 10:11 for 4:3 NTSC assumes an ITU-based Full D1 resolution of 704x480, whereas the normal DVD Full D1 resolution is 720x480, which does have a PAR of 8:9, so it must be just substituting the one for the other. Not uncommon. And I'm not surprised that MediaInfo has trouble sometimes also - none of the apps I've seen are flawless WRT ARs. I have a whole laundry list of items I'd love to see be implemented in MediaInfo to improve it's accuracy & scope...

Scott
29. Originally Posted by Island_Dweller
MPC-HC isn't always correct. I have some music videos DVD with PAR 10:11 which MPC-HC assumes to have PAR 8:9.
What do you mean it assumes? That information isn't written to the video stream or DVD anywhere. Every media player has to decide for itself which one to use for DVD playback and it'll use the same one every time regardless of the DVD. Every software player I know of always uses 8:9.
30. Well then, hello_hello, you don't seem to have experience with ALL players, because I have used a number that work with 10:11. The information IS written into a DVD: it's a combination of the DAR and the Horizontal & Vertical resolutions. IOW, if your DVD's DAR is 16:9 and your resolution is 704x480, your PAR SHOULD be 10:11. And players SHOULD assume as much, if they're being completely accurate. If your DVD's DAR is 16:9 and your resolution is 720x480, your PAR probably should be 8:9, but it could be that the content was created from an ITU-captured setup, where the "active area" was really only the 704x480, so maybe the PAR should be 10:11 there also.

"Assume" -> "Decide"

An app is almost NEVER given ALL 3 AR parameters, usually only 2 of the 3, so it has to follow some rules. This depends alot on the knowledge of video systems & history on the part of the programmer(s). I'm not surprised at all that MANY consumer apps just fall back to the simplified (simplistic?) 8:9 PAR, but you shouldn't assume they're all like that. More professional apps maybe have a better track record on this (though not all by a long shot).

Scott

Statistics