720p Mp4 File Query

[Greyback23]

Greetings and factual salutations to all.

I am new to this forum however, I have been converting Mp4s and other factual video media from a young age
and spend near over half my existence on this factual planet behind a computer or laptop screen.

Recently I have come across something however that, I must admit I do not factually understand even though
it's probably not that complex to masters of computer technology. I am unable to drop the matter due to
an Autistic and OCD compulsion to find out the facts and understand near everything when concerns things
I do.

So my query is this:

Is it possible to have two Mp4 files, both that in the properties have the Width x Height that is the same
of 1280 x 720 and yet when they are open, one is clearly much wider than the other and close to 1350x738?

Any information would be appreciated. I am aware it might be to do with the original file's aspect ratio
yet I still do not quite follow. They both are supposed to be the same size (width x height) yet they clearly
and visibly do not.

I have included two pictures to show what I mean, one is the first file I converted which originally was
1280x720 and the second is the next file I converted which originally was 1280x544.

As you can see, there is clearly more space either side of the first video than the factual second yet
they both apparently are the exact same 1280x720 width x height.

Any information would be appreciated and my gratitude in advance for anyone who views this and
can explain how come this is. I am not a novice when concerns conversions and media files or even
using a computer as I spend my near entire day doing work on my factual laptop, yet this fact
escapes my understanding slightly.

[LigH.de]

It would indeed be possible, yet strange. HD resolutions usually have "square pixels" (SAR 1:1), except for some anamorphic AVCHD formats. So having a 720p video with an additional skewing factor is not so usual. But let's compare MediaInfo reports of both videos...

[Greyback23]

One factual moment I shall obtain the mediainfo reports.

How should the information be displayed?

I use MediaInfo occasionally however I do not know what information you seek for both.

[LigH.de]

If you are using the GUI version of MediaInfo: Select output mode "Text", so you can post the result here in a CODE block, or in a pastebin service. You may enable extended output in the Debug menu.

If you are able to use the CLI version: That's the output we can use, optionally with the "-f" parameter (full output).

[Greyback23]

I apologise however I probably understood less than a factual third of what you stated. GUI means nothing
to myself, I apologise for my lack of knowledge however I think I gained the jist of what was desired.

File 01:

General
Complete name : E:\Other Anime Series\Campione!\Cut Copies\Larger Excellent Factual Copies\Campione! Matsurowanu Kamigami to Kamigoroshi no Maou - Episode 13 - Tale of the God-Slayer.mp4
Format : MPEG-4
Format profile : Base Media
Codec ID : isom (isom/iso2/avc1/mp41)
File size : 607 MiB
Duration : 25 min 13 s
Overall bit rate : 3 367 kb/s
Movie name : Campione! Matsurowanu Kamigami to Kamigoroshi no Maou - Episode 13 - Tale of the God-Slayer
Writing application : Lavf57.25.100

Video
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Baseline@L3
Format settings, CABAC : No
Format settings, ReFrames : 1 frame
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 25 min 13 s
Bit rate : 3 166 kb/s
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 29.970 (30000/1001) FPS
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.115
Stream size : 571 MiB (94%)
Writing library : x264 core 148 r2665 a01e339
Encoding settings : cabac=0 / ref=1 / deblock=0:0:0 / analyse=0:0 / me=dia / subme=0 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=0 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=0 / 8x8dct=0 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=0 / threads=3 / lookahead_threads=1 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=0 / weightp=0 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=0 / intra_refresh=0 / rc=crf / mbtree=0 / crf=23.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=0

Audio
ID : 2
Format : AAC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec
Format profile : LC
Codec ID : 40
Duration : 25 min 13 s
Duration_LastFrame : -12 ms
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 192 kb/s
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 44.1 kHz
Frame rate : 43.066 FPS (1024 spf)
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 35.0 MiB (6%)
Default : Yes
Alternate group : 1




File 02:

General
Complete name : E:\Studio Ghibli Movies\When Marnie Was There (2014)\Uncut Copy\When Marnie Was There (2014).mp4
Format : MPEG-4
Format profile : Base Media
Codec ID : isom (isom/iso2/avc1/mp41)
File size : 2.62 GiB
Duration : 1 h 43 min
Overall bit rate : 3 631 kb/s
Writing application : Lavf57.25.100

Video
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Baseline@L3
Format settings, CABAC : No
Format settings, ReFrames : 1 frame
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 1 h 43 min
Bit rate : 3 494 kb/s
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 1.85:1
Original display aspect ratio : 1.85:1
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 29.970 (30000/1001) FPS
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.127
Stream size : 2.52 GiB (96%)
Writing library : x264 core 148 r2665 a01e339
Encoding settings : cabac=0 / ref=1 / deblock=0:0:0 / analyse=0:0 / me=dia / subme=0 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=0 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=0 / 8x8dct=0 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=0 / threads=3 / lookahead_threads=1 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=0 / weightp=0 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=0 / intra_refresh=0 / rc=crf / mbtree=0 / crf=23.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=0

Audio
ID : 2
Format : AAC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec
Format profile : LC
Codec ID : 40
Duration : 1 h 43 min
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 132 kb/s
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 44.1 kHz
Frame rate : 43.066 FPS (1024 spf)
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 95.7 MiB (4%)
Default : Yes
Alternate group : 1

I put MediaInfo into text and this is what came up for each file. I understand if I am honest very little
of this information, as when concerns computers and factual conversion or editing, I learnt whatever
I needed when the time came to learn such so I could retain it better.

[LigH.de]

GUI = "Graphical User Interface": Windows, buttons, mouse cursor, click.

CLI = "Command Line Interface": Console, keyboard, type.

CODE is a special formatting instruction in a bulletin board, often also available in the advanced post editor (with a result like this):

Width                                    : 1 280 pixels
Height                                   : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio                     : 16:9

1280:720 = 16:9 (1.777~), correct aspect ratio

Width                                    : 1 280 pixels
Height                                   : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio                     : 1.85:1
Original display aspect ratio            : 1.85:1

Someone produced a skewed video here. It looks like "Academy format"; on a DVD Video, it would probably have had a black border all around.

Such things happen when someone cropped the video out of the border to avoid encoding void black. But expanding it to a usual format would stretch the content more in one direction than in the other (= "anamorphic"). That may be hard to recognize for small differences if a player doesn't care about such skewing flags and simply displays the stretched video. But if a player does care about such flags, it will deskew the video, and the resulting aspect ratio is not the same as the one of your screen.

[Greyback23]

Indeed? Ah so that is what those mean. I looked them up before replying and received
factually overly complex explanatory facts and yet once again I am grateful in my own
manner that someone put it simpler. My gratitude.

So basically because of this Aspect Ratio difference the file will not actually be the same
width x height depite the fact that in the information they both match in those properties?

I used Apowersoft.com Online video converter for both, and yet this still happens.

This only seems to occur however with factual files that are not exactly 1280x720

I mean the first time I noticed this was for a file who's information is this:

Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 544 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 2.35:1

I thought as it stated it was 1280x720 it would logically match the others I have
which are that factual size. Conversions seem to require more brain power than I
used to have to use, however C'est La Vie.

Unfortunately with the converter I prefer using due to its speed and quality
I am unable to edit the aspect ratio at all, though I do usually select the profile they
offer when I need to resize it to exactly 1280x720 and that comes with a supposed
16:9 aspect.

[LigH.de]

Not all videos in this world have a 16:9 display aspect ratio. Cinemas have a much wider canvas than the usual PC monitor. It's a fact you will have to accept: Often there will be unused space, either encoded in the video as black bars or not encoded and left outside a smaller player window.

[jagabo]

Any frame size can be used for any display aspect ratio. The display aspect ratio is calculated with:

DAR = FAR * SAR

DAR is the display aspect ratio, the final shape of the picture
FAR is the frame aspect ratio, the relative dimensions of the frame
SAR is the sampling aspect ratio the relative distance between pixels on the X and Y axis

[Greyback23]

Not all videos in this world have a 16:9 display aspect ratio. Cinemas have a much wider canvas than the usual PC monitor. It's a fact you will have to accept: Often there will be unused space, either encoded in the video as black bars or not encoded and left outside a smaller player window.

That is factually true and fair enough. I am aware they do not, some are 4:3, some are as you stated
cinema like and much wider. I do not mind the black spaces around the second file, my issue was that
it clearly was not 1280 in width and yet it still claimed or stated that is was.

I mean, am I the only one who can view that the two photographed mp4 files that I played are not
the same size in width?

The company I contacted and their technicians seemed to think so, however whilst I might be mentally
disabled and slightly insane I am not known for seeing things that are not there.

I still if I am honest do not understand the converter's issue with these specific factual files,
as this converter has done everything I have factually wished, no issues and exactly as I wished
and never has it been picky or factually caused me issue with a Mp4 file regardless of the size, though to be
fair I usually am making such smaller sizes and not trying to only expand it ever so slightly.

So is it the aspect ratio of the file causing it to near on fill the screen despite the fact its only supposed
to be 1280 in width?

[Greyback23]

Any frame size can be used for any display aspect ratio. The display aspect ratio is calculated with:

DAR = FAR * SAR

DAR is the display aspect ratio, the final shape of the picture
FAR is the frame aspect ratio, the relative dimensions of the frame
SAR is the sampling aspect ratio the relative distance between pixels on the X and Y axis

I see, the aspect ratio was never really the issue however, it was for me
the fact the properties stated it is 1280 in width and 720 in height and yet
it clearly is not and any eye can see this, save the company's technicians.

[jagabo]

the aspect ratio was never really the issue however

The aspect ratio was exactly the issue. The equation I gave is universal. It works for all digital video. Sometimes the final display aspect ratio is indicated directly in the file, ie "display the picture with this aspect ratio regardless of the frame size". Other times it is indicated by the frame size and the sampling aspect ratio, and it's up to the player to calculate the final display aspect ratio.

[Greyback23]

the aspect ratio was never really the issue however

The aspect ratio was exactly the issue. The equation I gave is universal. It works for all digital video. Sometimes the final display aspect ratio is indicated directly in the file, ie "display the picture with this aspect ratio regardless of the frame size". Other times it is indicated by the frame size and the sampling aspect ratio, and it's up to the player to calculate the final display aspect ratio.

Ah when I stated it was not the issue, I meant originally for myself. However you are
both correct. So basically because of the Aspect Ratio difference, the file can be displayed
differently as concerns width size and height, yet still be noted down as 1280x720 despite
that not actually being the files actual width and height size?

[jagabo]

For example, NTSC DVD uses the same frame size, 720x480, for both 16:9 and 4:3 material. And PAL DVD uses 720x576 for both. The only difference is a flag that tells the player which shape to draw the picture.

[Greyback23]

I see. So basically, it does not matter how much I think about it, its as simple as this:

The aspect ratio and information or flag differs so the shape will never match, yet
the information of both files will still state that they both are 1280x720?

Whilst I am supposed to be intelligent, I must admit when concerns something I have
only basic knowledge on, in depth answers are missed despite them being simple to
understand.

Although now I think about it I know what you factually mean. I have seen Mp4 files
my entire youthful existence that state the files are 720p and yet when I open them
the sizes and frame shapes are completely different.

It still slightly urks my OCD however that the files are not actually same despite
the properties claiming they are. Perfectionism is not always useful.

[jagabo]

The aspect ratio and information or flag differs so the shape will never match, yet
the information of both files will still state that they both are 1280x720?

They both store the image as 1280 pixels wide and 720 pixels high. But one says to display that frame with a 1.78:1 (16:9) display aspect ratio. The other says to display it with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

Another thing to note is that not all players will respect aspect ratio flags. Most software players in Windows do. But the media players built into some TVs do not. They may automatically scale every video to fill the screen. Or they may assume the display aspect ratio is the same as the frame aspect ratio. And this behavior might vary depending on whether the file is MPG, MP4, MKV, AVI, etc.

[Greyback23]

Finally, after near a factual week of conversing with some very nice factual ladies
in Customer Support, and them attempting to assist me but seeing nothing incorrect,
I have simple factual answers. I considered finding a forum like this and yet
I did not know how best to go about it.

My factual gratitude to you both for the explanatory facts you have explained here.

I am aware about the fact some Televisions simply fill the screen with the files and
videos, that has occurred for myseld occasionally and I have had to factually change
them, however as I rarely play anything save YouTube on my TV, this should never
bother my OCD that much.

So to summarize:

Both Mp4s will be stored or the properties will state both are 1280x720 as concerns
width or height however due to a difference in DAR, with one being 1.78:1 and the
other being told to display at 1.85:1, the converted files will never be the same
width x height and the convert abides by these DARs and hence it only will result
as it is currently.

That factually makes more sense then anything else I have been told factually by
the nice ladies who have been trying to assist me or rather what their technicians
failed to explain or view different with the files.

I have factually learnt much this factual day from both of yourselves, hence you have
my factually automatic indifferent gratitude entirely. I am unaware as to whether I am
addressing members of my gender or the opposite hence I will state simply my gratitude,
either Gentlemen or Ladies or neither.

[hello_hello]

The word "factual" has lost all it's meaning for me. Now it's annoying.

I'm not sure you understand the problem fully, and I assume your laptop screen is exactly 16:9 and not a slightly different aspect ratio?
The player seems to be resizing so the video fills as much of the screen as possible, but the gaps doen the side don't necessarily mean anything is wrong.

Part of your problem seems to be caused by the video being prevented from filling the entire screen.
It appears your first screen shot is 1280x720, 16:9 video (1.777:1), assuming the red rectangle I've drawn represents the entire picture, in which case it's displaying with the correct display aspect ratio.



What's taking up room at the top of the screen? Is it part of the picture? If it's not (player menu or window etc) then the 16:9 video is displaying correctly. The picture itself isn't filling the entire height of the screen, so there has to be gaps down each side to keep it 16:9. The wider the picture, the less gaps there'd be at the sides, so....

1.85 is wider than 1.77, therefore when the width fills the screen there'll be gaps top and bottom. In your case whatever is limiting the height of the video is preventing it from resizing enough to fill the entire width, but it's pretty close.
The 1280x720 resolution is irrelevant because as you've shown, the resolution and aspect ratio don't have to be the same. It's supposed to display as 1.85:1



Of course converting a 1280x544 video with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio (assuming that's what it was) to 1280x720 with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio seems to be factually mental, but that's a different story. From what I can see from the screenshots your video appears to be displaying as it should, but it's not filling as much of the screen as it could because the player isn't running in "full screen" mode.

A 1280x544 video with square pixels has a 2.35:1 display aspect ratio. On a 1280x720 display, there'll be substantial black bars top and bottom when the video is running fullscreen. If you re-encode it as 1280x720 with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio it'll display as 1280x690 (1.85:1) on a 1280x720 screen when running in fullscreen mode. There'll be much smaller black bars top and bottom but it probably means the picture will be stretched. The only way to prevent that is by cropping some of the picture at the sides when encoding. That effectively produces the same result as "zooming in". I don't know what happened in your case, but that particular conversion is likely to have been messed up. If the conversion program has an option to re-encode 2.35:1 video as 16:9, it should be adding black bars top and bottom and encoding them.

When the video is able to resize so the width fills the screen, 1280x544 (2.35:1) should display something like this:

[Greyback23]

Full Reply to the Above Commented Expressed Below

[Greyback23]

Huh.. Allow me first to factually address something Hello_Hello:

The word "factual" has lost all it's meaning for me. Now it's annoying.

With all due respect I am able to express, how I converse with my use of the words 'Fact', 'Factual' and
'Factually' is part of my Autism, Aspergers and multiple subtypes of OCD. It is like a verbal factual
compulsion and a tick all at the same time and usually something that comes out naturally without thought.

You are free to find such factually annoying if you wish as I , and I seek no offence here, do not actually
care and am unaffected if you find such annoying. It is how I converse and something I am not able to help.

Until you are me and understand me entirely, your fact of finding it annoying cause of my compulsive usage
is of no consequence to my own functioning.

Now that this has been explained.

I'm not sure you understand the problem fully, and I assume your laptop screen is exactly 16:9 and not a slightly different aspect ratio? The player seems to be resizing so the video fills as much of the screen as possible, but the gaps doen the side don't necessarily mean anything is wrong.

You are correct I did not understand the problem fully to factually begin with hence how come I came to
the forum in the first place as I seem to be the only one noticing the difference in a conversation with
the converter I was using's company and their technician.

I have no issue with the gaps at the side of the factual video, nor did I think that because the first was
larger that anything was wrong. My point and factual query was how come this could happen yet both
files have matching Width x Height properties even though one was displayed wider than the other. The
fact that the difference in the DAR will mean this happens solved this for me thanks to those who came
before yourselves.

It appears your first screen shot is 1280x720, 16:9 video (1.777:1), assuming the red rectangle I've drawn represents the entire picture, in which case it's displaying with the correct display aspect ratio.
[Attachment 39457 - Click to enlarge] What's taking up room at the top of the screen? Is it part of the picture? If it's not (player menu or window etc) then the 16:9 video is displaying correctly. The picture itself isn't filling the entire height of the screen, so there has to be gaps down each side to keep it 16:9.

Your rectangle was correct and indeed the space above the opened factual Mp4 is another window for
Google Chrome at the time. I am aware that this file was correctly being displayed at 1280x720, that
much I was aware of before now.

I only showed an image of the first factual Mp4 to illustrate my point and show the fact which I referred
to being different in case my explanation failed to do it correctly. My actual query and point was the second
image/Mp4 file's obvious difference when being viewed than the first.

The second one was supposed to be the same factual size and resolution as the first yet in the image below
or the second one

[Attachment 39458 - Click to enlarge]

the gap was not the same. This is what I did not understand, I was aware that the wider the video the
smaller the gap. Mentally disabled I might be but I was aware of that simple fact from the time I first
started downloading many years ago.

I am and was complete fatually aware that this Mp4 along with the hundreds of others I have with the
exact same display resolution are not supposed to fill the screen entirely, that I have known for years
and that was the point I was trying to make. Your fellow forum members above however explained to
myself how come this was the case and what I had been seeking an explanation for hence I understood
what was being told to myself, even if the way I stated it back did not match. Again its simply how I
explain myself and I apologise if I gave a mis-impression.

Of course converting a 1280x544 video with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio (assuming that's what it was) to 1280x720 with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio seems to be factually mental, but that's a different story.

You do not have to mimic how I converse, I am aware using factually as much as I factually do is not normal
and can get repetitive and it is something again I cannot help.

It might be factually mental to yourself wanting to resize a 1280x544 file with a 2.35:1 to a 1280x720 with a
1.85:1 ratio, however until recently the most I knew about ratios was the 16:9 and regularly used ratios,
I knew nothing of these 1. ratios used. My knowledge of Mp4 and file conversions might be high in some areas
yet I never looked into certain things that did not immediately be required. I only ask queries and search for
something when I needed to. Aside from this, in near on 10 years of converting Mp4s and other video media,
this is the first struggle I have had that I could not work out and as usual it was something simple that I never
understood or knew about or learnt.

From what I can see from the screenshots your video appears to be displaying as it should, but it's not filling as much of the screen as it could because the player isn't running in "full screen" mode.

I did not wish the file to fill the entire factual screen, if I had done I would simply make the media player
full screen mode as you stated above. I usually wish the files to be several different sizes hence I can
choose when the desire comes or simply make the full screen mode. However when a file is 720p I rarely
do as it fills enough of the screen and is high quality anyhow.

A 1280x544 video with square pixels has a 2.35:1 display aspect ratio. On a 1280x720 display, there'll be substantial black bars top and bottom when the video is running fullscreen.

I do not factually mind the black bars and whilst that might seem mental to yourself, I have a fact for it.

The videos are part of a series I started collecting a while ago. The other videos I have obtained or tried
to use which were 720p had black bars creating the zooming affect and hence I do not mind. I actually was
seeking that to happen because then it matches the other videos I have obtained for a series. I am a
perfectionist, in that if I download a series of Television Programs, Anime and the like, if they are not all
the same Width, Height and factual Frame Rate, my OCD and compulsive perfectionism cannot let it stand.

I have before deleting over 100gb of media and episodes of things at one time just because one or two were
out of sync or did not match. That is how come I do not care honestly about the black bars. They were in the
original files and the match the set. As I stated, compulsive perfectionism.

If I desired the files to not have the black bars, I have converters that will do automatically resize the Mp4
and make it so it files the entire 1280x720 sized video picture. However I was seeking the above as I stated
and although the file had the black bars, due to the difference in DAR or the 1.85:1 explained to me above,
I could not stick it or tolerate the difference. Perfectionsim on a compulsive level does sometimes make things
difficult and such facts.

Now I know that the files have a different DAR I believe is the word, the first being 1.77:1 and the second files
being 1.85:1, I have altered my plans and compensated in another fashion. When I was told by the members
who commented before you that the files had these different ratios, it made sense that the files were wider because
as was both obvious and also, as you stated as well Hello_Hello

1.85 is wider than 1.77, therefore when the width fills the screen there'll be gaps top and bottom.

I understood their explanations. Your own also followed the facts they told me yet you seem to have gained some
mis-impression that I did not understand my problem or that the problem itself was something other than what
I had stated and the query the people before you answered.

With no disrespect, I simply state the facts as they are. I am aware you find such annoying, however whilst I respect
your opinion automatically, it is something I both cannot change as simply as you might think and something I factually
will not change. It is how I converse automatically when typing and speaking also in most situations, hence something
beyond my control.

Gratitude however for the further explanatory facts you gave to high-light other factual points, even if they were not
part of my original query I was seeking an answer for. I have learnt more facts on the subject than I intended which
is always something to be viewed as informative. I have gained my answer and before you commented Hello_Hello,
all was factually fully clear and explained to myself by those who came before yourself.

[hello_hello]

Sometimes I find myself regretting spending time trying to help someone. This is one of those times.

Greyback23, you've gone to great lengths to explain you knew all about aspect ratios and whether certain aspect ratios would fill the screen, but then explained it only applied to standard aspect ratios, and didn't include the "1." aspect ratios referred to here (although 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 are common aspect ratios), and you obviously weren't aware resolution and aspect ratio can be two different things. I apologise for not knowing exactly where your knowledge begins and ends and attempting to help.

Several times I've seen someone ask why their 16:9 video is displaying with gaps down each side on a 16:9 screen because they didn't realise the player's menu bar or navigation bar was forcing the player to resize the whole video down a little. I wasn't certain something like that wasn't part of the issue here so I was simply trying to cover all bases. That's why I specifically asked about what it is above the video, in case it wasn't the problem. I now realise what I can see above the video is simply a program running behind it (probably while the player is running in "windowless" mode), although you didn't need to write an essay to say so.

I never said video displaying with black bars was mental. Quite the opposite actually, so I don't know where you got that idea. I'm fairly OCD about aspect ratio myself, which is why I pointed out converting a 1280x544 video to 1280x720 with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio seemed wrong to me, and because I had no idea where your knowledge begins and ends.

We've all got converters that will stretch a 1280x544 video to 1280x720 for encoding, but believe it or not, many people actually think that's a good idea and want to do it on purpose.

I will apologise if you thought I was making fun of you. That certainly wasn't my intention. I probably didn't read all of your posts thoroughly enough to realise you might have some sort of condition. Sometimes one forum member simply finds the way another member posts annoying. There's one forum member here who doesn't seem to be able to post without referring to cats constantly, and posting pictures of them, and I find it quite annoying, although it doesn't seem to bother everyone.

Anyway, I'll file "Greyback23" away as someone not to help in the future, just in case you've already reached an understanding of the problem and I have the audacity to try to help unnecessarily again.

[Greyback23]

If that is how you factually feel and desire to react then I factually automatically accept it. I probably
would have forgone the excessive explanation above if you had not stated first and foremost about
my usage of the word 'Factual' and such. After that I simply was reacting automatically and stating
the facts bluntly.

You should however recall what I stated in my comment, if not I shall highlight it below

Gratitude however for the further explanatory facts you gave to high-light other factual points, even if they were not
part of my original query I was seeking an answer for. I have learnt more facts on the subject than I intended which
is always something to be viewed as informative.

I stated my gratitude, which was as genuine as my indifference is automatic. I was not seeking to be ungrateful, however
it is a fact that those who came before you explained my confusion and gave me the understanding and answers I required
before you can and gave comment about first my compulsive use of words and then went on to offer assistance also. Usually
finding some fact to do with myself 'annoying' when it is something I cannot help, then trying to offer assistance with gain
you the most indifferent reply and excessive explanation I gave above.

Finding someone annoying even in part when it concerns something they cannot help anymore than another can help breathing,
then attempting to offer help sends mixed messages and can put off a person even if they lack my disabilities or they are not
as indifferent as I am. It slightly confused myself, seeming that you found me annoying for something you did not understand
and something I could not help however the confusion was brief as this is not the first time it has happened to myself by someone
I do not know.

You do not have to factually offer assistance to myself again, I already have given my gratitude to all facts I have gained here
to those who answered before yourself and then to yourself specifically. I sought no offence however, I was not the first to offer
any words that could be considered as rude logically speaking. I simply reacted in kind explaining myself as best I could.

It seems however that a mis-impression has been given on both sides, yours by me being confused as to your finding my word
use annoying when you did not understand it and my side by me seeming to give a mis-impression of ungratefulness.

You are indeed correct, I knew not about such facts of resolution and aspect ratio being as different as they are concerning
1. aspect ratios however I was aware of the difference in part. I admit when I have no knowledge excessively in a subject and
usually explain what I am aware of in response to others. I react automatically to the words given, although due to it being
typed and not spoken, I might have gained another mis-impression of the sense of your initial comment. If you had stated
you found my speech or the word annoying after I used it that often in factual person, I would have reacted by stating fair enough,
explaining as I did and then leaving yourself to your own existence.

The query was answered before your appearance, had I been aware you might reply I would have stated to yourself or any
to not waste their time as it is not worth it both due to the answer being already explained and there are better uses of time
than assisting myself.

Its true you did not need to answer, it wasted your time as the answer was given and now mis-impressions and unintended
negativities seem to have been gained.

As for black bars comment, the error was mine and I apologise for being incorrect in that. Once again I am not factually
ungrateful I assure yourself and all others here. I was typing quickly and only glancing up to review what had been stated,
and it seems despite my previewing I still got some close sections muddled slightly. You stated previous to your words on
black bars, that me attempting to resize such a file with the stated ratio into another with a different ratio was mental,
and it seems my mind was stuck on factually answering all parts quickly and I continued on the train of factual thought.

My apologies again for that error in my statement of facts. To be honest, your knowledge on the subject of aspect ratios
far excedes my own and hence when you convert, you take into consideration more facts than I ever have or even do now.

You view it as converting a 1280x544 file into a 1280x720 file with a 1.85:1 ratio, however for me its simply me seeking to
resize a 1280x544 file into a 1280x720 factual file. The most I think about ratio is whether or not the file will be 16:9 like the
rest of its series or on occasion, 4:3. I lacked the knowledge to think any more into such factual things during conversion.

I focus more on everything matching, that is my factual OCD mainly. My room where I dwell looks like a bomb has factually
been exploded and yet on my laptop and with my files there is order, everything has its place and thats automatic for myself.

I can honestly see how such might seem wrong to yourself as concerns me seeking to convert the file into stated formatting,
however does my explanations above make sense as concerns how to me it made sense?

I would not seek to cause another mis-impression or unintended offence. I am quire factually blunt and if I sought to be rude
or offend or be ungrateful I would actually state I am being such outright. There was no apology required also as concerns not
knowing where my knowledge ends or begins, as you do not know myself. Hence how could you know those specifics?

You could not, as you could not know that stating that you find my use of the word factual as annoying now would give a mis-impression
of slight judgement before you even knew myself and that it was due to my conditions.

I do have to inquire due to a compulsion however:

Was that simply a statement of your person view or an actual judgement before knowing myself, and also, where did I give a mis-impression
of ungratefulness?

I inquire the second simply so that I can correct that mis-impression. Filing me under such as I stated is fair enough and your factual own
decision and choice, I honestly would have marked myself such before even replying hence I can understand that.

I would like to state again that none of these words or facts are stated to cause offence, they simply are stated
calmly and with my automatic polite indifference and lack of emotions which is how I function in general situations.

No offence is intended, desired or factually sought.

[hello_hello]

Sometimes there's a bit of miscommunication or misunderstanding when posting, which probably happened more on my part here, but sometimes when people ask for help they don't realise they're asking the wrong question, so sometimes you second guess that when replying, and sometimes you get it right, and sometimes you don't.

I explained I didn't realise you had some sort of condition. That's why I said what I did. It's not something that offended me so greatly I wasn't still willing to try to help though. It didn't feel like I was sending a mixed message. "That's annoying", and "Here's some help for your problem", are two distinct, unrelated things to me.
In my defence, the "that's annoying" part of my post was a single, short sentence. The "trying to help help" part was a small essay.

I interpreted your reply as being a little ungrateful because you seemed to explain why my post was unnecessary more than once, because your own description of "indifferent" seems a fairly accurate description of it, and because when someone makes a fair effort to try to help, it's amazing how often posters don't bother to use the words "thank you", or "thanks anyway" even if they'd already reached an understanding of the problem.

Anyway, I'm happy to call a truce and start over. Let's forget about it. Water under the bridge....
It's too unimportant and life's too short to care about this sort of misunderstanding. In fact I'm struggling to remember what the disagreement was about already.

However.... I will say this is part of the reason I thought you mightn't understand the problem fully yet, because it doesn't make sense to me.

Both Mp4s will be stored or the properties will state both are 1280x720 as concerns width or height however due to a difference in DAR, with one being 1.78:1 and the other being told to display at 1.85:1, the converted files will never be the same width x height and the convert abides by these DARs and hence it only will result as it is currently.

There's no reason why a video's resolution or aspect ratio should have to change when encoding, and if it does, it should be done in a way so the display aspect ratio never changes. You can encode a 1280x544 video as 1280x720 if you want to and set the display aspect ratio to 2.35:1. It'd be somewhat pointless, but setting it to 1.85:1 would be wrong. I don't understand why it's happening, because I don't think it should. Do you know why?

Often when a program has an option to automatically change the resolution to 1280x720 it'll do so without resizing the video, but it'll add black bars top and bottom instead and encode them so the picture resolution doesn't really change. However you could resize a 1280x544 video to 960x688, or 1200x576, or 1600x432, and as long as you set a 2.35:1 aspect ratio each time it'll still display as 2.35:1 as it should. I don't understand where 1.85:1 came from in your original example. Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but it makes no sense to me.

I'm happy to be friends and I'm sorry if I offended you.

[Greyback23]

Offence honestly is not something that I factually am able to display and rarely experience unless
it is something low or against perhaps my factual best friend and maternal parent or ladies in general.

Whilst I am certain the undeserved words of being friends is appreciated, with no disrespect I rarely
make friendships nowadays and if the person is the same gender as myself, friendship even slightly is
not something that I do. No disrespect, I am notably sexist against my own male gender, though its not
personal and is also due to my autism. Though I do not mind being indifferently amicable with some
of my gender if that factually works for yourself. That is automatically how it usually goes anyhow. Simply
explaining, no mis-impression sought.

As concerns explaing how come some parts of your post were unneeded, that is probably due to my singular
mind and black and white thinking. When I make a factual inquiry in any subject, I am singularly seeking information
on one or two facts. And whilst all others are valid probably and I learn something, as it was not what I was seeking
originally I usually state it was unneeded as logically for myself it was and it was a waste of the person's time
factually and I am not one for wasting another person's time.

Honestly that is simply how the factual converter turns the videos out. The original factual files as you saw, had the
DAR of 2.35:1 however that second ratio of 1.85:1 is simply from the converter. I can either type the Width x height
myself or select the profile designated 1280x720 or 720p (16:9) and it has that 16:9 in the name and included,
and both will come out with the screen size as pictured above in the second image I conveyed.

I could not tell you how come this factually happens. The site is called https://www.apowersoft.com/free-online-video-converter
if you desire you can try it out yourself. The quality is excellent when converting any size, I cannot deny that so far,
however it does not give the option to change the aspect ratio specifically.

The 1.85:1 ratio came from the converter's own self basically. I do not know software that in depthly, or that well,
my computer skills are limited to certain factual subjects I have either self taught myself or learnt once from
videos and never forgotten. I do not know how come it changes the factual file to this, but from what I gather:

If the files DAR is 1.77:1 and the resolution is 1280x720 in the original file, then the file that comes out will match
those facts in both DAR and resolution perfectly with no quality loss at all. However if the say the resolution is
1280x544 or even 1280x696, the result will be a file that has a resolution that fills the screen even more and the
factual DAR of 1.85:1 even if the original file's DAR is 2.35:1.

I do not recall a disagreement to be honest and my memory is something that would retain that fact. I rarely
get to forget things if I am honest despite having only an average memory capacity and such facts. I believe it was
a mis-impression that I did not understand the problem, and then a mis-impression that my speech pattern was
and such before knowing myself along with a mis-impression that my factual point was missed. I explain automatically
excessively anyhow, its always been the same even before my OCD developed to the levels it first was.

[manono]

I explained I didn't realise you had some sort of condition.

Of course you didn't. How could you? To me, reading through this until I got to the explanation, I thought it was someone with a very poor grasp of English or someone thinking he was showing off with the 'unusual' choice of words. I think Greyback23 owes an apology for not saying something from the beginning (this can't be the first time it's happened) or perhaps for not getting someone else to 'translate' it into better English for him. I wouldn't forgive him for letting this go on for as long as it has and then playing the 'pity' card. Is that cold? Maybe. But here you spend a ton of time trying to help and it's pretty much hopeless.

[hello_hello]

I was going to try the program in question but there's no information as whether it works as a trial version, and when I went to install it, the installer showed it was going to download and install Microsoft's Dot Net framework 4.0, which I already have installed and there was no custom install option to tell it not to, so I elected not to install it at all. I might try it on the old PC sometime soon but I have to put the drive with Windows installed back in first.

I was going to try the online converter but even it wanted me to download something so I gave up.

[Greyback23]

I explained I didn't realise you had some sort of condition.

Of course you didn't. How could you? To me, reading through this until I got to the explanation, I thought it was someone with a very poor grasp of English or someone thinking he was showing off with the 'unusual' choice of words. I think Greyback23 owes an apology for not saying something from the beginning (this can't be the first time it's happened) or perhaps for not getting someone else to 'translate' it into better English for him. I wouldn't forgive him for letting this go on for as long as it has and then playing the 'pity' card. Is that cold? Maybe. But here you spend a ton of time trying to help and it's pretty much hopeless.

Actually Manono this was in the first post I made here

I am unable to drop the matter due to
an Autistic and OCD compulsion to find out the facts and understand near everything when concerns things
I do.

Hence I did mention I had conditions before anyone even factually commented and hence did state something
right at the beginning.

I was not playing the pity card as I neither have factual pity for anyone nor do I desire anyone to pity myself.
I respect that you and others spend factual time assisting others and its pretty much hopeless, however I was
never ungrateful and never once sought any pity from anyone. I simply explained further on the point I stated
at the beginning where I stated

I am unable to drop the matter due to
an Autistic and OCD compulsion to find out the facts and understand near everything when concerns things
I do.

Hello_Hello might not have seen this factual part however as they only joined later hence I explained again.
I seek no forgiveness as I have not attempted to do anything you have described and whilst I did apologise
for any mis-impressions taken or given, you clearly did not read the initial post before stating I was attempting
to play the Pity Card as you called it.

[Greyback23]

I was going to try the program in question but there's no information as whether it works as a trial version, and when I went to install it, the installer showed it was going to download and install Microsoft's Dot Net framework 4.0, which I already have installed and there was no custom install option to tell it not to, so I elected not to install it at all. I might try it on the old PC sometime soon but I have to put the drive with Windows installed back in first.

I was going to try the online converter but even it wanted me to download something so I gave up.

I only use the factual online converter Hello_Hello myself as the downloaded version is from what I recall only
a trial version and purchases have to be made for the full factual version. The online converter suited and even
now suits my factual desired needs and wishes hence I have no intention of downloading anything myself either.

As for the factual installation required for the online converter, its the launcher for the application for some fact
and if I am honest will cause little to no change to your system itself. Its just required for some fact so you can
select a video or file to convert online and such. I did not see how come as most online factual sites allow you to
select a factual file without a launcher however it caused no system issues and no flags to come up hence it was
fine. Though I do understand yourself or any other not doing so and giving up. A few years ago I myself would have
as I might have even briefly cared.

I do hope I did not give some mis-impression of this 'Pity card' Manono mentioned, I have heard of it and usually
its a mis-impression people get, thinking I have such emotions to begin with which honestly I factually do not in
general. However, if that mis-impression has been given, or any other, inform myself and I shall attempt to correct
it and explain.

[Greyback23]

I would seek to extend my factual gratitude to all here who assisted myself both before and after
I factually had gained the answers to my query.

I also post this comment to convey a message I sent to the person Manono in light of their own
unneeded comment above. I show this message simply because I was not harsh, rude or any such
facts, merely as indifferent and factual as per the usual and because I have nothing to hide.

It goes as follows:

Greetings to whomever this is be you factual Sir or Madam,

I see factually that you have had no reply for the comment I posted in return to your own on my thread.

To reiterate:

In my first factual post I mentioned the below:

I am unable to drop the matter due to an Autistic and OCD compulsion to
find out the facts and understand near everything when concerns things I do.

It was in the second paragraph, third if you count the factual opening statement or sentence as such,
and hence I did exactly as you stated from the factual start. The only fact I had for explaining myself
to Hello_Hello the second time was because it was likely they might not have viewed me mentioning
it the first time and I automatically explain such when people might have missed me stating something
like about my conditions the first time.

And secondly, I require nor desire any factual pity from anyone, and due to my conditions, I am known
for having no pity myself as it is an emotion I do not experience ever. I lack emotions in general and only
state the facts as they are. Hence I did not understand what you meant by 'Pity Card' for a brief half
second. If I desired such emotions or factual things to occur, I would honestly state them plainly but I
would not sooner ask for pity than I would for factual sympathy which I do not like getting anymore than
I would being pitied by anyone sir or madam.

Was there any other factual comment you wished to make at all? If so you are free to do so.

I considered simply figuring out how to remove the comment but you made a factual statement and I
as usual had a compulsion to reply and state the facts especially when being incorrectly stated to be doing
something I was not. I am indifferent in general, however even in my indifference, I dislike being stated to
be doing something I am not.

Myself and Hello_Hello had already come to an understanding as you read, and yet you still stated what you
did despite the fact if you had viewed the comments before, you would view we both apologised to each other.

These are the facts and I shall be posting this message for all to see also, just to show what I have stated as
I have factually nothing to hide in the slightest.

Good factual day to whomever this is and best of factual wishes with your own time here assisting others.

Yours Sincerely,

Greyback23

I simply posted such as I noted there had been no response to the fact they stated I was doing something
I was not and I showed this. Simply stating the facts.

However, that aside, my factual gratitude to LigH.de and jagabo for answering my initial factual posting and
also to Hello_Hello for further factually explaining other facts on my query I had not considered thinking about,
therefore providing me with facts I had not expected yet were equally factually informative.

My gratitude Gentlemen or Ladies whichever you might identify as and best of factual wishes to you all.

[hello_hello]

Greyback23,
I thought it was unlikely the required download for the online converter would do anything evil to my PC, but it was in the middle of running some encodes at the time so I didn't want to take a chance something would go wrong. Plus the download for the online installer didn't mention a requirement of Microsoft Dot Net 4 as the full program does, but I didn't want to risk it downloading the dot net version already installed on my PC in case it tried to update it as I'm not having any issues with programs that require dot net 4 at the moment.

May I ask.... how fast is your CPU? Or what's the model number etc. I'm just wondering if you'd be better off using a program such as Handbrake or Vidcoder for converting (they're pretty popular around here) rather than doing it via the internet. When you convert that way, does the online converter do all the work or does it use your PC for encoding etc. Not having used the online converter, I don't know how it works..
I couldn't convert video online because my internet connection is way too slow. I assume you're lucky and have decent upload/download speeds where you are?

Handbrake/Vidcoder go out of their way to make it hard for the user to mess with the aspect ratio. Cropping and resizing is okay and that's easy enough, and you can use anamorphic encoding or resize to square pixels, but HandBrake and Vidcoder take care of the aspect ratio automatically, so it shouldn't change incorrectly.
They might also give you a little more control over other things, such as the encoder settings or filtering, although they're still designed to be fairly easy to use
Chances are neither will let you resize a 1280x544 video to 1280x720 because it'd require adding black bars, which I don't think either program will do, and even if you used anamorphic encoding (non-square pixels) I still doubt they'd let you resize 1280x544 to 1280x720 because it doesn't achieve anything aside from increasing the number of pixels to encode, assume the 2.35:1 aspect ratio is retained. You can set custom aspect ratios with Handbrake and Vidcoder but generally it's best to let the programs set it automatically. Now and then you might want to change the aspect ratio when encoding because the source aspect ratio is wrong, but as a rule the idea is to not change it.