Is 3840x1634 An Illegal H264 Resolution?

[Alwyn]

Specifically, the 1634 as opposed to 1632.

Asking for a friend.

[poisondeathray]

In general, 3840x1634 a valid resolution (assuming you're not limited by profile or levels, but then 1632 should be limited too...)

1632 might be "preferred" over 1634, because the former is mod16 (evenly divisible by 16 resulting in integer value) . Mod16 technically compresses better than nod mod16

[Selur]

No.

[rrats]

No. It's completely valid, as with every other pixel count with the power of 2

[Selur]

... even uneven dimesions are allowed if the used color space supports it.

[jagabo]

Unless you're encoding interlaced.

[Selur]

Right, at least for PAFF encoding, not sure whether MBAFF really requires it. (MBAFF probably not, but you since you need to feed the encoder interlaced content you would be back to mod 2 even with 4:4:4 sampling)

[johns0]

Why would there be any interlacing with uhd videos?Since file sizes are gonna be a lot bigger than before no sense trying to save space.

[Alwyn]

Thanks everyone.

[Selur]

@johns0: because not everything makes sense. Also interlacing is often used to:
a. fit into a specific bandwith during transfer
b. to keep motion information.
Also folks rarely always stick to what makes sense. *gig*

[lordsmurf]

@johns0: because not everything makes sense.

LOL! (I needed a good morning chuckle.) Yep.

In video, I sometimes wonder if anything makes sense. It just is. Too much stuff exists on whims and whimsy, not due to good planning or quality.