VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 61 to 82 of 82
Thread
  1. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    I de-interlace first before encoding, As far as setSAR to 10/11, I've tried it on few software players, my iPhone and LG TV and so far the 4:3 DAR is produced perfectly.
    Good Information!!! I'll play with that on some of my stuff.
    Quote Quote  
  2. You'll find that some devices ignore Sampling Aspect Ratio flags and will play such videos at the Frame Aspect Ratio or sometimes just stretch the video to full screen.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    You'll find that some devices ignore Sampling Aspect Ratio flags and will play such videos at the Frame Aspect Ratio or sometimes just stretch the video to full screen.
    So the 100% solution is to resize to 640 x 480 with 1:1 Pixel Aspect Ratio?
    Quote Quote  
  4. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by GrouseHiker View Post
    So the 100% solution is to resize to 640 x 480 with 1:1 Pixel Aspect Ratio?
    Permanently resizing it to 640x480 should take the guess work out of whether or not the video will be properly displayed everywhere.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by GrouseHiker View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    You'll find that some devices ignore Sampling Aspect Ratio flags and will play such videos at the Frame Aspect Ratio or sometimes just stretch the video to full screen.
    So the 100% solution is to resize to 640 x 480 with 1:1 Pixel Aspect Ratio?
    It depends. If you're planning to make DVDs or BDs 640x480 is not a legal frame size. If you're making MKV or MP4 videos it's ok.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by GrouseHiker View Post
    Does this approach work on all players: Apple, PC, Smartphone, YouTube?

    For YT, you'd probably want to double rate deinterlace, and upscale square pixel 960x720 or 1280x720 (pillarbox), because 720 height is the lowest resolution that offers 50p/59.94p (assuming this is still 8mm home video)
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    For YT, you'd probably want to double rate deinterlace, and upscale square pixel 960x720 or 1280x720 (pillarbox), because 720 height is the lowest resolution that offers 50p/59.94p (assuming this is still 8mm home video)
    Ok - 960x720 (4:3) with empty space displayed at the sides or 1280x720 (16:9 pillarbox with purposely added bars at sides) - both of which result in square pixels. - Correct?

    Would the 720 vertical best be achieved by capturing 480 and resizing or capturing 720 from the beginning?

    ... and yes - Video8 for me at the present...
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by GrouseHiker View Post
    Would the 720 vertical best be achieved by capturing 480 and resizing or capturing 720 from the beginning?
    SD video doesn't have 720 lines. If your drive/software allows 720 lines in the saved video it's resizing the 480 (or 486) line cap. You would be much better doing that in AviSynth after QTGMC.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    SD video doesn't have 720 lines. If your drive/software allows 720 lines in the saved video it's resizing the 480 (or 486) line cap. You would be much better doing that in AviSynth after QTGMC.
    I understand that, but via experiment I captured 1440 x 1080 (Hi8 in this case on the eBay camera). There must be some type of hardware interpolation going on, but I guess you're saying quality will turn out better by capturing 480 or 486 and resize via software.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by GrouseHiker View Post
    via experiment I captured 1440 x 1080 (Hi8 in this case on the eBay camera). There must be some type of hardware interpolation going on
    What makes you think it's hardware? It's more likely just software. In any case, there's nothing magic about hardware. It's inferior to software on almost all counts except one: speed. Hardware (while capturing) has to work in real time. It's designed to perform some simple matrix algorithms quickly. Not for general computing.

    Originally Posted by GrouseHiker View Post
    but I guess you're saying quality will turn out better by capturing 480 or 486 and resize via software.
    Cleanup, QTGMC, nnedi3 will get you better results than any hardware or capture driver/software.
    Last edited by jagabo; 27th May 2020 at 22:46.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    Resizing is always a compromise, The resizing will always be fractional not integer so some lines get crashed, some get doubled, Why don't you leave that to the display that was designed to handle this kind of work.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by GrouseHiker View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    For YT, you'd probably want to double rate deinterlace, and upscale square pixel 960x720 or 1280x720 (pillarbox), because 720 height is the lowest resolution that offers 50p/59.94p (assuming this is still 8mm home video)
    Ok - 960x720 (4:3) with empty space displayed at the sides or 1280x720 (16:9 pillarbox with purposely added bars at sides) - both of which result in square pixels. - Correct?
    Yes

    Would the 720 vertical best be achieved by capturing 480 and resizing or capturing 720 from the beginning?
    480, then proper deinterlacing, proper upscaling will give you slightly better results


    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    Resizing is always a compromise, The resizing will always be fractional not integer so some lines get crashed, some get doubled, Why don't you leave that to the display that was designed to handle this kind of work.
    Upscaling was suggested for the YT case . Currently, that's the only way you get full temporal resolution (59.94p), otherwise you discard 1/2 the motion samples (29.97p) . The cutoff is 720 height. It's been like that for a few years for YT, I don't think it's going to change
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    Resizing is always a compromise, The resizing will always be fractional not integer so some lines get crashed, some get doubled, Why don't you leave that to the display that was designed to handle this kind of work.
    Good point for non-YouTube video. I'll do a repeat of your CD test video and post for family to view as a test.
    Last edited by GrouseHiker; 28th May 2020 at 17:12. Reason: clarified non-YouTube
    Quote Quote  
  14. Back to the original subject of this post... I did more research and this is the result. If I understand this correctly, it turns out the "color under" system of recording on tape significantly reduces the color resolution. For Video8, Hi8, and VHS, sampling at 720 resolution with 4:2:2 pixels produces a huge (372%) oversampling rate. For sampling an NTSC-conforming signal, the oversampling is only 6%.

    These are simply numbers and calculations based on Nyquist-Shannon. From what I have read the Nyquist-Shannon minimum sampling rate of 2x peak frequency is too low, and oversampling is required.

    The numbers are interesting, but I am NOT making any recommendations here!

    Image
    [Attachment 53589 - Click to enlarge]
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by GrouseHiker View Post
    Good point for non-YouTube video. I'll do a repeat of your CD test video and post for family to view as a test.
    Did you get a chance to share the sample with friends and family? If so how did it go?
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    Originally Posted by GrouseHiker View Post
    Good point for non-YouTube video. I'll do a repeat of your CD test video and post for family to view as a test.
    Did you get a chance to share the sample with friends and family? If so how did it go?
    I uploaded your 704 x 480 CD video for them to try. I'll report back when I get some results.

    It displays round for me on a Windows 10 PC - no clue as to what app is actually playing it.

    It displays as an oval in MPC-HC until I set Aspect Ratio to 4:3 - then it's a circle.
    Quote Quote  
  17. If you want the best chance of video playing at the right aspect ratio you have two choices.

    1) Create a DVD or Blu-ray movie disc. Those formats are very strict and support limited configurations. If you follow the specs you'll get the right aspect ratio as long as the player isn't overridden.

    2) Don't make a DVD or BD and resize yourself to a square pixel aspect ratio and encode 1:1 sampling aspect ratio.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by GrouseHiker View Post
    It displays as an oval in MPC-HC until I set Aspect Ratio to 4:3 - then it's a circle.
    MPC-HC plays perfect circle in both the default and the 4:3 setting, on two machines Win7 and Win10. You have something screwed up in your computer, Try resetting the player.

    I've also tried a Samsung tablet latest Android, Samsung galaxy phone, iPhone 6, iPhone 7 and LG 65" OLED TV (USB flash) and every machine played the sample in a perfect circle, I did also tried a PAL VHS sample, a S-VHS NTSC sample, Betacam SP NTSC sample and Hi8 NTSC sample all cropped to 704 active video area and all played a perfect 4:3 ratio.

    I have 3 devices left to try, A media player from 2012, a Blu-ray player in file mode and my Son's PS4 if those pass I will give this method a 99% compatibility.
    Quote Quote  
  19. There are posts in these forums all the time about non-square pixel videos displaying with the wrong aspect ratio on different devices. The media players built into TVs seem to be the worst offenders.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    That is because either the PAR is not set correctly or the video has a non standardized resolution, also some devices are designed to display 720x480 as 16/9 by default. I see those posts all the time.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    That is because either the PAR is not set correctly or the video has a non standardized resolution
    I'm talking specificaly about those that are flagged correctly, but play incorrectly.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Paris Ca, 92345 Mexico
    Search PM
    I don't know what devices are playing them on but I tried devices that are used by 99% of the people worldwide, hence 99% compatibility.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads