Removing black borders from DVD VOB file

[Noahtuck]

Yeah I was thinking the same thing, it will play fine on a 4:3 display.

He wants to watch it without black borders, without changing the resolution and I assume without changing or screwing up the AR, yet he never say's what he wants to watch it on.

You will never get rid of "black bars" or empty screen if you want to ever watch it on a 16:9 HDTV without screwing the AR or cutting off the top and bottom of the video!!

Talk about everyone making something so simple so complicated.......

[kingmustard123]

Yeah I was thinking the same thing, it will play fine on a 4:3 display.

He wants to watch it without black borders, without changing the resolution and I assume without changing or screwing up the AR, yet he never say's what he wants to watch it on.

You will never get rid of "black bars" or empty screen if you want to ever watch it on a 16:9 HDTV without screwing the AR or cutting off the top and bottom of the video!!

Talk about everyone making something so simple so complicated.......

You misunderstand. I don't want to watch it on a TV. I also don't want to watch it fullscreen on a widescreen display. I just want to open the video on my PC, non-fullscreen, without the black borders that the video file is encoded with.

[sanlyn]

I thought as much. I don't know what some of the other readers are thinking, but that's what the two revised samples posted in #17 and #18 will do. Your idea of resizing, however, would give an odd frame frame size that some encoders would balk at, which is why manono and I stuck to standard frames (besides cropping off too much of the original, which a bonafide film buff would complain about). There's an obsession running rampant nowadays that no image should have a border of any kind, regardless of how large or small, even if it means distorting porportions in the original image. Take a look at some of the classic film restorals on a source like Turner Classic Movies and see how a purist would handle archived movies, many of which were not 4:3 but which some people stretch, crop, etc., to make a point of some kind (I don't know what their point is, but it seems purely decorative IMO). The old "square format" of Hollywood prior to 1953 wasn't even 4:3 (1.3333:1) to begin with. It was 1.37:1, which is slightly wider. A professional restoral would maintain that image ratio, which means a slight letterbox at the top and bottom to preserve the image, even if those borders are only 2 or 4 pixels each. You'd be surprised by the number of people who can spot the difference between 1.33:1 and 1.37:1.

If you wanted a strict 4:3 image for square-pixel encoding and PC-only display, I'd suggest the classic 4:3 frame size that most encoders and web postings won't have a problem with: 640x480.

[kingmustard123]

I thought as much. I don't know what some of the other readers are thinking, but that's what the two revised samples posted in #17 and #18 will do. Your idea of resizing, however, would give an odd frame frame size that some encoders would balk at, which is why manono and I stuck to standard frames (besides cropping off too much of the original, which a bonafide film buff would complain about). There's an obsession running rampant nowadays that no image should have a border of any kind, regardless of how large or small, even if it means distorting porportions in the original image. Take a look at some of the classic film restorals on a source like Turner Classic Movies and see how a purist would handle archived movies, many of which were not 4:3 but which some people stretch, crop, etc., to make a point of some kind (I don't know what their point is, but it seems purely decorative IMO). The old "square format" of Hollywood prior to 1953 wasn't even 4:3 (1.3333:1) to begin with. It was 1.37:1, which is slightly wider. A professional restoral would maintain that image ratio, which means a slight letterbox at the top and bottom to preserve the image, even if those borders are only 2 or 4 pixels each. You'd be surprised by the number of people who can spot the difference between 1.33:1 and 1.37:1.

If you wanted a strict 4:3 image for square-pixel encoding and PC-only display, I'd suggest the classic 4:3 frame size that most encoders and web postings won't have a problem with: 640x480.

To be honest, I have no issue with it being a weird resolution as it will only be played on a PC. It doesn't have to follow any specific frame size, it can be any number of pixels on the two sides

However, since each software player is displaying the VOB differently, I can't take a screenshot in order paste it into Paint and cut the borders to find out the true resolution of the image (in order to know how much to crop the video.

[jagabo]

Want an easy (though not the best quality) solution? Use Handbrake. It will automatically crop the black borders and keep the correct display aspect ratio.

[DB83]

An even 'dirtier' method is to use autogk. Just set your width, bitrate etc. and all borders vanish.

Tested this on the sample and I get a 4:3 vid of 720*544

[sanlyn]

To be honest, I have no issue with it being a weird resolution as it will only be played on a PC. It doesn't have to follow any specific frame size, it can be any number of pixels on the two sides

However, since each software player is displaying the VOB differently, I can't take a screenshot in order paste it into Paint and cut the borders to find out the true resolution of the image (in order to know how much to crop the video.

The "original" VOB should display exactly the same way on all displays, as a pillared 16x9 video. I don't know what else to tell you other than cropping off 96 pixels from each side and encoding the result for 4:3 display. As jagabo says, Handbrake will do that for you.

BTW, taking screenshots is not the way to find the true resolution of your original. Open it in VirtualDub and you'll see the actual frame proportions, which look neither like '4:3" nor "16x9" but as 5:4. I wouldn't complain that VirtualDuib can't open a VOB: the way I first viewed your original after downloading it was with VirtualDub. There's a ton of VDub plugins for several video formats from FccHandler: http://sourceforge.net/projects/fcchandler/files/ . In the VirtualDub make a "plugins32" subfolder and place the .vdf filters in there.

And MediaInfo gives this data for your original VOB:

General
Complete name : E:\forum\kingmustard\ORIGINAL_VOB.vob
Format : MPEG-PS
File size : 3.73 MiB
Duration : 4s 960ms
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 6 303 Kbps
Writing library : encoded by TMPGEnc Authoring Works 4 Version. 4.1.2.49

Video
ID : 224 (0xE0)
Format : MPEG Video
Format version : Version 2
Format profile : Main@Main
Format settings, BVOP : Yes
Format settings, Matrix : Custom
Format settings, GOP : Variable
Duration : 4s 920ms
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 5 953 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 8 000 Kbps
Width : 720 pixels
Height : 576 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 25.000 fps
Standard : PAL
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Interlaced
Scan order : Bottom Field First
Compression mode : Lossy
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.574
Time code of first frame : 00:05:42:12
Time code source : Group of pictures header
Stream size : 3.49 MiB (94%)
Writing library : TMPGEnc Authoring Works 4 Version. 4.1.2.49
Color primaries : BT.601 PAL
Transfer characteristics : BT.470 System B, BT.470 System G
Matrix coefficients : BT.601

Audio
ID : 189 (0xBD)-128 (0x80)
Format : AC-3
Format/Info : Audio Coding 3
Mode extension : CM (complete main)
Format settings, Endianness : Big
Muxing mode : DVD-Video
Duration : 4s 960ms
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 224 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Bit depth : 16 bits
Compression mode : Lossy
Delay relative to video : -192ms
Stream size : 136 KiB (4%)

Menu

Left-click on the image below to display the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th image at full size. In the forum picture as enlarged images, you'll see the pic's descriptive title in the lower right corner (the middle image #3 is displayed at normal size):

The original VOB encoded frame size of 720x576 looks like this:

[Attachment 20542 - Click to enlarge]

Played back as a 16:9 video, it displays like this:

[Attachment 20543 - Click to enlarge]

By cropping 96 pixels off each side, you get a 528x576 image that looks olike this, with the original elements of the image undisturbed with the wrong frame size for encoding and playback:

[Attachment 20544 - Click to enlarge]

Resize the image in the encoder or other app (I( used Avisynth) and cut 6 pixels off the bottom then add 6 pixels to the top to center the image, thus maintaining every pixel of the original image. The frame size for the encoder is 720x576 PAL DVD standard:

[Attachment 20545 - Click to enlarge]

Encoding the 720x576 images for 4:3 display will play it this way on all properly configured players, whether for PC or TV. Period.

[Attachment 20546 - Click to enlarge]

There's nothing unusual about these methods or frame sizes. There should be nothing unusual about the results.

[sanlyn]

And here it is in VLC (screen capture) with the player resized for the video. If you don't want side bars on a 16x9 display, configure your player so it won't display for a 16x9 screen. Strikes me as a pain in the neck to do that, though.


[Attachment 20550 - Click to enlarge]

[kingmustard123]

Want an easy (though not the best quality) solution? Use Handbrake. It will automatically crop the black borders and keep the correct display aspect ratio.

The attachment is what I see when I import the original VOB into HandBreak.

I changed the Top and Bottom both to 10. No other changes.

According to KMPlayer:

• Original file: VOB, 720x576, 16:9, 756,686 KB
• Output file: M4V, 720x782, 4:3, 680,792 KB

I find it strange that, even though I'm trying to trim the video, the resolution has increased


Is the output file correct? Looks very weird in KMPlayer.

[DB83]

Set anamorhic to 'None'

Anamorphic is the original setting for the vob

[kingmustard123]

Set anamorhic to 'None'

Anamorphic is the original setting for the vob

I set Anamorphic to None and now I can alter various settings surrounding it (height, modulus and whether or not to keep the aspect ratio or not).

Anything I should change before I continue?

P.S. I really appreciate your help

[DB83]

The other settings affect final quality. Do a test at the defaults which might be suffice since you have low quality to start with and 'you can not get blood out of a stone'

You might also like to try my earlier suggestion with autogk which will do all the cropping for you. The only drawback with that is you end up with an xVID.

[sanlyn]

Hold on. Post #41 sez you'r making this 4:3 video 16x9?

I give up. Take over, fellas.

[DB83]

Hold on. Post #41 sez you'r making this 4:3 video 16x9?

I give up. Take over, fellas.

Well I am confused now. The original source is shown as 16:9.

The target is neither 16:9 or 4:3

[sanlyn]

Your target display aspect ratio is 4:3. Yes, the original is 16:9 -- because it has 96 black pixels on each side. The new one doesn't.

Post #41 also sez you are cutting 10 pixels off the top, 10 off the bottom. You just changed the aspect ratio of your final image. The displayed image will be taller than the original (stretched vertically). Why?

Don't answer. Someone else can try to explain.

[DB83]

Who should not answer ? Me or the OP ? But not one for keepin' me gob shut....

I suspect the 10 pixels was part of the auto crop and that should be over-ridden but then there will still be a small border due to the original framing which the OP wants to get rid of.

But this is what confuses me and it is worth an explanation. The effective 16:9 display is 1024* 576. Crop away the 92 pixels and you get 832*576.

Are you saying that without setting the AR that will magically display at 4:3. Since we really should have 768*576 which was discussed before.

I really thought that the anamorphic setting was screwing everything up hence the odd target size.

[kingmustard123]

Who should not answer ? Me or the OP ? But not one for keepin' me gob shut....

I suspect the 10 pixels was part of the auto crop and that should be over-ridden but then there will still be a small border due to the original framing which the OP wants to get rid of.

But this is what confuses me and it is worth an explanation. The effective 16:9 display is 1024* 576. Crop away the 92 pixels and you get 832*576.

Are you saying that without setting the AR that will magically display at 4:3. Since we really should have 768*576 which was discussed before.

I really thought that the anamorphic setting was screwing everything up hence the odd target size.

If you're confused, I have no chance of explaining what's going on :/

[jagabo]

What's so confusing? It's a ~4:3 image pillarboxed in a 16:9 DAR frame. The video is "upscaled" because you ask for a 720 pixel wide result after cropping away the pillarbox bars.

[DB83]

It's late over here right now and I need my 'beauty' sleep.

I'll make a practical test later today. 'til then.

[DB83]

Back in the land of the awake.

I did a few tests but I do not think I can add much to what has already been said.

If I 'autocrop' the sample, I get 96 left,98 right, 2 top and 6 bottom. I suppose it is quite possible that the full video will give a slightly different result. Even with these settings there is still a small border at the bottom during playback.

There is a slight distortion of the picture at 4:3 but maybe not too much to notice. To get it absolutley right for 4:3 will mean more borders and that is what the OP wishes to avoid. Ultimately it is his call.

[jagabo]

We don't know how much of the left edge of the film frame was masked off during production. A tiny amount of the top and right edges are missing too. At the bottom you can the frame is slightly rotated. If you simply crop the black borders and encode as 4:3 DAR it looks about right. If you require a perfect aspect ratio you'll need to find an object of identifiable aspect ratio in the video and adjust accordingly. Maybe there's a shot somewhere of a wheel viewed directly from the side, near the center of the frame (cameras often distort near the edges and corners of the frame), and large enough to measure accurately.