View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
480x352 (HxV) seems to be a better down conversion since screens have a longer horizontal area (especially for widescreen encodings). Is 352x480 (instead of 480x352) required simply due to matching the CVCD standard? Is it used simply because it's closer to SVCD's 480x480 resolution? Or, is 352x480 used simply due to real world compression/fewer artifacting benefits?
I will try a 480x352 encoding soon. But, I like to know the reasons why others have not done this?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4
-
-
352 horizontal doesn't get all the scanlines, remember a TV "pixel" is about 2x wider than it is higher, so the conversion to PC resolution is not that simple. Basically 576 or 480 (Pal or NTSC respectively) vertical, and your target res horizontal are the settings to use. If your low on discspace or dropping frames sacrifice horizontal res b4 vertical res.
-
The vertical resolution is tied to the video system format, 525 or 625 lines (NTSC/PAL). In NTSC, there are 480 active horizontal lines stacked on top of each other, and 240 lines in one field. So, to sample anything other than 240 or 480 would be difficult, and would reduce your vertical resolution and create strange artifacts due to interlaced scanning. As for horizontal sampling, you can pick whatever number you want...
-
Thanks for the explanations.
In any case, I will try 480x352 and 352x480 and post my real world results comparing the two.
Quote
