Aspect Ratios and TV Screen...

[nick_gr]

I have several movies that I want to convert to DVD...

I use FitCD, CinemaCraft Encoder and DVD-Lab.

Most of my movies' real aspect is around 2,400... They are like 528x218 ... 596x246 ... 640x256...

I select Lanczos resize on FitCD and 16:9 on CinemaCraft...

When I convert these movies to DVD and play the on DVD-Player and a 4:3 TV, movie size is reall small! REALL BIG top-bottom border...

I understand that when I play a 16:9 movie on 4:3 TV, I will have black borders, but thats more than normal!!! Can you give me some FitCD settings that will make these borders smaller?

[guns1inger]

No. All the examples you have given are 2.40:1 or 2.35:1, which is very wide. The wider the image, the more black bars you get.

The only way you can fill more screen is to start cropping off the ends of the image.

Read this to see why what you want to do is a bad idea

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html

[Nilfennasion]

It also should be pointed out that under certain video encoding settings, the program may create a 720x576/480 (ie DVD-Video standard) window with the original video in its lower aspect ratio within that area, essentially creating the same video with a lot of black area around it.

I intend to film all future works of mine in such a manner that any cropping immediately causes the image to not make sense. Most directors in Hollywood do this mostly by accident, sometimes by a side-effect of their design.

[guns1inger]

The producers of ER has done this for some time, while other TV shows have still framed for 4:3 broadcast in a 16:9 frame.

[nick_gr]

I read the article and it's about "Widescreen vs. Full Frame ".

I dont wanna do my movies full frame. I just wanna make them look a little bit better in a 4:3 tv.

Is there a way to cut the edges and do that on FitCD??

[guns1inger]

Cutting parts off them doesn't make them look better, just bigger and softer and incomplete. It is not possible with FitCD, but it is witht he script FitCD gives you. You just have to change the crop and addborders statements. However I will leave you to do the math as I really don't agree with cutting off the sides just because you have a 4:3 TV. I have never owned a 16:9 TV, and watch very widescreen movies a lot (It's my favourite format), and I have never noticed the black bars.

Maybe, in the future, you should only download the pan and scan version of your home movies.

[Nilfennasion]

I have never owned a 16:9 TV, and watch very widescreen movies a lot (It's my favourite format), and I have never noticed the black bars.

I do, and I am reminded of a statement by a hi-fi salesman I heard years before I bought it: widescreen is not the future. Widescreen is past, present, and future.

To the OP, if you destroy your material now just to make it fit your little square box, you are going to feel like a total moron in the future when it blows out and the only available replacement is a widescreen of the plasma/LCD variety. Most specialist hi-fi stores don't even sell 4:3 televisions anymore, and it won't be long now until you can only find them in junk/antique stores.

[guns1inger]

One of the reasons I still have a 4:3 TV is that widescreen wasn't the past. For the first half of cinema's current history, the majority of films were shot 1.33:1 or 1.37:1.

When I can justify spending $3500 on a TV (about the minimum needed for a reasonable quality 16:9 TV), then maybe I'll upgrade. At the moment I cannot justify spending that sort of money on a television when they picture quality barely matches what I have at home.

[Nilfennasion]

1) In the 1950s, when widescreen was first introduced, they made about twenty films a year in Widescreen (I'm guesstimating based on current per-year productions). By the same time in the 1960s, all but one or two a year were in Widescreen. You can total the number of 4:3 films made since 1970 on your fingers.

2) I bought a 16:9, 106cm Plasma TV for 2500 dollars, and it is capable of displaying 1920x1080I. Even watching SD material in Component, the difference in how lifelike the image appears is enough to make brave men weep. I will never go back.

[nick_gr]

Here's what it looks like on a 16:9 TV.


Here's what it looks like on a 4:3 TV.



Isnt it a joke? On what kind of a tv is this movie supposed to be played on?

Even on 16:9 the picture is so thin. In 4:3 is ridiculous.
Could you watch a movie like this?

[guns1inger]

I do, all the time. The movie wasn't made for TV, it was made for the cinema, where width is not an issue. A large proportion of movies are made at the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. As I said earlier, it is my favourite format. I don't see the problem, only you do.

[jagabo]

I think your video isn't encoded correctly. The DAR appears to be about 3:1. Of course the correct 2.4:1 would still leave black borders on the 1.77:1 HDTV.

[nick_gr]

@guns1inger: U ever watched a DVD movie on your 4:3? It does not look that thin, does it?
Whats the typical video size in movie DVD's?


When I open original avi file, DAR is about 2.4 ....
When I open encoded mpg, DAR is 1.778 ...

Is there anythin wrong with this?

[GMaq]

About the only thing you can do is encode 16:9 movies "wrong" without the 16:9 flag, Then of course on a 4:3 TV they look squeezed and ridiculous, but on a 16:9 TV the image will fill the screen with no black bars, obviously 2.35:1 will have black bars no matter what, The image will look a little better than Zooming it to fill the screen, but still it's a jackass fix to a jackass problem. I must say I am also a little disappointed to find out DVD's are 4:3 letterboxed. With my HDTV input on "set by program" DVD's always display in 4:3, it's not until I apply some sort of Zoom that they display widescreen. Just the way it is.

[jagabo]

When I open original avi file, DAR is about 2.4 ....
When I open encoded mpg, DAR is 1.778 ...

Is there anythin wrong with this?

The DAR of the overall frame is correct, but the the source video has been resized incorrectly for an anamorphic DVD. It has been resized for a 4:3 DVD not a 16:9 DVD.

[nick_gr]

So what if I encode it 4:3 and not 16:9??? that's the solution???

[jagabo]

I must say I am also a little disappointed to find out DVD's are 4:3 letterboxed. With my HDTV input on "set by program" DVD's always display in 4:3, it's not until I apply some sort of Zoom that they display widescreen. Just the way it is.

Tell your DVD player you have a 16:9 TV.

[jagabo]

So what if I encode it 4:3 and not 16:9??? that's the solution???

No, the solution is to resize the source for a 16:9 anamorphic DVD, not a 4:3 DVD.

[nick_gr]

Wont anamorphic DVD make the movie squeezed on a 4:3 tv?

[manono]

Hi-

I think your video isn't encoded correctly.

Possibly, but it looks to me that he chose a scene taken through a windshield of some kind, and the video's edge extends above and below the window.

If you're correct, he probably got his script from FitCD, but without checking the "Anamorphic" box on the Destination side. That is, he may have gotten a script for 4:3 encoding, and then encoded for 16:9.

Which is pretty much what you said, eh jagabo?

[jagabo]

Wont anamorphic DVD make the movie squeezed on a 4:3 tv?

No. Your DVD player will size the image to the correct aspect ratio and add black borders top and bottom.

In FitCD, in the MPEG Resizing section, on the left hand select "1:1 Monitor", on the right hand side select "Anamorphic".

[nick_gr]

Is this correct?
If I encode with CinemaCraft will it play on 4:3 and 16:9 without squeezing?

Do I have to make any extra adjustments to CinemaCraft?

[manono]

Is this correct?

Yes, but that's not the original script is it, the one used to make the video from which you took the pic?

If I encode with CinemaCraft will it play on 4:3 and 16:9 without squeezing?

Yes

Do I have to make any extra adjustments to CinemaCraft?

Well, you have to check the 16:9 box. I don't know your settings, so I don't know what you've already adjusted. You're probably OK now, though.

By the way, whoever made the AVI you're using as a source didn't know what he was doing.

[nick_gr]

Yes, but that's not the original script is it, the one used to make the video from which you took the pic?

No. In the script I used for the movie above I had to check the PAL checkbox (on the right) or else the encoded video was playin n freezin playin n freezin..

So I have to check the PAL thing.

What if I check PAL + Anamorphic (on the right)? Will it look bigger in a 4:3 than the capture above?

[jagabo]

If you are encoding for a PAL system enable PAL in the right hand pane of FitCD.

[manono]

Yes, thanks jagabo. It didn't register for me that he's in Greece and needs PAL resolution.

[nick_gr]

so? what changes for me? just check PAL?

ONE MORE QUESTION.
FitCD it tells me my source movie is 23.976fps. In CinemaCraft, 25fps is checked (since I checked the PAL checkbox at destination in FitCD). So the movie created must be 25fps. Right?

The subtitles that are in sync with the 23.976fps avi have to be changed to work with the new 25fps movie?

[guns1inger]

Do we have to have this conversation again ?

If you encode 25 fps from 23.976, you will get audio sync problems, and subtitle sync problems. You had a whole other post on this -> https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=311054&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

[jagabo]

Although it does depend on the way the conversion is done and the type of subtitles.

If the frame rate conversion is done by duplicating frames to make 25 out of every 23.976 there will be no sync problems with audio. The video will have a little jerk once a second though. With this type of conversion subtiles in a time based format will have no problems. But if they are in a frame based format they will be out of sync.

If the frame rate is converted by speeding up the video, audio will be out of sync. Frame based subs will remain in sync. Time based subs will be out of sync. Since you're using FitCD this is what will happen.

[Nilfennasion]

That particular shot looks suspiciously look it was from inside a windscreen or other such location that partially obscures the camera's eye view. A capture from a scene that is on open ground would probably be more helpful.