Handbrake - Anamorphism (Pulling my hair out)

[exekutive]

Hi.
I am using Handbrake to transcode a source video that is 512 x 288 (storage size, square pixels). But the picture looks distorted.

I want to leave the storage resolution the same, but anamorphicly stretch the pixels to make the video display size taller: 512 x 384

What are the settings I need to enter into Handbrake dimensions to make it do this. I am going mad trying to figure it out.

Thanks.

[ProWo]

You have to set a DAR of 4:3 (or 1, 333).

[davexnet]

I don't think it's possible, you'll have to resize it

[ProWo]

I don't think it's possible, you'll have to resize it

Look here:

[DB83]

^^ That is not what the OP was asking for. If the player respects the 4:3 flag it will be displayed as 384*288


To the OP. The is no 'Anamorphic' adjustment possible on the vertical. It is always adjusts the horizontal. So the 384*288 is an option (subject to the comment about the AR flag). But if you really want 512 * 384 you have to manually set these as square pixels and resize within handbrake.

[ProWo]

^^ That is not what the OP was asking for. If the player respects the 4:3 flag it will be displayed as 384*288

I disagree, i think with the DAR 4:3 flag are displayed all 512 pixels width, but with a PAR (pixel aspect ratio) not square.

[DB83]

Ok. It worked for you.


But I always took it that non-square adjusted the horizontal. 720*576 (4:3) displays as 768*576. 720*576(16:9) displays as 1024*576. For NTSC 720*480(4:3) displays as 640*480. etc.

[rrats]

always adjusts the horizontal.

i think it is possible on newest handbrake

[DB83]

That might explain it then.


My philosophy is if it works then why update it. My version is as old as The Ark.

[jagabo]

But I always took it that non-square adjusted the horizontal. 720*576 (4:3) displays as 768*576.

No it doesn't. It displays at whatever 4:3 frame frame size the software or device is putting out. So if you're playing full screen on a 1920x1080 monitor the picture will be scaled directly from 720x576 to 1440x1080. Same for the 16:9 videos.

Even when playing in a window at "1x", whether the width or height is adjusted depends on the player. Most will keep the height and adjust the width. Some will do the opposite.

[davexnet]

But I always took it that non-square adjusted the horizontal. 720*576 (4:3) displays as 768*576.

No it doesn't. It displays at whatever 4:3 frame frame size the software or device is putting out. So if you're playing full screen on a 1920x1080 monitor the picture will be scaled directly from 720x576 to 1440x1080. Same for the 16:9 videos.

Even when playing in a window at "1x", whether the width or height is adjusted depends on the player. Most will keep the height and adjust the width. Some will do the opposite.

mpc-hc, mpc-be & VLC appear to adjust the width when played in a window @ 1x.
I don't think this is anythoing the OP can rely to get him what he wants, he'll still have to actually resize in the end
for a prediactable result

[DB83]

Well my not so current version of vlc did produce 512*384. And that is what I was not expecting to find.

[davexnet]

Well my not so current version of vlc did produce 512*384. And that is what I was not expecting to find.

Did you try mpc-hc? Is there a setting in VLC affecting this?

[DB83]

Well my not so current version of vlc did produce 512*384. And that is what I was not expecting to find.

Did you try mpc-hc? Is there a setting in VLC affecting this?

No setting I am aware of. And mpc-hc does indeed leave the vertical as-is.

[rrats]

My philosophy is if it works then why update it.

It seems like that is also a philosophy of Handbrake devs. It took them like 6 months to issue an update, and they've added upscaling, colour space conversation and bunch of useful filters

[exekutive]

You have to set a DAR of 4:3 (or 1, 333).

What about the rest of the settings?
My Handbrake is up to date.

[ProWo]

What about the rest of the settings?
My Handbrake is up to date.

I don't use Handbrake, so I can't help you with that.
If you want to recode, then choose 512x384, then you have the desired DAR 4:3, but with quality loss (because of recoding).
If you just don't like the DAR of the original video, then remux only with the desired DAR, without quality loss.
This should also be possible with Handbrake.
Otherwise you can use my clever FFmpeg GUI.

[DB83]

I always thought that Handbrake encodes regardless (but that might have changed in recent versions if there is a setting for that0


The above utility, as confirmed, does change the DAR flag to 4:3. That can also be achieved with avidemux. Neither will re-encode the video.


But, as has been discussed, the actual display depends on the player. And, as also discussed above, the same player, for some unexplained reason, can provide two different displays for the same source.


So, as has already been mentioned more than once, if you really need to be certain you have a source of 512*384 you resize and re-encode. But if you are going to view full-screen they will appear the same 4*3. There will be difference in quality between 384*288 and 512*384 but only you can determine if it is noticeable.

[exekutive]

I would love to get this figured out with Handbrake.
If there's absolutely no way, then I'm open to using ffmpeg. I'd love to try your GUI, but Mac user here. I'm OK with CLI.
I want to avoid resizing, especially downsample, so I'll try changing DAR with option -aspect 4:3

[jagabo]

AviDemux is available in a Mac version.

[DB83]

Handbrake really is not the tool for this.


As an experiment I did upgrade to the most recent version - I am on Win7 and did get various warnings but it appeared to run. Now on older versions there was a check-box 'Keep Aspect Ratio' and when you unchecked it you could, if memory serves, enter any numbers and the program would encode or, more accurately, re-encode your video.


Now that check-box has gone and there is a myriad of boxes. Maybe more out of luck than judgement I did manage once to get 4:3 and '512'*384. However the program would only give me 32 pixels on the width with the net result a totally unwatchable picture. Then I essentially gave up. The older versions may be more accommodating.

[exekutive]

Using ffmpeg to modify the aspect ratio seems to have worked

ffmpeg -find_stream_info -i test512x288.mp4 -c:v copy -c:a copy -map 0 -aspect 4:3 somevideo.mp4

[exekutive]

avidemux also did the trick

ffprobe /Users/joe/stage/avidemux.mp4 
...
Input #0, mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2, from '/Users/joe/stage/avidemux.mp4':
  Metadata:
    major_brand     : isom
    minor_version   : 512
    compatible_brands: isomiso2avc1mp41
    encoder         : Lavf58.29.100
  Duration: 00:00:15.00, start: 0.080000, bitrate: 14 kb/s
  Stream #0:0(und): Video: h264 (High) (avc1 / 0x31637661), yuv420p, 512x288 [SAR 1:1 DAR 16:9], 11 kb/s, SAR 3:4 DAR 4:3, 25 fps, 25 tbr, 25k tbn, 50 tbc (default)
    Metadata:
      handler_name    : VideoHandler
      vendor_id       : [0][0][0][0]

However, aspect ratio is not arbitrary. You have to select from a list of fixed options.

[DB83]

What exactly did you expect to find ? Display Aspect Ratio is a quoted relationship between width and height. Not the actual pixels.

[exekutive]

what exactly is your problem, DB83?

I'm well familiar with aspect ratios. I'm posting a confirmed solution to my original question, so that others who may find this will know what actually worked for me. (rather than just waffling and theories)

[DB83]

I( just asked what you expected to find. 'Arbitary' ??


And my suggestion of using avidemux was NOT waffling. It was already tested before I posted. And I even 'wasted' many minutes trying to do this in your preferred tool - Handbrake - although, as I stated, and still state, that always re-encodes. Avidemux in this example will not.

[exekutive]

'Arbitary' ??

I thought I explained it. Avidemux forces you to select from a list of fixed aspect ratios.
Ffmpeg allows you to specify any arbitrary value for aspect ratio. (It's in the dictionary).

I( just asked what you expected to find

My expectations were clearly stated in my original post.
I also specified that I was already transcoding.

I'm sorry you wasted your time, but that was out of my control