Best way to resize wide format for XVCD (352x480)

[cdechery]

I have already successfully created XVCDs (352x480) with Kwag's templates.

But now I got a movie that is actually 16:9 (512x288) and I guess for it to fit in the VCD I'd have to resize it to 352x198 and letterbox (I don't have a wide tv) it right?

I did it, and it worked fine. There's only one problem... placing this 352x198 in a 352x480 "screen" makes it too (hum... how do I say this?) thin (I know, my english sucks, what is the right word here?). I mean, the black bars are too thick. I don`t like that.

I can't make a 352x288 NTSC VCD right? That would solve, cuz in 288 the movie is still in "wide" format but not as "thin".

Another thing... right now I'm doing all the work in VirtualDub. I resize it there and set the letterbox, so I get that vertically stretched movie, which will play fine when fullscreened to the TV.

Should I then use a different resolution on the movie and crop the sides so I would have like a "zoom" effect?

Any ideas? Thanks...

[Truman]

First please search the forum for "Resize" and "FitCD".

[cdechery]

I have FitCD installed here... but I don't see how can I use it, since it doesn't have in the "destination" list the XVCD 352x480 format.

The only XVCD it has is 704x480.

[Mercury]

Is the movie proportional on a computer screen (does it look right?) If so, I think 352 x 360 will give you what you need. That is, if I understood you correctly. But since this would mean upscaling the vertical resolution from 288 to 360, the results might not be that good.

I would recommend doing a 352 x 240 frame size (keeping closer to VCD specs), then you could use 352 x 180 for the movie.

This should keep a 16:9 ratio in both cases.

[Truman]

I have FitCD installed here... but I don't see how can I use it, since it doesn't have in the "destination" list the XVCD 352x480 format.

The only XVCD it has is 704x480.

1/2 DVD and PAL unchecked >>>352*480

[cdechery]

Yes... it looks great on the computer screen. BTW, whoever ripped this did a great job. The best I've seen so far.

But by using default VCD specs (352x240) the resolution is much lower right?

I gave this "360" a shot and it looked fine in VD, and I think it should look good too, even with the upscaling. Can u tell me how did u came up with this value?

Thanks

[cdechery]

Well... I think 352x360 (336x330 actually... I gotta deal with overscan) is the way to go.

The encoding has already started... it's a 2hs30m movie, so I'll only see the results tomorrow morning.

Thanks everyone.

[Mercury]

Well, it may look confusing to anyone who isn't much into math, but here goes....

352 x 480 is a 4:3 aspect ratio when displayed on a tv. The pixel aspect ratio isn't 1:1 on a TV so the pixels are not square (Pixels are almost always square on a computer screen, however.)

In general, you can calculate pixel aspect ratio using this formula:
(Display Aspect Ratio)/(Horizontal res/vertical res)

In this case:
(4/3)/(352/480)
=(1.333)/(0.7333)
=1.818

This means the pixels are roughly 1.818 times as wide as they are tall.

This means that when going from PC screen to TV screen, there would need to be less of them horizontally (divide the horizontal res by 1.818)

Your movie (originally 512 x 288) would become 281.6 x 288. Then just scale this up to 352 x 360 (to match the horizontal res of your frame)

Alternately, you could increase the veritcal resolution to make up for the pixels expanding horizontally (multiply vertical res by 1.818). Then your movie becomes 512 x 523.6, and scale it down to 352 x 360.

Fun, huh?

[cdechery]

Ok... got it.

I was doing my own calculations (I'm not so bad at math, I'm a computer sciences graduate, heheh) but I wasn't using the aspect ratio of the destination screen as part of the formula.

Which is better? Upscale to get a 4:3 format then downscale (to 360) when encoding or just do the upscale to 360 and letterbox it in a 480 res?

I encoded it yesterday using the upscaled-to-360 way, it seems ok, although I haven't burned and tested on the TV yet.

Thanks again,
Christian

[Mercury]

Which is better? Upscale to get a 4:3 format then downscale (to 360) when encoding or just do the upscale to 360 and letterbox it in a 480 res?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. (Probably not your fault, I'm slow sometimes.) English isn't my best subject, either.

I also don't use VirtualDub, so that doesn't help.

If by "letterbox" you mean add black bars, then that's what I always do.
If you want to get the "zoom" effect you mentioned in the first post, you just change 352 x 360 to something proportional (like 469 x 480, which will eliminate the black bars but crop the sides because your frame is limited to 352 x 480.)

[cdechery]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. (Probably not your fault, I'm slow sometimes.) English isn't my best subject, either.

I meant what would get the best result. Cuz I'm going to upscale from 288 dto 360 right? And u suggested upscaling it all to 512x523 and then downscale when encoding. But I guess an upscale from 288 to 523 would kinda stretch it too much right?

So I guess the simple upscaling to 360 is the best wayd to go.

[Mercury]

The final result of my calcs is 352 x 360, that's all that matters when you encode. Use whatever settings you need in VirtualDub to conver 512 x 288 to 352 x 360, and forget about all the other numbers, they're just in-between math steps.

At no point should you have actual video at 512 x 533 (or 281 x 288), it would just be useless upscaling and downscaling and a pointless loss of quality.

You should always go from original directly to final resolution.

[cdechery]

Ok ok.. I got all that.

But there's two problems left: overscan and the WIDE format. My TV has a HUGE overscan... like 25 pixels (height) or more. Let me explain to you what's going on over here so u can tell me...

in VirtualDub, using the resize filter:
I set the size of the source to: 352x360
set to letterbox that at 352x480

ok right? The subtitles remain in the bottom black bar, and that's how I want it. BUT, there the overscan thing... this is how I deal with it...

In TMPEGEnc, in the "Video Arrange Method" I set to "Center (custom size)" and set it to 328x442, that's 3 overscan blocks: 24 pixels in height and roughly 28 in width. Did I calculate correctly the overscan? I tought, since I'm using 1.818 as the aspect ratio of the video, I should use the same for the destination (TV)... so if I remove 24px in height I should remove 28px in width, right? 24 * 1.818 = 28 aprox.

I burned 30secs for testing and it seemed ok on TV, but I think it's not TOTAL wide 16:9 format. Cuz I've seen some DVD in anamorphic 16:9 and it looked "thinner" (less height). Did I exagerate in the overscan or is this normal for (X)VCD?

I guess I just have too many doubts, hehe, I wanna make this one perfect since the source IS perfect and the movie totally kicks ass.

Thanks and sorry for so many questions,
Christian

[Mercury]

I see now. I've never dealt with overscan personally. But I think I understand what you're trying to do.

Your frame size should always remain 352x480 since this includes any overscan. Your movie can be reduced from 352 x 360 to something slightly less, but still proportional (at this point you can forget the pixel aspect ratio, it's only used when going from computer to TV, and once it is used, the conversion is done and you never need it again). You can use 328 x 335 (actually 335.45, but you can round).

352/360=0.978
328/335=0.979

The last number should always be as close as possible.

Again, if you want this, you should go straight from your original 512 x 288 to 328 x 335, and keep framesize at 352 x 480.

Now you said you're using TMPGEnc. I'm assuming that you used virtualdub to get the movie to 352 x 360 in a 352 x 480 frame, and now you want to take this product and resize it in TMPGEnc. In this case, your original 352 x 480 frame can be reduced to 328 x 447 (this should still be kept in a new 352 x 480 frame)

352/480=0.733
328/447=0.734

Again, you want to keep it proportional, since it's already in a proper ratio for TV (you don't want the ratio to change.)

BTW, if it seems like I'm repeating myself, it's to help those not so gifted in maths.

Edit
I forgot to say, you shouldn't use TMPGEnc unless absolutely necessary, or that's all you're using (you ditched VirtualDub). You should follow the first part of this post, and do only a single encoding in VirtualDub. Remember, always go from the original directly to finished product in one encode, unless it's impossible.

Another edit
Wait, does VirtualDub encode to MPEG? If it doesn't then the TMPGEnc step is necessary, and follow the second part of my post.

[Mercury]

I burned 30secs for testing and it seemed ok on TV, but I think it's not TOTAL wide 16:9 format. Cuz I've seen some DVD in anamorphic 16:9 and it looked "thinner" (less height). Did I exagerate in the overscan or is this normal for (X)VCD?

I just don't shut up, do I?

The interesting thing about your movie is that it is a true 16:9 movie, or 1.77:1. Most movies are at least 1.85:1, so even if you had a 16:9 television, they would still have thin black bars top and bottom.

Your movie, however, would fit perfectly, which is why it seems taller (it is!)