width is not mod16, should I resize to mod16 before encoding, or not?

[SameSelf]

This thread reminds me of when I once asked how to best downrez HD to SD. Lots of colorful advice and bickering over 704 vs 720. These days, I go with the most aesthetically pleasing option.

[davejavu]

I'm aware of this. Why to bring it up if encoding to square pixel? What for? If talking about anamorphic MP4 from DVD, not resizing, good for later use, nothing is messed up. Lots of folks have their own DVD's from VHS or DVavi and want MP4, so why not to back it up like that with very generous bitrate.

No wonder, there is million threads about this and if looking at it first time everyone messes it up anyway, creating avisynth script, because it is insanity, just lets be simple and tell everyone how it works, what DVD player does. If it does not work like that, DVD is wrong. and then let's fix it - custom crop-what-not-s*** , using coefficients, crop the heck out of it, hey what's movie aspect ratio?, what if original user cropped live image to get shiny 16 mode, then it would not helped much anyway, whatever. But that is another story.

And what happens if I crop 18 pixels or whatever? Nothing, because it is stupid thing to do before resize. Why would I complicate it like that and started using coefficients. what nots, GUI's, calculators, for what? Only those 8,0,-8,0 , if I believe or know, information is within 704x576.

I'm not saying it is special, resize to 16:9 (4:3) , then crop, it is the other way, it is a normal, simple thing to do.

There are lots of ways to crop, resize and reencode video. I use different methods depending of what I am trying to achieve and what device I will be watching on (display size, hardware capabilities, etc.). No method or workflow is the best to use for all situations and needs to be chosen according to what you have to work with and what you need at the end. Crop then resize or resize then crop will both create exactly the same result if you give you encoder the proper values to use.

There are so many of these kind of crop/resize scripts on the internet for this because a lot of people want them so they can create square pixel video shaped appropriately for the active video in their source with all the black junk removed from the sides and/or top so that when they watch on their nice HD widescreen display they don't get any more crud than necessary. They don't want to create anamorphic clones of their discs. I can live with black borders top/bottom but hate having to watch the sides of the video dance about erratically if I can avoid it. I hate anamorphic digital video and don't want to create it and I suspect the people looking for and using these internet scripts you seem to hate would agree. If you don't like the scripts don't use them and ignore them.

I also can't see any value in creating a high bitrate backup of a DVD, and certainly not a VHS that has already been turned into a homemade DVD. What do you gain beyond an unncessary intermedia reencode? Just keep a copy of the original source if you want a backup. You aren't losing anything and you aren't gaining anything by throwing extra bitrate at it.

[hello_hello]

I'm aware of this. Why to bring it up if encoding to square pixel? What for?

Which part of using PARs to calculate square pixel resizing are you not understanding? Because I don't know where to begin to answer that question.

Speaking of blah, blah..... you brought up the subject of DVD resizing when you decided to blah, blah, blah about 720 vs 704 as though it's relevant. And off you go now.... talking about generous bitrates and what some newbie might do.

I thought I'd finally be able to make you understand the problem I was having with MeGUI when you first stuck your nose in and told me how to resize then crop, but it seems you preferred to ignore it and offer blah, blah about the script you use instead.

And what happens if I crop 18 pixels or whatever? Nothing, because it is stupid thing to do before resize. Why would I complicate it like that and started using coefficients. what nots, GUI's, calculators, for what? Only those 8,0,-8,0 , if I believe or know, information is within 704x576.

I'll give it one more try and then I'll give up and accept you're not smart enough to understand. If you want to crop/resize to a certain aspect ratio/resolution, you have to adjust the cropping accordingly.

Why would I want to crop 18 pixels? Have you really encoded a DVD before? Sometimes they have 18 pixels or more of black down each side, or sometimes you might want to crop the half lines or noise from the top and bottom that'd be left behind doing it your way. Guess what? If you want to crop a 4:3 NTSC with an ITU aspect ratio to exactly 4:3 and you need to crop a few lines of noise top and bottom, you might have to crop 18 pixels from each side for 4:3.

crop(18, 6, -18, -8)

720 - 36 = 684
480 - 12 = 466
684 * (10 / 11) / 466 = 1.334

This is very similar to how I encoded a 4:3 DVD the other day:

Trim(0, 689).crop(10, 2, -12, -2).Spline36Resize(640,480)\
++Trim(690, 3249).crop(24, 4, -10, -8).Spline36Resize(640,480)\
++Trim(3250, 26584).crop(14, 4, -14, -4).Spline36Resize(640,480)\
++Trim(26585, 27213).crop(26, 6, -8, -6).Spline36Resize(640,480)\
++Trim(27214, 0).crop(14, 4, -14, -4).Spline36Resize(640,480)

Each section cropped to 4:3 with almost zero aspect error, the borders completely removed, and each resized to the same 4:3 resolution. I don't want to use a script like yours to crop/resize everything the same way and encode a lot of crud, so I worked out how to use a resize calculator instead.

[hello_hello]

There are so many of these kind of crop/resize scripts on the internet for this because a lot of people want them so they can create square pixel video shaped appropriately for the active video in their source with all the black junk removed from the sides and/or top so that when they watch on their nice HD widescreen display they don't get any more crud than necessary.

Do you know of any of the cropping and resizing scripts that are apparently all over the internet as _Al_ claims? I think he might be taking liberties there, because I'm struggling to think of any. Aside from (shameless plug) my own of course.

[_Al_]

I also can't see any value in creating a high bitrate backup of a DVD, and certainly not a VHS that has already been turned into a homemade DVD. What do you gain beyond an unncessary intermedia reencode? Just keep a copy of the original source if you want a backup. You aren't losing anything and you aren't gaining anything by throwing extra bitrate at it.

Yes, sure, but there are scenarios you need to get rid o interlacing. Editing software cannot handle proper treatment if loading SD interlace into HD project, or just to get rid of interlace , using QTGMC of cource to double frame rate.

[_Al_]

Do you know of any of the cropping and resizing scripts that are apparently all over the internet as _Al_ claim?

You are kidding right? Just what you created in this thread is enough!

ok I forced myself to read your writings again, I never bought a DVD like that. If I did and I backed it up for some reason I just assume it is 704 scenario and I.m done with. You talk about Restoration of a DVD , knock yourself out, crop away ... again, tiny black borders are bothersome only for those who encode, not if you just watch something, it does not matter.

You want a proof for those cropping scripts? Do you download any MP4's, mkv's with black borders? Answer yourself. So there you go, everyone crops away like it is their last day, so video looks neat, for no reason whatsever and AR is messed up, but that does not matter apparently, to crop away is priority here. Those tiny black borders seam to be like black death for some reason. And guess what, you put it on cellphone , tablet, PC, TV and there it is anyway! Black strips. Because those videos (because of modes and those sophisticated calculations where all those universe variables are involved) do not make exactly 16:9 resolution. Or device is not 16:9 etc.

[_Al_]

This thread reminds me of when I once asked how to best downrez HD to SD. Lots of colorful advice and bickering over 704 vs 720. These days, I go with the most aesthetically pleasing option.

It is not about 704 vs. 720 here (for script yes) but workflow. If DVD is correct, not messed up. It is easy, resize to 16:9, 4:3 , then crop (if you want) and aspect ratio is not changed, but most starts to crop away first and then is "fixing" their image to proportions using correct mode even if not needed because I don't know, hello_hello and MeGui says so.

I see movie with about 8pixels or so on the sides, I just assume it is 704 scenario and I'm done with. But talking about commercial DVD's. The thing is folks perhaps have DVD's from all kind's of markets, DVD's from India or whatever, and then it should be stressed, hey, my DVD is (could be, perhaps is) messed up I have to fix it.

And we talk about DVD (704 vs. 720), but there are BD's and check with hello_hello (and others) what he would recommend. In that case it is just bulletproof, resize to 16:9 and crop. Stupid easy script can do this automatically, resize and crop a BD to 720p, do not crop any width under 12 pixels because it is not pillarbox etc. keeping aspect ratio exact and desired mode as well, but perhaps it is too easy so folks used to "play" with their DVD's, it is time to play with BD's the same way.

[hello_hello]

You want a proof for those cropping scripts? Do you download any MP4's, mkv's with black borders? Answer yourself. So there you go, everyone crops away like it is their last day, so video looks neat, for no reason whatsever and AR is messed up, but that does not matter apparently, to crop away is priority here.

I've seen plenty of encodes that are neatly cropped, but that proves the existence of cropping and resizing scripts in the same way it proves the sky is green. Virtually every GUI does the same thing. They crop and then calculate the resizing. I'm not saying no scripts exist, but if they're all over the internet as you claim, can you provide a link to just one?
I've seen the occasional encode where the picture is possibly distorted a little due to cropping and resizing to the nearest mod16 dimensions, but the world isn't stuck on mod16 anymore and most GUIs should do it fairly accurately. If the aspect ratio is seriously messed up, chances are it was for reasons not related to cropping.

You keep talking about messing with the aspect ratio as though it's inevitable. It's not.

Those tiny black borders seam to be like black death for some reason. And guess what, you put it on cellphone , tablet, PC, TV and there it is anyway! Black strips. Because those videos (because of modes and those sophisticated calculations where all those universe variables are involved) do not make exactly 16:9 resolution. Or device is not 16:9 etc.

You still don't understand you can crop to exactly 16:9 if you choose to, and therefore the video will fill a 16:9 screen? Of course you can. Naturally though, the video and display aspect ratios aren't always going to be the same, but that's a red herring. You might think it makes cropping unnecessary, but it doesn't mean I can't crop and resize without distorting the picture.

[hello_hello]

It is not about 704 vs. 720 here (for script yes) but workflow. If DVD is correct, not messed up. It is easy, resize to 16:9, 4:3 , then crop (if you want) and aspect ratio is not changed, but most starts to crop away first and then is "fixing" their image to proportions using correct mode even if not needed because I don't know, hello_hello and MeGui says so.

It's incredible how hard you appear to be working to deny plain facts. I'll give you credit for that because I would've given in to reality quite a few posts ago. MeGUI can easily encode without cropping, or crop eight pixels from each side and set the appropriate PAR etc, just like you do. How you do it is personal choice.

You say you can take a 16:9 DVD and resize it to 16:9 and there'll be joy and happiness throughout the land, but what if.... just as a thought exercise.... you cropped half the width away. The 720x576 DVD is now 360x576. Even a goldfish with a learning disability wouldn't have trouble understanding it'd now have an 8:9 display aspect ratio.

And that's it. No image "fixing" required. The principle is the same whether you crop 360 pixels from the width or 16 pixels.

I have no idea what it is about that you can't wrap your head around. It seems pretty obvious if cropping changes the aspect ratio, then you can achieve an aspect ratio by adjusting the cropping. Still no "fixing" involved. Just some basic maths.

[_Al_]

Yes sky is blue and videos are mostly encoded NOT to 16:9, aspect ratio distorted but hey mission accomplished no black borders. I bet even all your BD rips (if you do that) resized to 720 have distorted aspect ratio. Just trying to bring up here that resize, crop would not do that especially with BD's. You stick with DVD because there is a room for playing and that is what you want to do. Play with DVD's, BD's to rip them and more elaborate the better. Common sense is gone long time. You do whatever you want. Folks read that and just think it is a rocket science and would not do it themselves because those mysterious GUI's would do it for them, it needs to be calculated wouldn't you say?

I was not talking about happiness, but simplicity, because it is pretty clear what you can download all over web.

That your example is some crap that only you can understand.

[davejavu]

There are so many of these kind of crop/resize scripts on the internet for this because a lot of people want them so they can create square pixel video shaped appropriately for the active video in their source with all the black junk removed from the sides and/or top so that when they watch on their nice HD widescreen display they don't get any more crud than necessary.

Do you know of any of the cropping and resizing scripts that are apparently all over the internet as _Al_ claims? I think he might be taking liberties there, because I'm struggling to think of any. Aside from (shameless plug) my own of course.

If you Google and dig deep enough you can find them but to be honest I couldn't, and honestly still can't, be bothered at this point. This thread is becoming very tiresome and your points seem to be falling on deaf ears!

[davejavu]

I also can't see any value in creating a high bitrate backup of a DVD, and certainly not a VHS that has already been turned into a homemade DVD. What do you gain beyond an unncessary intermedia reencode? Just keep a copy of the original source if you want a backup. You aren't losing anything and you aren't gaining anything by throwing extra bitrate at it.

Yes, sure, but there are scenarios you need to get rid o interlacing. Editing software cannot handle proper treatment if loading SD interlace into HD project, or just to get rid of interlace , using QTGMC of cource to double frame rate.

Again, no benefit. Just keep the original and deinterlace when you need to in the future. Processing the video now and then again in the future just adds an unncesssary encoding step. And what if you editting software can't handle the video after you reencode it for backup but you don't have the original anymore, you have to reencode it again.

[davejavu]

Yes sky is blue and videos are mostly encoded NOT to 16:9, aspect ratio distorted but hey mission accomplished no black borders.

I was not talking about happiness, but simplicity, because it is pretty clear what you can download all over web.

That your example is some crap that only you can understand.

And the fact that some of the dodgy downloads from the internet have been encoded by people who don't seem to know how to do it properly doesn't mean it can't be done properly. What you can find on the internet is also completely irrelevent to this discussion as other peoples poor processing skills don't mean it can't be done.

If I am going to the effort of reencoding/converting a DVD that is 16/9 anamorphic but contains a letterboxed 2.35/1 video inside a pillarboxed 704x576 frame I will resize and crop all the black away, calculating the proper final out resolution to leave the picture the correct size and shape. If you don't want to do that go ahead, it is your video so you can do what you want with it, but it can be done successfully.

[_Al_]

Again, no benefit. Just keep the original and deinterlace when you need to in the future. Processing the video now and then again in the future just adds an unncesssary encoding step. And what if you editting software can't handle the video after you reencode it for backup but you don't have the original anymore, you have to reencode it again.

You have no idea what is going on someones editing PC setup. You need to have those backed up and ready to go. Imagine database from all kinds of sources and even broadcasting it. Interlaced sources. Unique stuff that is burned on DVD's. Let your imagination go. It is internet era now. And that backed up stuff could be even improved, certainly QTGMC could do just that. There is no time to wait for that encoding when you need it. Decent bitrate , you can afford it because it is SD resolution. And remember , no resize is done as well. Not needed. Videoeditor would interpret footage correctly.

But this is off topic. That was mentioned only when those SAR's are needed for anamorphic encoding as an example when to encode anamorphic MP4 from a DVD.

[_Al_]

If I am going to the effort of reencoding/converting a DVD that is 16/9 anamorphic but contains a letterboxed 2.35/1 video inside a pillarboxed 704x576 frame I will resize and crop all the black away, calculating the proper final out resolution to leave the picture the correct size and shape. If you don't want to do that go ahead, it is your video so you can do what you want with it, but it can be done successfully.

Here we go, it is slowly coming out. Messed up DVD, as I said you need to fix it then, whatever you need to do.

[hello_hello]

Yes sky is blue and videos are mostly encoded NOT to 16:9, aspect ratio distorted but hey mission accomplished no black borders. I bet even all your BD rips (if you do that) resized to 720 have distorted aspect ratio. Just trying to bring up here that resize, crop would not do that especially with BD's.

Please stop claiming I'd be distorting the picture as I've provided example after example of cropping and resizing with virtually zero aspect error, so unless you're too silly to understand you're simply lying.

The process is exactly the same for any source. Easier for HD because you don't have to factor the pixel aspect ratio into the equation.

I was not talking about happiness, but simplicity, because it is pretty clear what you can download all over web.

What you claim is all over the web is irrelevant to whether I can do it properly.
How would you know anyway? Do you download encodes from the web and check them against your original source to find out if the picture was stretched by 1.26% due to mod16 resizing that nobody bothers with any more?

That your example is some crap that only you can understand.

I think you're failing to distinguish between nobody else being able to understand and you not being able to understand.
The last example was as basic as it gets. Take a 16:9 video and crop half the width and you have 8:9. If you don't get that, then it's just as well you don't crop and resize because you'd no doubt make a mess of it.

Folks read that and just think it is a rocket science and would not do it themselves because those mysterious GUI's would do it for them, it needs to be calculated wouldn't you say?

If it's too hard to understand, but people are using GUIs that do it for them, where are all these allegedly messed up videos coming from? When you've made up your mind....
I use a resizing calculator or a GUI to do it for me. I know exactly how much aspect error there'll be after resizing, if any. Why do the maths yourself if you don't have to?

[hello_hello]

Here we go, it is slowly coming out. Messed up DVD, as I said you need to fix it then, whatever you need to do.

No... I'm pretty sure he didn't say the picture was messed up, and he didn't say it needed fixing. He said if a DVD contains a widescreen picture he'd crop the black and resize what's left to the proper aspect ratio. No doubt he'd calculate the correct resizing based on the remaining picture resolution and the appropriate pixel aspect ratio.

The "picture" aspect ratio would be exactly the same as if you resized the whole thing, including the black, to 16:9. If the aspect ratio was messed up when it was transferred to DVD, your method doesn't magically fix it either, but I doubt that's what he was talking about.

[_Al_]

Please stop claiming I'd be distorting the picture as I've provided example after example of cropping and resizing with virtually zero aspect error, so unless you're too silly to understand you're simply lying.

The process is exactly the same for any source. Easier for HD because you don't have to factor the pixel aspect ratio into the equation.

Yeah, yeah, taking BD's, cropping first and resizing to a decent mode? Always exact AR? Nice try but your pants are on fire.

[hello_hello]

What is about the calculation of resizing that you're too silly to grasp? I'd help you understand if I could, but I've explained it every which-way and even tried dumbing it down so much my cat now knows how to do it, but not you.

Here you go. Feel free to tell me which pictures are distorted, aside from the anamorphic ones, of course.

Original 1080p
720p (1280x536)
720p mod16 extra height cropped (1280x528)
720p mod16 extra width cropped (1280x544)
576p (1024x428)
576p mod16 extra height cropped (1024x416)
576p mod16 extra width cropped (1024x432)
Anamorphic NTSC
Anamorphic PAL

[_Al_]

You omit crucial information we talk about on couple of pages ,certainly you do not want me to verify aspect ratio from a picture, how did you crop first?

So listen carefully, can you tell me what did you crop to first, 1920x what?

Can you give mu just that number, can you be that kind and give mu just that one number, nothing else?

[hello_hello]

You really have quite the audacity to ask for numbers now when you've been ignoring the maths every time I posted examples. It's astounding really. I can only assume you have no shame.
No, I can't give you just that one number because it doesn't exist. See the tiny lines of black down each side of the 1080p image? I cropped them too, so the number you're really asking for, at least for the first image, is 1912 x what?.

FFS, now I've even provide pictures and you're still denying it. Are you really incapable of comparing them to see if the image is stretched or not?

Here you go though, here's the dimensions I'm fairly sure I cropped to each time (I didn't keep notes so I had to check it again).

720p - 1912x800
720p mod16 crop extra from height - 1912x788
720p mod16 crop extra from width - 1882x800

Those dimensions all resize to the same dimensions as the images in my previous post, accurate to within less than half a pixel, so the aspect distortion when I cropped and resized to create those images was virtually zero.

I look forward to the next excuse for denying reality. Will it be because I didn't provide "just that number" so you're going to ignore it, or something new this time?

And by the way, take your "listen carefully" and shove it where the sun don't shine. You have quite the audacity to say that when you're the one who's refused to listen to, or been incapable of understanding, almost everything that's been said.

[_Al_]

Stop lecturing, thank you.

I do not ignore math, I want some acknowledgement that there is other ways and even better most of the time or I dispute the result itself, not the math, you amaze me all the time. When you start to give out numbers, why would I read it in the first place? I know what you do. Again and again you start to explain something I do not need to be explained. You have some problems regarding this.

720p - 1912x800 - getting 1280x536 - Cutting 8 live columns. Your resulting aspect ratio 1280x536 is NOT the same, you introduce AR error
BD's do not have nice 800 lines always.

720p mod16 crop extra from height - 1912x788 getting 1280x528 later - cutting 8 live columns and 12 rows from a movie - too much - are you serious, is it a joke? AR error (2.426 vs. 2.42 periodic.) nevertheless an error is introduced.

720p mod16 crop extra from width - 1882x800 getting 1280x544 - cutting 38 columns? Well, that is how the video would be encoded? Whoa. Perhaps attempt for a joke as well.

So now , in all instances, resizing first to 1280x720 , 960x540 , whatever 16:9 and then cropping to whatever you want and having always same AR as a result? No freaking woo-doo involved? Is that so difficult to understand. I mean you can do whatever you want, but can you acknowledge that "insanely difficult workflow"?

[hello_hello]

Maybe if just once you'd acknowledged and discussed an example I provided instead of ignoring them, you would've not only shown you're capable of discussing a subject like an adult, but you understood. Now you're complaining because you didn't. It's a little mental.

I replied to your nonsense below, but just so you know, there'd be nothing preventing me from cropping so the aspect error is zero.
Did you know Avisynth resizers are capable of sub-pixel cropping? I don't want to tell you over and over while you ignore it, then listen to you complain you already knew.

Let's make my 1280x536 resizing example 100% accurate, aspect error zero.

Instead of cropping to 1912x800 we'll crop to 1912x800.65 instead.
800.65 / 1912 * 1280 = 536

1912 / 800.65 = 2.3880597014925373134328358208955
1280 / 536 = 2.3880597014925373134328358208955

How to do it?
Spline36Resize(1280, 536, 4, 140, -4, -139.35)
or
Crop (4,140,-4,-138)
Spline36Resize(1280, 536, 0, 0, 0, -1.35)

Now, if you didn't ignore the maths you probably won't read because why should you, or however that works, you'll know it's possible to crop and resize with zero aspect error, even though I doubt too many people go to those lengths.

"I do not ignore math".
"When you start to give out numbers, why would I read it in the first place?"

Okay.....

Go back and read some of my earlier posts. The ones you didn't ignore but didn't read in the first place.... however that works.

570 / 708 / (64/45) x 1280 = 724.6
or
570 / 708 / (64/45) x 720 = 407.6

I've never said the aspect error was always zero. I've used the expression "virtually no aspect error" or similar multiple times. In one post I even specified an aspect error of 0.036% after the example I provided. In my last post I referred to the resizing being accurate to within half a pixel. If you wanted to latch on to that as an excuse, you've had more than 30 posts to do it and I could've shown you how to fix that small error. Now you just look like a twat for telling me what I've stated over and over... after complaining about me telling you things you know. It's almost funny.

I could crop away even more picture until I had exactly zero aspect error, or use sub-pixel cropping as I explained above, or even anamorphic encoding to adjust the pixel aspect ratio, so no matter how I resized the aspect error would be zero. Why bother with any of that though when you can crop and resize to square pixels with an error that's too small to see?

And so you understand.... I had to crop "X" rows and "Y" columns to make the resizing mod16 as you requested, or whatever you consider to be a "decent mode". I took it to mean mod 16, but did you think I had some magic way of resizing to square pixel mod16 without cropping accordingly? Perhaps you're not joking.

So now , in all instances, resizing first to 1280x720 , 960x540 , whatever 16:9 and then cropping to whatever you want and having always same AR as a result? No freaking woo-doo involved?

No, if you resize to different 16:9 dimensions you wouldn't have exactly the same aspect ratio every time because you're limited to mod2 cropping, so after resizing and cropping the aspect ratio would be slightly different even if the picture isn't distorted. You definitely wouldn't have 16:9 after cropping though, would you? There's no way to get it without some woo-doo.

Is that so difficult to understand. I mean you can do whatever you want, but can you acknowledge that "insanely difficult workflow"?

It's not even hard so I can't imagine how it'd be insanely difficult as long as you have an IQ higher than the average house plant... but one more time.... your workflow doesn't let you crop all the black properly and resize to specific dimensions. I'd rather crop and resize the normal way and have full control.

[davejavu]

If I am going to the effort of reencoding/converting a DVD that is 16/9 anamorphic but contains a letterboxed 2.35/1 video inside a pillarboxed 704x576 frame I will resize and crop all the black away, calculating the proper final out resolution to leave the picture the correct size and shape. If you don't want to do that go ahead, it is your video so you can do what you want with it, but it can be done successfully.

Here we go, it is slowly coming out. Messed up DVD, as I said you need to fix it then, whatever you need to do.

No, the DVD wasn't messed up and I fixed it by cropping and resizing. They had 704x576 material and padded it to 720x576 for the DVD, which is quite common, but I allow for that in my calculations when cropping and resizing to make sure the finished remaining picture is the same shape as the anamorphically stored picture from the DVD would be when expanded during playback. If I have to crop a pixel or 2 of the video image to keep the proper display aspect ratio I will.

Even Bluray discs have this kind of problem. You may have a nice 16/9 1920x1080 image displayed on your screen but the black bars that are part of that image can vary and each producer will take a different approach to transfer a 2.35/1 movie to a 16/9 Bluray. Some will pad the sides a little and some won't. Some movies claim to be 2.35/1 but are closer to 2.4/1, or some other slight variation, and the same with all the other common movie aspect ratios. It is a problem that can be easily overcome WITHOUT distorting the final image.

This is my last post in this thread because your inane prattle and dislocation from reallity makes any actual discussion pointless.

[_Al_]

hey hello? subpixel resize,..., we completely forgot about that , are you kidding me, I'm talking about resizing 1920x1080 to 1280x720 and then cropping . Too easy I see.

You seam to take it personally that I attack your scripts or methods. For bringing it up, just dealing with stuff easily if I can, I am not an adult. Hey, I can live with that. Whatever you say.

[_Al_]

davejavu - those DVD's are not alright, sorry, I would never give it to anyone , I'd be ashamed. Let's call products properly, as they are.

About those BD's,
so what's the problem, resize that BD to 1280x720 and then crop? I would totally ignore those tiny borders on the side. Not pillarbox of course. But if you want to crop them, crop it, it is you work. The point is - You can resize first and then crop especially with BD.
Understand resize to exact 16:9 1280x720, 960x540 and THEN cropping does not change AR.
Personally , I would not crop tiny black bars so I would not get off from 1280, 960 ,it is t nice number . ... Now hello_hello will pull up another page how this could be done and keep 1280 and cropping sides, just wait for it. He explained that above he crops 8 pixels all the time, does not matter what and he is proud of it. And as he explained to me it is immature to not do exactly that.

[hello_hello]

hey hello? subpixel resize,..., we completely forgot about that , are you kidding me, I'm talking about resizing 1920x1080 to 1280x720 and then cropping . Too easy I see.

Yeah, but you know what they say, if you implement a system even an idiot can use, only an idiot will use it.

I know what's easy and what isn't, but once again you've proved my theory. There's a direct relationship between the amount of smilies and highlighting used in forum posts and how lame the point being made is.

You seam to take it personally that I attack your scripts or methods. For bringing it up, just dealing with stuff easily if I can, I am not an adult. Hey, I can live with that. Whatever you say.

What gives you that impression? I think you might be be a few cards short of a deck, but why would I take that personally?

[hello_hello]

davejavu - those DVD's are not alright, sorry, I would never give it to anyone , I'd be ashamed. Let's call products properly, as they are.

Why aren't they right? Nobody is encoding to make DVDs, and the cropping and resizing doesn't distort the picture. You're talking nonsense. I'd be ashamed to be posting in a forum dedicated to video conversion and making such ridiculous claims.

About those BD's,
so what's the problem, resize that BD to 1280x720 and then crop? I would totally ignore those tiny borders on the side. Not pillarbox of course. But if you want to crop them, crop it, it is you work. The point is - You can resize first and then crop especially with BD.
Understand resize to exact 16:9 1280x720, 960x540 and THEN cropping does not change AR.

Why do you keep repeating over and over what nobody is disputing? Resizing to the correct aspect ratio and then cropping doesn't distort the picture and nobody has ever said otherwise. It's so simple everyone understands. Do you not understand that?
Have you looked at the images I posted so you can show me where they're distorted, or are you going to keep your head buried in the sand and pretending they don't exist?

Personally , I would not crop tiny black bars so I would not get off from 1280, 960 ,it is t nice number . ... Now hello_hello will pull up another page how this could be done and keep 1280 and cropping sides, just wait for it. He explained that above he crops 8 pixels all the time, does not matter what and he is proud of it. And as he explained to me it is immature to not do exactly that.

I never once said I crop 8 pixels all the time. You're either lying or retreating into a fantasy world. I cropped 8 pixels from my earlier example because it had 6 pixels of black.

And no, I never said the way you crop is immature. Once again you're lying or retreating into a fantasy world. I was referring to your inability to discuss a subject rationally. Something your last couple of posts have confirmed. Nothing to do with how you crop, even if I think your advice on the subject is silly. There's no point flogging that dead horse again.

I'm pretty sure if you go ahead and write another page or two I perhaps start to understand how simple resize to exact aspect ratio and then cropping, keeping exact aspect ratio is somehow a faulty workflow

Nobody was criticising your workflow or calling it faulty then, and nobody is criticising or calling it immature now. How many times do you have to be told before you can't repeat that lie without feeling like an idiot?
Your workflow just isn't for everyone, but for some bizarre reason you think it should be.

Common mistake to get rid of tiny black bars or columns at all cost. But internet is full of scripts like that (even crop, resize and similar woo-doo) so folks are going to do it again and again.

It's not a mistake. It's simply personal preference.

[_Al_]

Nobody was criticising your workflow or calling it faulty

Finally, I take this because this is the best you can do.

[hello_hello]

There's nothing "finally" about it. I said it a week ago, when you lied about it then.

I didn't claim your workflow is somehow faulty, but you can't choose the output resolution if you resize first and then crop whatever black there happens to be

I'd still like to know what's wrong with davejavu's DVD encodes, or where you found distortion in my pics, but you ignore questions as often as you ignore facts.

What does "best you can do" refer to? Were you expecting a parade?
I'd "take it" too, if you were to grown up enough to admit there's more than one way to do it, but I guess that exceeds your best.