VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42
Thread
  1. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Just in the starts of backing up a TV series I have from DVD to MP4 for my media server and noticed that the storage resolution is 720x480, display resolution is 853x480, and the pixel aspect ratio is 1.18 (853/720).

    My question is... is it better to force it to 853x480 when ripping so it's a 1/1 ratio? or just leave it as-is? or makes 0 difference?

    I'm using Vidcoder, and the anamorphic is set to loose, and modulus is 2 (default settings under High Profile).

    Thanks

    Also, while asking... framerate, constant or variable? normally when converting files I have it set to constant, same as source... but was never certain if a good idea or not.
    Quote Quote  
  2. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2002
    Location: canada
    Search Comp PM
    Leave it as is,the display resolution will stay as 853x480 and keep it at constant framerate since some device won't play it properly if it's variable framerate.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Why do some videos have different storage/display resolutions anyway? Is there an advantage to doing that way?

    ... and nice Angel avatar, one of my fav episodes.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Originally Posted by THRobinson View Post
    Why do some videos have different storage/display resolutions anyway?
    Have you seen any NTSC DVDs that aren't 720x480 (or pretty rarely 704x480 or a couple of smaller resolutions)?

    http://www.videohelp.com/dvd

    And it has only 2 display rations, 4:3 and 16:9. Not sure of the point of the question if you're writing solely about DVDs, but it's all easily researched.
    Quote Quote  
  5. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2002
    Location: canada
    Search Comp PM
    Some tv shows are broadcast in 4:3 so no point in having anamorphic widescreen but some dvds made are in weird modes where they switch in different resolution modes.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    Have you seen any NTSC DVDs that aren't 720x480 (or pretty rarely 704x480 or a couple of smaller resolutions)?
    Never noticed actually since never needed to rip a TV series. Only DVD ripping I've done (years ago) was all with DVDShrink for which knowing the resolution didn't make a difference really... 2-pass and fit to 1 disc was pretty much all you needed.

    I figured if 16:9 then a DVD would have video saved as 16:9... like 720x406.... seems odd to save it at one size then stretch it wider. That's why I was thinking when I rip the TV series, instead of having it stretch, I would force it to 853x480 (well, 852 I guess, VidCoder dislikes odd numbers).

    Though right now, I'm having troubles with my test files... not very sharp, and with deinterlace on I still get those horizontal lines/edges.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by THRobinson View Post
    Just in the starts of backing up a TV series I have from DVD to MP4 for my media server and noticed that the storage resolution is 720x480, display resolution is 853x480, and the pixel aspect ratio is 1.18 (853/720).

    My question is... is it better to force it to 853x480 when ripping so it's a 1/1 ratio? or just leave it as-is? or makes 0 difference?
    All sofware players support non-square pixels in MP4/MKV files. Not all hardware players do. Some will simply display the video as though it contains square pixels, so you'd probably be better off resizing and encoding that way (anamorphic "none"). It depends on your player.
    I resize to square pixels myself as then I know the encoded version will always display correctly.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    I'm doing some tests now... think test #6... and did force it to 1/1 and didn't see any difference... if it makes it more compatible then I'll force it.

    Right now I'm testing between 853x480 and 720x406... I don't want to lose information but, seems regardless, either its going to stretch or squish anyways.

    Getting better results with each test, but, still not happy with it... tried some downloaded files, opening with MediaInfo so I can see the settings but, the encoding settings string is a bit tricky to decipher.
    Quote Quote  
  9. "Displayed resolution" is mostly a nonsense term. Only when played in a window on your computer might you see the video at that resolution. If you watch full screen, or on a TV, the video will be scaled up to something near the native resolution of your monitor or the resolution at which the player sends the video to the TV (and likely scaled again by the TV). What matters is the displayed aspect ratio.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    Likewise, Stored Aspect Ratio. What's stored are the 2 resolutions - Horizontal & Vertical. All calculations that matter WRT scaling, etc are based on those individual resolutions. The SAR is just people liking shorthand. And that is often what gets people in trouble here, they focus on the shorthand and not the underlying 2 separate resolutions.

    Scott
    "When will the rhetorical questions end?!" - George Carlin
    Quote Quote  
  11. But stored resolution at least gives you some idea how much detail might be in the picture. You can be pretty sure a 1920x1080 video has more detail than a 320x180 video.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    So... is it safe to say, forcing to 854x480, anamorphic set to none... is fine?

    Still doing some tests... been looking at this site for some good details, also a link in there for the advanced tab. Learning curve for sure, since again, until now all I used VidCoder for was taking a big video and making it smaller, but, would be nice to be able to rip some stuff to the media server and have the same quality level as what I see online.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    But stored resolution at least gives you some idea how much detail might be in the picture. You can be pretty sure a 1920x1080 video has more detail than a 320x180 video.
    No, I didn't say "stored resolution". That is what IS important, for the reasons you just specified, and others. I said, "Stored AR".

    @THRobinson, to answer your most recent, and actually your ORIGINAL question, you can go either way, but that mainly depends on whether your hardware can handle non-square PARs. If it can, anamorphic/non-square encoding can MAXIMIZE whatever available resolution you choose, plus if your source were already non-square, you could just leave it as-is and save on re-encoding and on the math rounding from resizing. But there are many players that do NOT support non-square PARs, so for those, you would HAVE to resize & re-encode. And your suggested size & ratio would be the preferred choice.

    Scott
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 4th May 2014 at 12:30.
    "When will the rhetorical questions end?!" - George Carlin
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Cool... I use XBMC Media Server on my computer, which handles about everything... but... I'd hate to do all the work, then try playing the file on a portable device or something and not have it work properly.

    I queue everything up during the day and let it run during the night when the PC isn't in use so, stuff like extra time or CPU hogging isn't much of a factor for me.

    Thanks for the info.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by THRobinson View Post
    So... is it safe to say, forcing to 854x480, anamorphic set to none... is fine?
    Yes. I always encode DVDs that way. I think Vidcoder still lets you select the "modulus" when resizing to square pixels (anamorphic none). If so, mod2 will give you the most accurate resizing.
    I still think the "display resolution", as shown by Vidcoder, has a purpose. If you opened that particular DVD (720x480) with a media player and displayed it on a computer monitor, the displayed video would occupy 854x480 worth of the monitor's square pixels. Sure, when you run it full screen it's upscaled further in order to occupy the whole screen, but it's "native display resolution", for want of a better description, would be 854x480.

    Right now I'm testing between 853x480 and 720x406... I don't want to lose information but, seems regardless, either its going to stretch or squish anyways.
    That doesn't make sense. If the movie was encoded with black bars top and bottom and Vidcoder removes them (automatic cropping enabled), which is generally a good idea, then 720x406 would make sense. 74 pixels worth of height has been removed, so you're left with 720x406. If you resize that to square pixels and encode, then it'd be 854x406, not 854x480. Maybe that was a typo? Either way, 720x406 (anamorphic) and 854x406 (anamorphic none) should display the same way. There should be no stretching or squishing of the display aspect ratio.

    I don't use Vidcoder, but my method is to crop the black bars and crud away, then the remaining height is what I use for encoding. There's no point increasing it as it doesn't give you any more picture detail. You might be left with 720x384 after cropping (for example) so I'd resize with a height of 384. Vidcoder probably does it automatically. Then I stretch the width out to the correct apsect ratio. ie 854x384. If you've cropped a few pixels of black from each side it might end up being 848x384 etc. Vidcoder should resize the width correctly for you when choosing "anamorphic none" and "keep display aspect ratio" is checked. As I said, the resizing will be the most accurate when using mod2.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Originally Posted by THRobinson View Post
    Right now I'm testing between 853x480 and 720x406... I don't want to lose information but, seems regardless, either its going to stretch or squish anyways.
    That doesn't make sense.
    Sure it does. Or it might. Both resolutions have roughly the same aspect ratio of 1.77:1 and both are square pixel. Of course you have to change the unacceptable 853x480 to 852x480 or 854x480. He's not doing any cropping, I don't think. And the 854x406 you think he means is of an aspect ratio not in common use.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Ya, Vidcoder rounded up, 854x480... which is a 16:9 ratio... which is what I'm after. The series is 16:9, just stored as 3:2.

    That's what I meant when I said stretched or squished... no cropping but forcing 3:2 to display as 16:9.

    In any case, I'm not worried about it so much... I forced it to 1/1 pixel ratio @ 854x480 (though I did crop 2px off the right/bottom because had a black line for some reason).

    Test pass running again and wow... gone from a 30min rip for 1 episode, to over an hour... I think I hit that point where it's not going to get any better unless I use a larger file size, which isn't going to happen. Like I said, I've seen smaller files with better quality... but I think in most cases the source was better too.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Re 854x480: next you'll run into devices that can't handle mod 2 frame sizes. It would be safer to use 852 (mod 4) or 856 (mod 8).
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    What are the mod numbers?

    I just clicked anamorphic 'none' and set a width/height and turned off keep aspect ratio.

    Is it better to click 'custom'... set the width to 852 (mod4) and set the pixel aspect ratio to 1/1?

    With the autocrop on, it deletes those 2px along the right side and the bottom, that makes it 852x476 for both storage and display... which on screen I'll likely never notice.

    I've looked at a lot of online guides but none are very detailed... or too detailed but misses what you want. For example... decomb... read what it does, trying to use it instead of deinterlace because read it loses less detail... but no idea what the setting "bob" is, or when I click custom, what numbers to put in. Just been using either default or fast.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Mod N means an integer multiple of N where N is also an integer.

    Code:
    848 / 16 =  53   --> so 848 is mod 16
    854 /  2 = 427   --> mod 2
    854 /  4 = 213.5 --> not mod 4
    852 /  4 = 213   --> mod 4
    852 /  8 = 106.5 --> not mod 8
    856 /  8 = 107   --> mod 8
    It's less of a problem that it used to be but some players don't like mod 2 frame sizes. Stick with mod 4. Mod 8 and 16 are even better.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by manono View Post
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Originally Posted by THRobinson View Post
    Right now I'm testing between 853x480 and 720x406... I don't want to lose information but, seems regardless, either its going to stretch or squish anyways.
    That doesn't make sense.
    Sure it does. Or it might. Both resolutions have roughly the same aspect ratio of 1.77:1 and both are square pixel. Of course you have to change the unacceptable 853x480 to 852x480 or 854x480. He's not doing any cropping, I don't think. And the 854x406 you think he means is of an aspect ratio not in common use.
    Of course you're correct. For some reason I assumed he was comparing 853x480 square pixels to 720x406 anamorphic. Obviously that's not the case. Dumb, dumb of the thread award for me.....
    Quote Quote  
  22. Originally Posted by THRobinson View Post
    What are the mod numbers?
    Mod16 means width and height are divisible by 16, mod8 means they're both divisible by 8 etc...... the lower the mod number, the more accurate the automatic resizing can be.
    There's a small chance some devices will get upset if the width is mod2, but I've not had any playback problems resizing to mod2 dimensions myself. You could keep the modulus at 2 but make sure the resize width is mod4 yourself. Vidcoder will still be able to automatically adjust the height to a mod2 size if need be. A mod2 height shouldn't cause playback problems.

    Originally Posted by THRobinson View Post
    I just clicked anamorphic 'none' and set a width/height and turned off keep aspect ratio.
    You should check "keep aspect ratio". If you do, when you change the width (or height) Vidcoder will automatically adjust the height (or width) to match. You're still resizing to square pixels.
    If memory serves me correctly, if you manually adjust the cropping, the resizing isn't corrected until you uncheck and then recheck "keep aspect ratio".... unless that's been fixed. I haven't used Vidcoder in a while.

    Originally Posted by THRobinson View Post
    Is it better to click 'custom'... set the width to 852 (mod4) and set the pixel aspect ratio to 1/1?
    No.

    Originally Posted by THRobinson View Post
    I've looked at a lot of online guides but none are very detailed... or too detailed but misses what you want. For example... decomb... read what it does, trying to use it instead of deinterlace because read it loses less detail... but no idea what the setting "bob" is, or when I click custom, what numbers to put in. Just been using either default or fast.
    De-interlacing is a pretty big topic in itself, especially for NTSC where DVDs can be a mixture if interlaced, hard telecine, or film.
    If a video is purely interlaced, the normal de-interlacing will de-interlace it from 59.94fps interlaced to 29.97fps progressive. Bob de-interlacing will de-interlace it to 59.94fps progressive. The latter will have much smoother motion but the video needs to be purely interlaced.
    If it's telecined, or if in doubt, leave the decomb filter on auto. If you use the wrong type of filtering it can make a bit of a mess. The decomb filter should sort it out for you. It mightn't necessarily de-interlace the best possible way, but it should give you a decent quality output.
    Last edited by hello_hello; 5th May 2014 at 21:53.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    How do you guys know all this stuff...

    ... actually seriously, how do you guys know that stuff? Do you guys have a background in video editing or something? or simply do a LOT of converting?
    Quote Quote  
  24. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2002
    Location: canada
    Search Comp PM
    We know this stuff cause we read and read and read and then do what we read about.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    I try but, even great references seem to miss the smaller details... again, like the 'bob' setting... usually they say what the item does, what the default is and what they prefer to use... but any other options in the drop downs get passed on.

    Well, played a lot with the advanced settings, used THIS guide and the link inside for advanced settings and well, gotta saw, 20 passes later, I don't really see a difference between one and the other.

    I think that the source itself isn't overly great to begin with, watching it on the 40" TV it's not that clear anyways.

    If I posted what MediaInfo says about one of the VOBs, any chance you guys can give me some advice? I'd list my settings but I have now over 20 presets made with various tweaks and well, not seeing much difference. Though hard to say if the MediaInfo is displaying the video, or the menu/intro which is 4:3, the episodes are 16:9.

    Audio is AC3 passthrough... no worries/concerns for audio and omitting commentary tracks etc. to save space.
    Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  26. As far as x264 settings go, the Vidcoder High Profile preset uses the defaults. Most people use CRF (quality based) encoding. Pick a CRF value which gives you the quality you're happy with and you can just use it all the time. I use CRF18 for video up to and including 720p (most of the time). For 1080p I use CRF20 to help keep the file size down a bit. It's all personal preference. Here's a screenshot of MeGUI's tooltip (so I don't have to type it).

    Name:  crf.gif
Views: 200
Size:  14.9 KB

    Once you've settled on a CRF value, pick an appropriate tuning (none, film, grain etc) and use the slowest speed preset you can stand. I generally use either medium or slow myself. There's not really anything else to worry about.
    Vidcoder doesn't make it easy to determine the type of video you're encoding. You're supposed to leave the Decomb filter on auto, set the frame rate to variable and "same as source" and forget about it. The idea behind Vidcoder's variable frame rate mode is to use different frame rates throughout the video if need be (if it's not 100% interlaced or 100% film etc).

    There's instructions at the bottom of this page on how to use VirtualDub to determine if a video is interlaced or telecined. Keep in mind it can be a combination of both sometimes (or progressive).
    Or if you use a program like MeGUI you can open a video and MeGUI will analyse it for you and decide on the de-interlacing. It doesn't always get it right but it gives you a preview so you can step through the video once frame at a time and check for yourself. MeGUI will only encode with a constant frame rate (unlike Vidcoder) so it's important to get any de-interlacing correct. The other advantage of using a program like MeGUI (or an Avisynth based program with a preview) is you can apply/change deinterlacing or inverse telecine etc and preview the results before you even start encoding.

    You can't really determine anything by looking at the text file. Maybe if you attach a small sample?

    Fortunately I live in PAL-land so there's generally no telecine to worry about. By far the majority of the time video is either 25fps interlaced or 25fps progressive, so all you need to work out is whether you need to de-interlace, or not.
    Last edited by hello_hello; 7th May 2014 at 04:22.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Well, I tried setting up very HQ settings and using defaults under High profile... also tried the CRF between 20-22, and tried setting a target size at 225mb and 300mb... had encode times range from 40min to about 1.5h... could not see any notable differences at all.

    But, like I said, the DVD itself seemed a bit lacking in overall quality. Which happens... especially for a Canadian release of a TV series many people never knew about. Reminds me of The Army of Darkness I had on DVD, the regular version was fine, they had a special 'bootleg' edition and the quality was absolutely terrible... like a 360p video off YouTube or something.

    I think because of the DVD quality and the very apparent interlacing, High Profile set to very slow speed and a target of 225MB, is about as good a quality as it's gonna get. Hopefully season 2-6 have fewer issues or at least work with the same preset.
    Quote Quote  
  28. x264's weak spot is dark grainy areas. Watch for posterization artifacts there.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member THRobinson's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Made some good progress today with my ripping... I also switched to Handbrake and giving it a try. Not bad, but missing a few features VidCoder has like the still image preview for cropping easier, choosing a file size, and (what I'm having issue with) forcing the image to 1/1 pixel ratio.

    In VidCoder, I can go under sizing, type in 856x480, anamorphic custom, modulus 8, and click pixel ratio 1/1. End results, a file that's 856x480.

    Handbrake, I can't make the width more than 720, reverts back to 720 when I click on something else. I set the display width, par width and par height, but the file comes out 720x480.

    How do I force it to 1/1 in Handbrake?
    Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Handbrake.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	145.6 KB
ID:	25033  

    Attached Images  
    Quote Quote  
  30. Select Anamorphic: None. I don't think Handbrake will let you increase the frame size, only decrease.
    Quote Quote