misunderstand aspects, resolution info

[ForYouAndI.com]

This statement:

Although 720x480 may look long and flat, or 352x480 tall and skinny, both use pixel shapes that display properly at 4:3.

was made, HERE

I am not experienced with anolog imaging but I do know that when we capture anolog video on the computer, it is converted to digital data. While the statement above may be true, digital images will lose alot data when stretched between the two and saved again and can look very bad.

For example, if someone captures at 720x480, and then edits and saves at 352x480, then burns a dvd at 720x480; that could look pretty bad.

Am I right or am I wrong?

[canadateck]

.

For example, if someone captures at 720x480, and then edits and saves at 352x480, then burns a dvd at 720x480; that could look pretty bad.

Am I right or am I wrong?

If you mean Encode then ..Yes.

[jimmalenko]

For example, if someone captures at 720x480, and then edits and saves at 352x480, then burns a dvd at 720x480; that could look pretty bad.

True, but the point of saving to 352 x 480 is to author it that way, not convert it back to 720 x 480 before authoring. Your DVD Player will do the resize a lot better than you ever could with software.

If you want true 720 x 480 then you'd keep it that way throughout the whole process. You really should only use Half D1 when there is no real advantage in using anything higher (VHS caps) or when you want to squeeze a bit more onto a DVDR, because the bitrate you need to use doesn't produce an acceptable result using 720 x 480.

[vitualis]

As per Jim.

I think you've missed the point in capturing/saving directly to Half-D1. Half-D1 is an allowable framesize to use for video files on a DVD.

Regards.

[slacker]

jimmalenko,

You really should only use Half D1 when there is no real advantage in using anything higher (VHS caps)

That is the one of the MOST misleading "absolute truth" statements I find on this website. jimmalenko, you know as well as I that the war rages on as far as what resolution and bitrate should be used to capture VHS. To say that 1/2 d1 is fine is total BS. You don't even know why this new member (foryouandI) is even inquiring into this issue. 1/2 d1 may be an allowable format, but may not be the APPROPRIATE format. The whole range from 1/2 d1 2.5mbps through full d1 50mbps may be appropriate depending on the circumstances.

This poster needs to be educated. Half truths and lazy BS statements just thrown out there just don't cut it. ForyouandI, be careful who you believe out there. Be VERY careful! Wow!

Jimmalenko, you should be ashamed.

[jimmalenko]

Grain of salt, dude


This place is all about opinions based on experience. And by mentioning VHS I was simply listing A COMMON EXAMPLE of when the source may not REQUIRE Full D1. Another example would be that you've downloaded a 160 x120 MPEG that you want to put on DVD. No point using Full D1 there either.


If you need 50 mbps to adequately capture VHS, then I wouldn't be believing you !!!

[slacker]

Jimmalenko,

Your 2nd POST makes total sense! I feel like the underdog TONIGHT! Sorry kiddo! Not my place!

(I don't need 50mbps. I was exagerrating!)

[vitualis]

slacker, calm down.

Regards.

[thecoalman]

Am I right or am I wrong?

Your right AND wrong. That statement is made in the aspect ratio subsection to describe how pixel dimensions have no relevance on display aspect. Your taking that staement out of context, there's no mention about video quality or resizing it.

This is one of the concepts newbies don't understand. They think in image pixel dimension where the diplay aspect is 1:1 and have the misconception that video resolution translates to aspect display which it does not.

[ForYouAndI.com]

I totally disagree with this statement:
"Your DVD Player will do the resize a lot better than you ever could with software."

Thecoalman, if I were to resize my video data down to 80x480 there is NO way it would look good when the dvd player stretches it because too much data is lost. That is the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not confused by seeing 720x480 that looks too long or 352x480 which looks squished because I know the player will resize it and it will look fine, provided the user did not make the mistake I mentioned in my first post.

[jimmalenko]

I totally disagree with this statement:
"Your DVD Player will do the resize a lot better than you ever could with software."

Feel free to. Would you care to post some examples or reasoning as to why you totally disagree ?

All things being equal, IMHO hardware is generally better than software in almost everything. Just the way it is.

[ForYouAndI.com]

What interpolation algorithm does it use. The best I know of for software is either bicubic or lanczos.

[lordsmurf]

Thecoalman, if I were to resize my video data down to 80x480 there is NO way it would look good when the dvd player stretches it because too much data is lost. That is the point I'm trying to make.

You dissolve all argument by posting non-sense analogies.
80x480 is not a valid DVD resolution.

What interpolation algorithm does it use. The best I know of for software is either bicubic or lanczos.

A DVD player does not need any. As others have stated, you completely missed the point on discussing aspect ratios. A player does not resize, it displays pixels of different sizes, you are not using square pixels, they are rectangular. If anything, the computer shows them wrong as 1:1, limitations of a computer.

If your source is below 352, then there is nothing to be lost. With exception of re-conversion losses native to the formats being converted. And the upsizing to 720 is false on lower sources common in homes, like tv and VHS, as it was never anywhere even remotely close to that. Why you want to convert 2-3 times is also something I'm failing to see a reason for, you're using too many steps.

[vitualis]

As per above.

You are missing the whole point. There is no resizing as such as the pixels aren't square to begin with.

In fact, it is conceivable in some situations that you will actually get WORSE quality using full D1 as you potentially need up to twice the bitrate to encode the same frame. If you are working in a relatively bit starved project where the source itself can comfortably be sampled with half-D1, using full D1 is not only pointless but can harm the end quality.

Regards.

[greymalkin]

perhaps you should have asked lordsmurf about the supposed inaccurate information before smearing the title "Misleading Information on DigitalFAQ" into this forum.

If you have a problem with something he posted in his website, the solution is not to go broadcasting what you think is wrong about it. To question everything in a general forum is quite alright, but if you think he is being misleading or posting false information you should at least have the decency to go to the source first.

[ForYouAndI.com]

"You dissolve all argument by posting non-sense analogies.
80x480 is not a valid DVD resolution."

I was just making a point. By reading the quote that this thread is about they may get confused and think that 720x480 and 352x480 are basically the same and do this:

Another example that you should accept:
If someone were to copy a dvd onto their computer, size down all the frames to 352x480 and then burn it back at 720x480 and expect great results they're in for a surprise.

"Why you want to convert 2-3 times is also something I'm failing to see a reason for"

I was just using that as an example of something someone might do and can't figure out why their quality is so bad. It's not something I did or even thought of doing. Your misinterpretation of what I mean is the same kind of thing that someone might do when they read the quote this thread is about; misinterpret it. I just wanted to bring awareness of the facts.

"In fact, it is conceivable in some situations that you will actually get WORSE quality using full D1"

I agree, why upscale when the resolution is not there in the first place; as in capturing VHS. I use 352x480 and then burn a dvd of 352x480 so there is no resizing distortion at all.

[ForYouAndI.com]

greymalkin, you're right. I should have contacted the site first. I'm not smearing the website, just noting that something may be interpreted wrong by some people.

My title was a bit off wasn't it. I should change it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention greymalkin.

[lordsmurf]

jimmalenko,

You really should only use Half D1 when there is no real advantage in using anything higher (VHS caps)

That is the one of the MOST misleading "absolute truth" statements I find on this website. jimmalenko, you know as well as I that the war rages on as far as what resolution and bitrate should be used to capture VHS. To say that 1/2 d1 is fine is total BS.

This is why Half D1 is often completely appropriate.
These are some rough illustrations to get the point across....

When your source is easily fits into a 352x480 resolution:



You gain nothing by doubling or more the resolution:

[Cornucopia]

Looking back at the DigitalFAQ site, I might not have worded it quite that way, but what LS stated is true.

Any more questions?

Scott

[ForYouAndI.com]

lordsmurf, right on target.