I just wonder, as I know that FFmpegX defaults to multiples of 16.
I mean, to really accurately reproduce 16:9, 320*180 is much more precise than 320*176 or 320*192.
Is there some reason we should't use dimensions that are not multiples of 16 for h.264?
Results 1 to 2 of 2
-
In my limited experience, it doesn't seem to make much difference until you try to scale it, then you tend to get scan-lines. The original MPEG4 standard called for 16x16 blocks, so it is most compatible as well.
To prevent stretching of your video, just add padding so that the resolution is 320x192, but the image itself is 320x180. Add 6 pixels to top and bottom.- macr0t0r
When did email start feeling like work?
Similar Threads
-
new pc, ipod & iphone transfer of vids/songs/apps
By angryassdrummer in forum Portable VideoReplies: 3Last Post: 20th Oct 2011, 02:39 -
VIDEO_TS to iPod H.264 and subtitles
By veravera in forum ffmpegX general discussionReplies: 2Last Post: 9th Aug 2008, 15:39 -
Ipod - h.264 or MPEG-4, which one is better?
By FallenAngelII in forum DVD RippingReplies: 1Last Post: 10th Jan 2008, 11:12 -
converting to h.264 for ipod
By nagihcim1 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 4Last Post: 2nd Nov 2007, 08:27 -
multiple vids on one dvd disc
By johnnyboy1908 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 2Last Post: 21st Jun 2007, 02:34