Advantage of Standard Resolutions???

[aamir12345678]

The Resolutions I see as a standard for DVD, SVCD, etc all use 480 as the vertical resolution: 720x480 480x480, etc.
480x480 is 2/3 of 720x480
352x480 (CVD standard) is aprox. half of 720x480
I've also seen 544x480 as a 3/4 resolution.

Why do all of these resolutions make sure to keep 480 as the vertical resolution regardless of what happens to the horizontal resolution?

What is the advantage of using these standards?

Will I see quality loss in using a non-standard resolution?

Why is it more important to have the complete vertical resolution (480)?

[SatStorm]

NTSC has 480 vertical lines
PAL has 576 vertical lines

You can't use more or less vertical lines when you convert to optical media.

This is not an advance forum question, it is a newbie one, so better move it to the newbies forum.

[aamir12345678]

NTSC has 480 vertical lines
PAL has 576 vertical lines

You can't use more or less vertical lines when you convert to optical media.

This is not an advance forum question, it is a newbie one, so better move it to the newbies forum.

SatStorm, maybe i didnt make myself clear:

I have used out of standard resolutions for my XSVCD's. You have the liberty to use any resolution you want. You could use 421x325. It doesnt matter how stupid the resolution is, it'll probably work. But the right resolution will yield best quality. I am encoding anime. It is a 23 fps 20 min 200 MB Divx *.avi with VBR Mp3. To play on a 4:3 NTSC television and my CyberHome 402 DVD Player, what is the best resolution to use if I plan to give it a 5000 KBits/s bitrate? I also give it 384Kbits/s for the audio. I encode all my media with TMPGEnc Plus 2.521. I want to make an XSVCD with a minimum 2500 KBits/s avg: 5000 & max: 7500.

I KNOW NTSC HAS 480 LINES. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
My point is that with all of the standard resolutions, it seems as if there is a conscious effort to keep the vertical resolution 480, regardless of what the horizontal resolution becomes. WHY IS IT MORE IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE VERTICAL RESOLUTION 480? YOU CAN MAKE IT LESS IF YOU WANT? INSTEAD OF 544x480, YOU CAN HAVE 624x416. IT WORKS ALSO. WHICH ONE IS BETTER? WHY???? 720x480 makes sense, but when you use resolutions like 544x480 480x480 352x480, it seems that you allow more stretching of the horizontal resolution, while maintaining the vertical resolution.
IS THIS DONE FOR COMPATABILITY OR QUALITY??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????
My other question was that these resolutions - apart from all having 480 as their vertical resolution - also are almost exact fractions of the full 720x480 resolution. Would it hurt quality to use a resolution that is not a fraction like 3/4 2/3 1/2 of 720x480? Something like 640x480.

Would appreciate any replies with proper understanding and explanation.

[Gazorgan]

You forgot the most overlooked and the most useful resoltuion.

352x240 progressive. Great resoltuion for converting low-res AVI's (that's anything in the 1 CDR/movie range).

To answer your rude outburst: You always convert 'down' to the lower resolution. Going higher res gains you nothing, because you can't do it (you can't create video where there is no video). A 320x240 AVI convert to 720x480 will still look like a 320x240 video, just more distortion from the encoding and resizing.

Now you have to take that with a grain of salt. a 640x480 AVI is the same as a 720x480 MPEG. Why? TV pixels aren't square, they are 8:9, so you take 720*(8/9)x480 and you get 640(1/1)x480.

CVD resolution is probably the best choice for downloaded files. You can't really tell much difference between that and full D1 on 27" TV's.

As to the odd resolutions, download a better quality of AVI. Garbage in = Garbage out, and that's what you have to deal with.

[aamir12345678]

I didnt mean to offend anyone. Sorry.

My source is actually very high quality. It's 576x432. Its crisp clear & beautiful. If my DVD Player could play Divx, I wouldn't encode anything, but I want to get it in the best quality XSVCD.

Thanks for the advice on encoding down on the resolution; however, I still don't understand whether or not the vertical resolution is more important? If so, why? The resolution you suggested (352x240) is 1/4 of the full res. Why is it better to have an exact fraction of the full res? That's what I meant by odd resolutions.

[FOO]

The output of your player MUST be a fixed number of lines (525) or it won't
play on the TV . If your player handles strange V resolutions , it is
internally resizing the vertical. Resizing is generally a lossy
process. If the player is guaranteed to generate a certain number of lines
it makes much better sense to give it the right number of lines to start with.

525 is 480 + overscan and V retrace.

[aamir12345678]

Is the Vertical Resolution more important than the horizontal resolution?
Why?

[SatStorm]

For NTSC. For PAL/SECAM is ~625 lines (576 + overscan and V retrace)

You probably have a DVD standalone that thinks more like a PC than a standalone. Those Kiss like standalones, can play anything.

But when you do "true" DVDs / VCDs / SVCDs / CVDs, you have to follow some rules. If you don't, then the results won't be playable on all the players.

Also try to be more polite next time.

[aamir12345678]

Is the Vertical Resolution more important than the horizontal resolution?
Why?

[babyboo]

I guess you will only accept a Yes/No response because it has been explained several times.

"Yes"

"WHY"?...for compatability between the majority of standalones (your KISS not included)

[aamir12345678]

Thanks to everyone. Seems I've really pissed people off. Sorry for that.
As you people have stated, I have a "Kiss" player. It doesn't seem to care what resolution I give it. My question was actually pertaining to quality. If I have a 4x4 picture, would I be better off encoding it 8x2 or 2x8 or 4x4 since compatability is not an issue for me? Does it have an effect on the quality of the result whether I do 8x2 or 2x8 or 4x4, or is it all the same and only affects compatability issues. This was all I was asking. Sorry for the annoyance. I didn't know people would get so angry with me.

[junkmalle]

aamir,

Why is it more important to have the complete vertical resolution (480)?

Each frame of interlaced video consists of two "fields", ie two pictures, taken at different times. The first field consists of all the odd scan lines. 1/60th of a second later the second field fills in the even scan lines. But that second field, when coming from a live video camera, is an image that was taken 1/60 of a second later. Anything that moved will be in a different location in the second field.

This doesn't matter when played back on TV because, by the time the second field is drawn, the first field has faded away. That is, you don't see both fields at the same time.

If you reduce the vertical resolution from 480 to something else, you have have to throw out, average, and/or interplate the two fields. You end up losing temporal imformation, as each frame's scane lines becomes a combination of the two fields. Then, when the reduced frame size is played back on a TV, it has to somehow be stretched into 480 lines. The problem of temporal information being lost in reduction is exacerbated by the expansion. Best to just leave the two fields seperate and avoid the issue altogether.

This isn't a problem for horizontal resolution because all the pixels across the screen on each scan line were taken at the same time. There is no temporal loss when reducing and enlarging.

It's possible to restore the original frame when ripping a DVD. Using "3:2 pulldown" you can recreate the original 24 frames-per-second film images. That can then be ruduced both vertically and horizontally without temporal distortion.

[aamir12345678]

Thanks a lot junkmalle.

I get it now, thanks to you.

Everyone else, sorry again for the annoyance. I guess I wasn't making my self clear enough.

Thanks also for being polite junkmalle.

[aamir12345678]

This makes sense for Interlaced video, but what about non-interlaced progressive anime.

[Gazorgan]

For 576x432, and very high quality I'd go up to full D1. It's almost full D1 equivalent now.

As to progressive verssus interlaced, you don't have an option. Anything higher than 288 lines has to be interlaced since that's all your TV can do. What he says, I thought it was 480/576???? It is, 480/576 interlaced. that's a pair of 240/288 fields. So 352x240 progressive can look just like 352x480 interlaced, depending on the source!!!!!! If source is film or de-interloaced AVI, then it looks exactly the same. All the interlaced version has is 2x the frames, but no new information. That's not true with 3:2 pulldown, and that's the chink in the plan. Progressive needs to be 29.97/25, no pulldown possible.

Scary thought, eh? If you've ever seen a well done VCD, you will understand why.

[junkmalle]

aamir,

what about non-interlaced progressive anime

If your source is video tape or a DVD then it _IS_ interlaced, even if the original anime film was not. Here's why:

Let's say your anime was originally created at 24 frames per second (I use this because that's the standard frame rate for movies) on film. But to display that on an NTSC television you must show 60 fields per second. To do this you alternately show each film frame for two and three fields. The final result is an average of 24 film frames per second over the 60 field per second video.

In the following diagram each digit represents one field of video, the number itself is the frame number from the original film:

1112233344

Now convert the fields to frames. Each pair of digits is a video frame, each digit is the original film frame number. Remember that each video field is only half the original picture:

11 12 23 33 44

As you can see, some (30 fps) video frames consist of single film frames, but some consist of half one film frame and half another. In the cases where both video frames come from the same film frame you can just put them together to restore the original film frame. But in the other cases you have to take a field from one video frame and a field from the next video frame to reconstruct the original film frame.

Only if your software is smart enough to restore the original 24 fps film frames from the interlaced video fields will you be able to change the vertical resolution without messing up the image quality.

[aamir12345678]

Thanks again to all, especially junkmalle & Gazorgan.

[lordsmurf]

Math answer: 480 is a constant. Only the horizontally-measured (clarity-controlling) resolution is a variable.

[FOO]

Arrogant thickheaded morons are their own reward.

[aamir12345678]

Did my "bold" statements hurt you guys this much? I'm so sorry. Trust me, after this, I don't plan on posting any time in the near future. I was not being arrogant. You just didnt completely get what I was asking and kept on giving the wrong answers while implying that I'm a moron. NO HARD FEELINGS????