Coverting widescreen to fullscreen

[MackemX]

They don't have to convert and could just simply use a zoom/crop feature of a software player seeing as they were using the PC output to a TV.

BINGO! That's what four or five of us have already been telling the original poster. That is the simplest easiest way to get fullscreen out of a widescreen movie. No reencoding neccessary and the original file stays intact.

yeah I noticed that you answered Yoda as I saw your post that you obviously took a few mins to write . I was just pointing out that an alternate answer had been given

It's guys like you that are a great asset to this site as you will answer just about anything but in a friendly manner 8). If not then we'd just be left with lame smart ass replies, very little info, a lot of flaming and eventually tears

[machf]

They don't have to convert and could just simply use a zoom/crop feature of a software player seeing as they were using the PC output to a TV.

BINGO! That's what four or five of us have already been telling the original poster. That is the simplest easiest way to get fullscreen out of a widescreen movie. No reencoding neccessary and the original file stays intact.

yeah I noticed that you answered Yoda as I saw your post that you obviously took a few mins to write . I was just pointing out that an alternate answer had been given

In fact, that was addressed in the very first answer. There's no reason why people shouldn't further discuss the disadvantages of doing what the OP wanted to do in the first place; that's educating. And even though some answers may not have been too polite, people who complain about them are contributing even less to the discussion, just decreasing the SNR so to speak.

EDIT: I just thought of something... he said he was using his TV set connected to the video card's output, right? If he's configured it as the "full screen device" (or whatever it's called in his video card settings), that zoom option in the software player may have no effect on the TV display. Instead he'd need to play with the zoom options for that same device...

[MackemX]

In fact, that was addressed in the very first answer. There's no reason why people shouldn't further discuss the disadvantages of doing what the OP wanted to do in the first place; that's educating. And even though some answers may not have been too polite, people who complain about them are contributing even less to the discussion, just decreasing the SNR so to speak.

people complain about them as there's no need for them in the first place

I can talk about this all day as I've always had a strong opinion on this and have said so on numerous occasions here. I don't think it's a good thing to see on a site like this and I'm pretty sure Baldrick would prefer not to see it if given the option as it would improve the site even more. This thread is totally lame to some of the stuff I have come across in the past but someone in this thread went as far as to reply and cross link to a 2 and a half year old thread (which was more of the same thing as I'd also replied in that old thread HERE)

I will point out something that I see isn't really neccessary as I don't see why people should spoil a good forum

if nobody says anything at all then all hell would break loose

certain answers are simply not welcome no matter what and although I see what you are saying I can't see any reason why you'd even bother defending replies like that, are you as bored as I am?

[machf]

I'm saying I'm more annoyed by the whining... I mean, if you don't like an answer, the best option is just to ignore it.

[lacywest]

They don't have to convert and could just simply use a zoom/crop feature of a software player seeing as they were using the PC output to a TV.

BINGO! That's what four or five of us have already been telling the original poster. That is the simplest easiest way to get fullscreen out of a widescreen movie. No reencoding neccessary and the original file stays intact.

I'm going back a few years.

I had a JVC DVD Player ... and it does have a ZOOM function ... but it showed to the top corner ... a small picture of what was being zoomed.

Totally useless feature for watching a Wide Screen movie in Full Screen Mode.

Something you can do ... When you go to Wal-Mart to buy your DVD Movies ... choose Full Screen.

But even when I only had a RCA 31" normal TV ... I myself chose Wide Screen DVD Movies.

P.S. I work graveyards ... and there is really nothing to do ... really and I nothing better to do but dig up that 2 year old post ... now that guy really got hammered.

[MackemX]

I'm saying I'm more annoyed by the whining... I mean, if you don't like an answer, the best option is just to ignore it.

what complete rubbish as you'd have a forum with stupid arseholes running riot with pathetic lame ass replies. Lemme think now.......as wasn't VH a little like that a few years ago until rules tightened up?

why don't people apply your 'best option' in a similar fashion and not answer a question they don't like which has been said many times anyway. That would then eliminate the so called 'whining' wouldn't it?

so you are saying that SWBisbee's posts made you annoyed? His post is valid in some way so I see no harm in that and I'm the only other one to whine

elimate the source of the problem and not just the loose ends

[MackemX]

They don't have to convert and could just simply use a zoom/crop feature of a software player seeing as they were using the PC output to a TV.

BINGO! That's what four or five of us have already been telling the original poster. That is the simplest easiest way to get fullscreen out of a widescreen movie. No reencoding neccessary and the original file stays intact.

I'm going back a few years.

I had a JVC DVD Player ... and it does have a ZOOM function ... but it showed to the top corner ... a small picture of what was being zoomed.

Totally useless feature for watching a Wide Screen movie in Full Screen Mode.

Something you can do ... When you go to Wal-Mart to buy your DVD Movies ... choose Full Screen.

But even when I only had a RCA 31" normal TV ... I myself chose Wide Screen DVD Movies.

P.S. I work graveyards ... and there is really nothing to do ... really and I nothing better to do but dig up that 2 year old post ... now that guy really got hammered.

I used the ATI player years ago and watched my import Region 1 DVD's via my small bedroom TV as I didn't have a region free standalone. Watching widescreen on a small TV isn't much fun unless you are real close to the screen. I would crop a tiny little from the edges to make the picture a little more watchable but I wouldn't make it a full 4:3

I used to like that specific zoom feature in ATI player as you could select the area you wanted to view and you didn't have to keep the same aspect. Zoomplayer allows you to zoom but keeps the aspect unless you specify it and it's a shame it doesn't do the same thing and allow you to select which portion of the image regardless of aspect

[machf]

I'm saying I'm more annoyed by the whining... I mean, if you don't like an answer, the best option is just to ignore it.

what complete rubbish as you'd have a forum with stupid arseholes running riot with pathetic lame ass replies. Lemme think now.......as wasn't VH a little like that a few years ago until rules tightened up?

No, you don't get it. It wouldn't be chaos. But the "police actions" in the forums should be performed by the moderators and/or administrators - that's what they are for, after all. Regular users should just ignore those posts because they can't really do anything about them. If you want to complain, complain to the proper person/s instead of getting into an open flamewar...

why don't people apply your 'best option' in a similar fashion and not answer a question they don't like which has been said many times anyway. That would then eliminate the so called 'whining' wouldn't it?

You think most don't already?

so you are saying that SWBisbee's posts made you annoyed? His post is valid in some way so I see no harm in that and I'm the only other one to whine

Well, it may be because personally, there are few things I dislike more than whiners.

elimate the source of the problem and not just the loose ends

[tonyp12]

Compromise !
Zoom in so it's between 16:9 and 4:3
Crop of 1/6 of the image sides and you should not miss to much action.

See an example of that here (done by me)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVECjP5kW1U

[MackemX]

No, you don't get it. It wouldn't be chaos. But the "police actions" in the forums should be performed by the moderators and/or administrators - that's what they are for, after all. Regular users should just ignore those posts because they can't really do anything about them. If you want to complain, complain to the proper person/s instead of getting into an open flamewar...

did you not know I was once the 'forum police' as well as the 'forum fireman'?

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?p=1177523&highlight=fireman#1177523

reboots post HERE was an excellent post and basically said it all

I very rarely complain to the 'officials' as most things can be resolved within a thread if people are mature enough 8). I guess you wouldn't have been happy if I'd been made a mod when I was close to being one but then again you don't need to be a mod to point out that sometimes some replies are anal and not required

you also don't need to be a mod to show someone that forum etiquette is a nice thing and helps improve a forum 8)

why don't people apply your 'best option' in a similar fashion and not answer a question they don't like which has been said many times anyway. That would then eliminate the so called 'whining' wouldn't it?

You think most don't already?

it's a shame it isn't everyone , then again I do find it very hard and brain consuming to overlook stupid questions

so you are saying that SWBisbee's posts made you annoyed? His post is valid in some way so I see no harm in that and I'm the only other one to whine

Well, it may be because personally, there are few things I dislike more than whiners.

you musn't dislike many things if that rattled your cage

[machf]

did you not know I was once the 'forum police' as well as the 'forum fireman'?

No, but let me tell you that all the while I was away now, I was worried that you might misinterpret my use of the word 'you' in my previous post... I was refering to any hypothetical user, not you in particular.

reboots post HERE was an excellent post and basically said it all

Interesting post.

I very rarely complain to the 'officials' as most things can be resolved within a thread if people are mature enough 8).

That's the keyword there...

I guess you wouldn't have been happy if I'd been made a mod when I was close to being one but then again you don't need to be a mod to point out that sometimes some replies are anal and not required

you also don't need to be a mod to show someone that forum etiquette is a nice thing and helps improve a forum 8)

Sure, just make sure to use that same etiquette when requesting others to do so. (Again, I'm not refering to you in particular!)

so you are saying that SWBisbee's posts made you annoyed? His post is valid in some way so I see no harm in that and I'm the only other one to whine

Well, it may be because personally, there are few things I dislike more than whiners.

you musn't dislike many things if that rattled your cage

Cheaters. Thieves. Murderers. People from marketing departments. And above all, little children who misbehave.
I may be particularly biased against whiners because there are so many around here... (no, not the forum, I mean where I live!)

[MackemX]

machf, we are flogging a dead horse here and to be truthful I was bored to begin with so fancied replying and I can see you won't let it go so I will

let's just say we agree to disagree as I don't think you agree with my point as the crap in question isn't good for a forum (no matter what you say ) if it wants to be one of the best . You see the point that members may raise the issue about it as more of a concern

I guess I've seen too much crap at VH over the years (it was far worse before you'd even joined) and I need counselling to free my mind . I'm just not keen on seeing people being shot down just because they would prefer to see a forum with less shite for replies 8)

like I said there is no way your belief of just ignoring the crap and saying nothing would help improve a forum more than getting rid of the crap in the first place. If that was the case then VH would still be like it was a few years ago with smart ass replies popping up. In fact it would probably be far worse if members hadn't voiced their disaproval on occasions within threads as people would just run riot

I'll leave it at that as I will respect your opinion even though I disagree with most of it and it's pretty pointless discussing it (plus I'm on my way out soon )

p.s. my initial response sometimes may give as much respect to others as they give, basically not much. Most don't like a taste of their own medicine back at them to begin with but at least they get to know what it feels like

[machf]

machf, we are flogging a dead horse here and to be truthful I was bored to begin with so fancied replying and I can see you won't let it go so I will

I thought we were starting to agree...

let's just say we agree to disagree as I don't think you agree with my point as the crap in question isn't good for a forum (no matter what you say ) if it wants to be one of the best . You see the point that members may raise the issue about it as more of a concern

I agree that it's not, but there are ways to deal with it.

I guess I've seen too much crap at VH over the years (it was far worse before you'd even joined) and I need counselling to free my mind . I'm just not keen on seeing people being shot down just because they would prefer to see a forum with less shite for replies 8)

Oh, I have seen similar situations in other places too. There's a reason I avoid looking into the off-topic sections of any forums nowadays...

like I said there is no way your belief of just ignoring the crap and saying nothing would help improve a forum more than getting rid of the crap in the first place.

It's not exactly "saying nothing" as rather "saying nothing that might make it get even worse". It's not "doing nothing", either.

If that was the case then VH would still be like it was a few years ago with smart ass replies popping up. In fact it would probably be far worse if members hadn't voiced their disaproval on occasions within threads as people would just run riot

I'll leave it at that as I will respect your opinion even though I disagree with most of it and it's pretty pointless discussing it (plus I'm on my way out soon )

OK, then. Same to you. Though as I said, I thought we were starting to agree on something...

p.s. my initial response sometimes may give as much respect to others as they give, basically not much. Most don't like a taste of their own medicine back at them to begin with but at least they get to know what it feels like

[machf]

Forgot to comment on this post earlier...

I've got a friend [Marcos] who doesn't like Wide Screen ... this was about 2 years ago.

One day ... he told me he was watching a wide screen DVD movie with the zoom feature filling in his TV ... to 4:3.

He kept seeing the main actor talking to somebody ... and this invisible person carrying on a conversation back at him ... eventually ... he decided to unzoom and see if this invisible person would appear.

Whoa !!!!! .... Magic .......... Yeah Dudes ... stick with your square TVs and enjoy.

Yeah, some people don't really get what widescreen is all about until they finally see it with their own eyes...

The OP mentioned he had several files on his PC and wanted to convert them (some? several? all?) from widescreen to fullscreen. Given that these are simple video files on a PC and not DVDs, this basically just means cropping them to an AR of 4:3. Now, let's see. If the files in question are from some widescreen TV source, they may have a resolution of something like 640x360 (352, more likely); cropping them to a 4:3 AR would leave them at ~480x360. Not quite as good as SVCD resolution, but better than VCD. If they are from movies with an AR of 1.85:1, they would be like 640x346 (336?). Cropping would give something like 448x336 (from a theoretical 461x346). For movies with an AR of 2.35:1, the size would be 640x272 in all likelihood; something like 368x272 would be the size after cropping, almost like VCD resolution... the best option quality-wise would be if the files were from an HDTV source, at 1280x720 resolution or higher, they would become 960x720 which is still better than DVD (which in turn is the best you can get with a standard definition TV), though it may require additional resizing to 640x480 (or 720x480, since the source would allow it) to be displayed on the TV screen.

I stand by my suggestion about choosing one and doing a simple cropping of the sides (and reencoding, of course) to show how important portions of the picture may get lost forever. At best, choosing a video with the widest possible original AR where the director really used all of the screen, like in the aforementioned case. Maybe that could convince them that widescreen isn't bad at all...

I don't think an average domestic user would want to go through the trouble of defining a "cropping window" and adjust it on a frame-by-frame basis to try to compensate for the loss of portions of the screen (which is what "pan&scan" is about). Even though the standard for DVDs allows to define such a thing so that an anamorphic widescreen DVD could be made to play in a "true" Pan&Scan mode, I don't think any studio is using that feature on their releases.

[edDV]

And 2 months after completing this project they will buy a 16:9 TV and then complain about black sidebars or everyone looking fat.

[machf]

LOL. Yes, that's human nature...

(But I never suggested cropping every video, I only suggested looking for the one that would give the worst possible results if cropped, and see if that is disencouraging enough. So I hope your 2 months are just a random date..)

[lacywest]

LOL. Yes, that's human nature...

(But I never suggested cropping every video, I only suggested looking for the one that would give the worst possible results if cropped, and see if that is disencouraging enough. So I hope your 2 months are just a random date..)

In 2 months ... there will be after Christmas sales.

[FulciLives]

I'm saying I'm more annoyed by the whining... I mean, if you don't like an answer, the best option is just to ignore it.

what complete rubbish as you'd have a forum with stupid arseholes running riot with pathetic lame ass replies. Lemme think now.......as wasn't VH a little like that a few years ago until rules tightened up?

Ahhhhh ... the good 'ol days.

Other than maybe the recipient of one who here didn't enjoy an "indolikaa special"? Who doesn't miss innuendo regarding sex with blow up sheep dolls? Who doesn't miss foo's often bizarre yet to-the-point remarks? Who doesn't miss Gurm "going off" about how to burn a DVD correctly? Who doesn't like LordSmurf's "my way or the highway" attitude? Who doesn't miss ... and I quote ... "I love it when "fulcilives" drops off his medication and slams into an unsuspecting newbe."?

I mean we need to have our fun at least some of the time.

All anal retentive types can find a home at doom9 or better yet stay here and get a sense of freakin' humor.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[machf]

In 2 months ... there will be after Christmas sales.

Ah. Didn't think of that...
Given that BluRay players are expected to be introduced worldwide for this Christmas, that may possibly help drop the prices somewhat... or can BluRay players be used with standard definition TVs?

But then expect the start of the "how do I copy a BluRay to a DVD+/-R without reencoding" swarms...

[MackemX]

@FulciLives, why is it I recognise the names you just reeled off quite well?

I actually came here from Doom9 but that's another story (probably in one of my posts somewhere in this forum )

@machf, what were we talking about again?

[MackemX]

But then expect the start of the "how do I copy a BluRay to a DVD+/-R without reencoding" swarms...

I was looking forward to that period a couple of years ago but that was back in the day I used to make backups and enjoyed helping people. Now I just take more care of my DVD's or borrow my mates and don't bother with backups . When the 1-click programs appeared it started taking the fun out of the process when all you had to do was click the big red button

[Seeker47]

Some notes in partial defense of Full Screen.

Why would ANYONE want to purposely loose 1/3 of the image by chopping off the ends of a widescreen movie? I've never been able to comprehend that!

jtoolman2000, fulci:
Rote, absolutist answers are highly suspect. I have to say, it all depends on what you happen to be viewing.

My personal choice to demonstrate how bad a movie would look like by chopping off the sides would be "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". Don't get a Pan&Scan version, just get the widescreen one and manually reencode it chopping the sides off (keeping the center area all the time)

Yes, that's a very good example. Most anything that was shot in scope, has panoramic vistas or big crowd scenes, has big effects scenes or action scenes {moving camera or moving subject(s) on-camera} will likely be harmed by Pan & Scan or just not being viewed in a WS format. Likewise, the example given of the unseen speaker who should have been there onscreen. BUT, I think one could scare up a good list of counter-examples without too much difficulty -- perhaps even with frame caps to illustrate.

Say, chamber dramas heavy on two or three character scenes, dialog, character emoting (acting !), close-ups. You may not be losing anything at the sides of the frame !

Or, say, your favorite actress never does nude scenes. But then, out of the blue, she does one in a movie -- full frontal, well lit, long scene, no body double. Now really, do you wanna watch this in squashed letterbox, or full frame ? Uh . . . I thought not.

Watching widescreen on a small TV isn't much fun unless you are real close to the screen. I would crop a tiny little from the edges to make the picture a little more watchable but I wouldn't make it a full 4:3

That's another good example. And I'd extend the definition of a small-ish screen to my old 27" CRT. So many of the movies we get on our cable service are letterboxed, by default. And with far too many of those lbx'd films, why are the friggin' top & bottom bars so damn thick ?! It seemingly turns medium shots into long shots. Half the screen area -- or more -- may be going to waste. If I wanted to deal with condensed images like that, I'd take up stamp collecting !

When you go to Wal-Mart to buy your DVD Movies ... choose Full Screen.

That's another option, of course. And I've done that, in certain cases.

[machf]

Some notes in partial defense of Full Screen.

Why would ANYONE want to purposely loose 1/3 of the image by chopping off the ends of a widescreen movie? I've never been able to comprehend that!

jtoolman2000, fulci:
Rote, absolutist answers are highly suspect. I have to say, it all depends on what you happen to be viewing.

Agreed. But when someone, as the OP mentioned, "hates widescreen", he/she is also being absolutist...

My personal choice to demonstrate how bad a movie would look like by chopping off the sides would be "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". Don't get a Pan&Scan version, just get the widescreen one and manually reencode it chopping the sides off (keeping the center area all the time)

Yes, that's a very good example. Most anything that was shot in scope, has panoramic vistas or big crowd scenes, has big effects scenes or action scenes {moving camera or moving subject(s) on-camera} will likely be harmed by Pan & Scan or just not being viewed in a WS format. Likewise, the example given of the unseen speaker who should have been there onscreen. BUT, I think one could scare up a good list of counter-examples without too much difficulty -- perhaps even with frame caps to illustrate.

Say, chamber dramas heavy on two or three character scenes, dialog, character emoting (acting !), close-ups. You may not be losing anything at the sides of the frame !

Sure, some directors shoot everything thinking in terms of 4:3, even if the movie is widescreen...

Or, say, your favorite actress never does nude scenes. But then, out of the blue, she does one in a movie -- full frontal, well lit, long scene, no body double. Now really, do you wanna watch this in squashed letterbox, or full frame ? Uh . . . I thought not.

Well, for that, you can still use the zoom function. After all, anamorphic widescreen uses the same vertical resolution as fullscreen (hard-letterboxed video is another thing). In the case the OP meant, both the horizontal and vertical resolutions would still be the same, whether you sue a zoom or crop the sides.

Watching widescreen on a small TV isn't much fun unless you are real close to the screen. I would crop a tiny little from the edges to make the picture a little more watchable but I wouldn't make it a full 4:3

That's another good example. And I'd extend the definition of a small-ish screen to my old 27" CRT. So many of the movies we get on our cable service are letterboxed, by default. And with far too many of those lbx'd films, why are the friggin' top & bottom bars so damn thick ?! It seemingly turns medium shots into long shots. Half the screen area -- or more -- may be going to waste. If I wanted to deal with condensed images like that, I'd take up stamp collecting !

You think 27" is small? I wonder what you'd think of 12" or 14"...
Oh, well, I guess broadcast TV (where you don't have access to the video source) and hard letterbox are another matter.
Though I guess individual eye resolution and the ability to focus on an area of space may also play a part...

[edDV]

Are we converging on a solution? :P

[Seeker47]

You think 27" is small? I wonder what you'd think of 12" or 14"...

Me . . ?, No. It is small, compared to all the 50"-or-better deluxe home theatre displays many folks around here seem to be watching, but that's another story. The layout of my living room is not very conducive to a real HT or big screen setup, so for now I'm content to keep using the mid-size 27"-er. That would likely change the next time I move, or perhaps when the all-digital broadcasting changeover happens.

The 12" or 14" size is great to have next to a treadmill or in the kitchen.

[jmkeuning]

What about taking a piece of cardboard, painting it black, cutting a square hole in it, and taping it to the tv when the wife watches it?