Ripping Handbrake 1280 x 720 videos

[LMotlow]

That's another thing that tells me the "DVD" movie image isn't 16:9. Especially since the frame rate works out as 23fps (which isn't valid for DVD, so someone must be removing telecine somewhere if the source is really "DVD"). If it's a film-based movie, it's probably not a 16:9 image -- unless someone figured out how to make VidCoder create an anamorphic 1.54:1 frame that displays as 16:9.

That's not much, but it's 1,200,050% more than the O.P. has told us about his video except that it's "DVD". At this point I don't even think anymore that the source is really "DVD".

[jagabo]

Especially since the frame rate works out as 23fps

Windows' file properties dialog discards digits to the right of the decimal point. So it shows 23 fps for 23.976 fps videos, etc.

which isn't valid for DVD

Actually, it is. As long as you get 59.94 fields per second after pulldown. Anything between 20000/1001 and 30000/1001 is valid (with appropriate pulldown). Not that the OP or the software used knows how to handle such sources.

[shenton]

1280x828? That's not 16:9.

Newbie here. What would constitute 16:9?

[jagabo]

What would constitute 16:9?

1280x720. Or any combination of frame dimensions where width/height = 16/9 = 1.777...

[shenton]

That's another thing that tells me the "DVD" movie image isn't 16:9. Especially since the frame rate works out as 23fps (which isn't valid for DVD, so someone must be removing telecine somewhere if the source is really "DVD"). If it's a film-based movie, it's probably not a 16:9 image -- unless someone figured out how to make VidCoder create an anamorphic 1.54:1 frame that displays as 16:9.

That's not much, but it's 1,200,050% more than the O.P. has told us about his video except that it's "DVD". At this point I don't even think anymore that the source is really "DVD".

For the purpose of your discussion, I enclosed the back label of the DVD that said the DVD is enhanced 16:9 televisions. Just for info.

[shenton]

What would constitute 16:9?

1280x720. Or any combination of frame dimensions where width/height = 16/9 = 1.777...

I see. VidCoder spit out 1280x828, I was happy I could get a width of 1280 and settled for 1280x828.

I suppose if I change the settings to 1280x720, it would distort the video as the video settings is not meant to be 1280x720.

[LMotlow]

"Widescreen" for movies includes 1.66:1, 1.77778:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, and more in between. What does "enhanced" on the label mean? Was it cropped and zoomed to 16:9? Pan and Scan? Letterbox? Pillarboxed? As it is, DVD can only be encoded (repeat, only be encoded) (repeat again, only be encoded) as a 16:9 or 4:3 display aspect ratio, regardless of the proportions of the image inside the frame. A 1.85:1 wide screen movie is wider than 16:9. It's letterboxed in a 16:9 display because a 16:9 display cannot take an image that is wider than 16:9 and totally fill the 16:9 screen with it. Your actual image size inside the frame could be anything.

And yep, jagabo, I know the "23" was rounded. Yep, I could get that it's really 23.976. Point is, whether telecined or not, that DVD movie is likely film source and not an exact 16:9 image.

We don't know if resizing to 1280x720 will distort the original or not. What does the original look like? One thing is fairly certain -- if you enjoy watching blurry video and motion smear you'll get your wish by upsampling SD video and re-encoding it at low bitrates.

[johns0]

Did you input 1280 only and left the other settings at default when you encoded with vidcoder?

[shenton]

VidCoder wouldn't let me specify the height (720), just the width, 1280.

And the output is 1280x828.

[Cornucopia]

"Widescreen" for movies includes 1.66:1, 1.77778:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, and more in between. What does "enhanced" on the label mean? Was it cropped and zoomed to 16:9? Pan and Scan? Letterbox? Pillarboxed? As it is, DVD can only be encoded (repeat, only be encoded) (repeat again, only be encoded) as a 16:9 or 4:3 display aspect ratio, regardless of the proportions of the image inside the frame. A 1.85:1 wide screen movie is wider than 16:9. It's letterboxed in a 16:9 display because a 16:9 display cannot take an image that is wider than 16:9 and totally fill the 16:9 screen with it. Your actual image size inside the frame could be anything.

And yep, jagabo, I know the "23" was rounded. Yep, I could get that it's really 23.976. Point is, whether telecined or not, that DVD movie is likely film source and not an exact 16:9 image.

We don't know if resizing to 1280x720 will distort the original or not. What does the original look like? One thing is fairly certain -- if you enjoy watching blurry video and motion smear you'll get your wish by upsampling SD video and re-encoding it at low bitrates.

We know EXACTLY what that means WRT a real DVD (it's anamorphically encoded!). That's basically an industry-standard term.

Those other screen aspect ratios do not exist natively on a DVD. All are padded to fill a 16:9 frame or a 4:3 frame.

A 1280x828 is ~1.5459:1 or roughly 1.54:1, which happens to be close to the 1.5 stored AR of DVD's 720x480 - IF one assumes that the 720x480 is using square pixels (which it NEVER is on DVDs). So, I'm guessing it WAS a 16:9 Frame AR, just that whatever app (or settings applied to the app by the user) doesn't understand / cannot accommodate non-square PARs. Bad app!!

Scott

[LMotlow]

Gimme a break, Cornucopia. It's obviously a 16:9 DAR on that DVD, and DVD is anamorphic period wther 4:3 or 16:9, and I know you can't encode a DVD at 2.35:1. My point is that 16:9 DAR doesn't mean that the image proportions are 16:9. It could be a letterboxed 1.85:1 movie in a 720x480 frame.

How do you know all this about the O.P.'s DVD? You've seen it? Wanna share?

[manono]

VidCoder wouldn't let me specify the height (720), just the width, 1280.

And the output is 1280x828.

And you reencoded your 720x466 MP4 as mentioned in your very first post in this thread, didn't you? Now, if you had reencoded your 16:9 DVD, you (probably) would have gotten a 1280x720 result. Can't you see how your 1280x828 video has the wrong aspect ratio with people being too tall and thin? If not, go and find something round - a ball, a sun, moon, a clock seen head on - and notice they're not round but oval shaped.

[shenton]

VidCoder wouldn't let me specify the height (720), just the width, 1280.

And the output is 1280x828.

And you reencoded your 720x466 MP4 as mentioned in your very first post in this thread, didn't you? Now, if you had reencoded your 16:9 DVD, you (probably) would have gotten a 1280x720 result. Can't you see how your 1280x828 video has the wrong aspect ratio with people being too tall and thin? If not, go and find something round - a ball, a sun, moon, a clock seen head on - and notice they're not round but oval shaped.

I don't know what's your problem. Woke up on the wrong side of bed? You made a fuss about full screen and now try to play ball, sun, moon and clock! But let me amuse you.

DVD source according to HandBrake: 720x480

HandBrake conversion: 720x480 -> 720x466

VidCoder conversion: 720x480 -> 1280x828

1280x828 video: Video looks fine, people with the right height and size

[davejavu]

Our problem, not just manono's, is that what you are trying to do isn't necessary and is being executed poorly. You have already stated you are new to ripping DVD's but have consistently ignored the advise of experienced users.

You don't need to try and 'amuse' us as you've been doing that from the 1st post.

[shenton]

Our problem, not just manono's, is that what you are trying to do isn't necessary and is being executed poorly. You have already stated you are new to ripping DVD's but have consistently ignored the advise of experienced users.

You don't need to try and 'amuse' us as you've been doing that from the 1st post.

I'm a newbie, that's why I asked about how to convert video from a DVD to mp4.

I received help and I achieved my objective of getting the video with a width of 1280.

It is a simple process: run VidCoder, set width to 1280, output is a mp4 file.

You said I'm doing something that is not necessary. What is it that I'm doing is not necessary?

You said what I did is executed poorly. I did what I was advised here, run VidCoder. Why is that executed poorly?



Ps. The experts in this thread were discussing about some technicalities, as far as I'm concerned, my issue is solved, I'm satisfied with the video output.

[manono]

VidCoder conversion: 720x480 -> 1280x828

Then you missed some sort of aspect ratio setting, or turned one on when you shouldn't have. 1280/828=1.55. Movies don't come in a 1.55:1 aspect ratio.

What software should I use next to convert the 720 x 466 video to a 1280 x 720 video?

That's where I got the idea you might have used your original 720x466 encode to reencode for 1280x720.

1280x828 video: Video looks fine, people with the right height and size

If that's true (and I'd have to see a sample to believe it), then you set some sort of 16:9 or anamorphic aspect ratio when you shouldn't have.

[davejavu]

You said I'm doing something that is not necessary. What is it that I'm doing is not necessary?

Reencoding the video to a larger size to 'fill the screen' on your laptop. You can just run the original video in full screen mode.

You said what I did is executed poorly. I did what I was advised here, run VidCoder. Why is that executed poorly?

As manono already pointed out, you have not properly allowed for the aspect ratio or black bars in the original video. You should not end up with a viedeo 1280-828 if you had used the correct anamorphic or crop settings in Vidcoder.

Ps. The experts in this thread were discussing about some technicalities, as far as I'm concerned, my issue is solved, I'm satisfied with the video output.

As you say, it's your video and you are happy with the result you have. I would just prefer to do it properly and not end up watching some bodged together POS.

[shenton]

Reencoding the video to a larger size to 'fill the screen' on your laptop. You can just run the original video in full screen mode.

That is personal preference. What may not be necessary to you, maybe necessary to others. VidCoder recognized that people have preferences and thus let users choose the width they like best, in this case, 1280.

As manono already pointed out, you have not properly allowed for the aspect ratio or black bars in the original video. You should not end up with a viedeo 1280-828 if you had used the correct anamorphic or crop settings in Vidcoder.

Not my doing, I took default settings from VidCoder, only thing I set was 1280

As you say, it's your video and you are happy with the result you have. I would just prefer to do it properly and not end up watching some bodged together POS.

At least you have good intent here


Ps. For a member with 10 posts in 3 years, you offer little help to the community here and identify yourself as one of manono

[shenton]

If that's true (and I'd have to see a sample to believe it), then you set some sort of 16:9 or anamorphic aspect ratio when you shouldn't have.

VidCoder conversion: 720x480 -> 1280x828
Set Width to 1280
All others, took default settings

Here is a sample of the output from VidCoder:
https://zorofiles.com/tgfqlanp34r4
Free download
Scroll down, click Slow speed download, then Create Download link

"Video looks fine, people with the right height and size"

[davejavu]

Not my doing, I took default settings from VidCoder, only thing I set was 1280

It was your choice to let Vidcoder set most of the parameters.

Ps. For a member with 10 posts in 3 years, you offer little help to the community here and identify yourself as one of manono

I've never claimed to be like or know as much anyone else in this community, that is why I only have 10 post in 3 years instead of 22 in 2 days

Anyway, I have included a screenshot from your sample and you can see that the image is squashed with everybody tall and thin. On playback the sample video is being stretched sideways so it appears normal. The other is a screenshot of a video I reencoded from your sample to the correct sizes of 1280x720, which plays back exactly as per the screenshot without being streteched in any direction.

[shenton]

Ps. For a member with 10 posts in 3 years, you offer little help to the community here and identify yourself as one of manono

I've never claimed to be like or know as much anyone else in this community, that is why I only have 10 post in 3 years instead of 22 in 2 days

You did. You said earlier "Our problem, not just manono's" like you and manono are in the same league Otherwise, don't tag on other people's name to lend credibility.

Anyway, I have included a screenshot from your sample and you can see that the image is squashed with everybody tall and thin. On playback the sample video is being stretched sideways so it appears normal. The other is a screenshot of a video I reencoded from your sample to the correct sizes of 1280x720, which plays back exactly as per the screenshot without being streteched in any direction.

You said "the sample video is being stretched sideways so it appears normal", the video has been manipulated (stretched etc) because the original is not 1280x828. That is not a basis for saying the video is "not normal". It is the end results that matters, whether the image in the end results looked stretched or not. In the sample video, which is the end results, the images does not appear to be stretched.

The sample video is there for all to download and judge.
Sample video:
https://zorofiles.com/tgfqlanp34r4


The images looked fine when played on the laptop or mobile device. Here is a screenshot of the video playback from the laptop.

[davejavu]

His/Her name was included as they were the person you were insulting in your earlier post, not any other reason.

Your distorted video IS being stetched/distorted again at playback, which a perfectly good reason for saying it isn't normal as the resolution you have ended up with isn't correct.

Trying to explain this away by saying the original video wasnt't 1280x828 is nonsense. The 2nd example reencoded to 1280x720 has also been stretched from the original smaller DVD video, it has just been stretched to the correct dimensions and doesn't need to be futher distorted at playback to look normal.

[shenton]

So the steps that I took:
VidCoder -> set width to 1280 -> output is 1280x828

I'm getting the impression from the discussion that the above is not correct. If it is not correct, what is the correct thing to do to obtain a video output with width 1280?

[shenton]

Uploading the sample to YouTube, the video looks fine too:



But I think YouTube manipulated the video, when I download the video I uploaded from YouTube, the size is 1280x698


Video from uploaded video to YouTube:
https://zorofiles.com/at2bwjh7s6kf

[davejavu]

In Vidcoder, on the page where you set the width to 1280, change the anamorphic setting from 'Loose' to 'None' and make sure the 'Keep Aspect Ratio' is unticked. This will then let you set the height to 720. Hit the preview button to see the result and make sure the picture isn't squashed.

Your first post with Handbrake shows that some automatic cropping is taking place, which will probably be the same in Vidcoder. If the preview shows any squashing with people being too short/fat you will need to adjust the top/bottom cropping slightly. If people are to tall/thin adjust the left/right cropping slightly. If you do need to change the cropping make the changes equally to top/bottom or left/right if needed. Judging by the amount automatically applied i don't think you will need to any changes though.

This should give you a properly sized video at 1280x720 with a display ratio of 16/9 which should play back without any further stretching.

[jagabo]

It's probably a 1.85:1 AR movie so the height shouldn't be 1280x720 but rather ~1280x692 after cropping away black borders.

[davejavu]

The sample uploaded to YouTube was flagged as 1.85:1, but I don't know if that was the same for the original DVD. Handbrake was automatically cropping 4 pixels from the left/right and 10 pixels from the top/bottom before it was encoded to 1280x828.

[jagabo]

The sample uploaded to YouTube was flagged as 1.85:1, but I don't know if that was the same for the original DVD. Handbrake was automatically cropping 4 pixels from the left/right and 10 pixels from the top/bottom

Which is about right for a 1.85:1 movie on a 16:9 DVD.

[shenton]

In Vidcoder, on the page where you set the width to 1280, change the anamorphic setting from 'Loose' to 'None' and make sure the 'Keep Aspect Ratio' is unticked. This will then let you set the height to 720. Hit the preview button to see the result and make sure the picture isn't squashed.

Your first post with Handbrake shows that some automatic cropping is taking place, which will probably be the same in Vidcoder. If the preview shows any squashing with people being too short/fat you will need to adjust the top/bottom cropping slightly. If people are to tall/thin adjust the left/right cropping slightly. If you do need to change the cropping make the changes equally to top/bottom or left/right if needed. Judging by the amount automatically applied i don't think you will need to any changes though.

This should give you a properly sized video at 1280x720 with a display ratio of 16/9 which should play back without any further stretching.

I'm going to try that. I am curious what I was doing wrong which I thought was acceptable.

Thank you for the tips.

[davejavu]

As the OP hasn't given us the original DVD specs I searched on Amazon and the version they list does seem to be a 1.85:1 movie. Don't know if this is the same version of the movie though so can't say for certain.

Shenton, if the 1280x720 looks wrong with the automatic cropping use the hight of 692 suggested by YouTube and Jagabo.