VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 43 of 43
Thread
  1. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    That's what happened when people gloss over posts and inpatiently hit quote without understanding what's the post is all about. Never the less I was never against cropping or zooming from the very first post if that's what the user wants, I'm against stretching in one direction.
    Last edited by dellsam34; 1st Oct 2021 at 13:48.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by DB83 View Post
    2. But I took a closer look at yours since you have formulae and, unfortunately, your logic is flawed.
    Nothing new for him in this thread. In addition, using 2.35:1 as the benchmark for 'widescreen' also further skews it to his flawed thinking. I used 2.4:1 for my figuring earlier but, after doing some research, decided 2.39:1 is more accurate.
    The most recent revision, SMPTE 195-1993, was released in August 1993. It slightly altered the dimensions so as to standardize a common projection aperture width (0.825 inches or 20.96 mm) for all formats, anamorphic (2.39∶1) and flat (1.85∶1). The projection aperture height was also reduced by 0.01 inches (0.25 mm) to give an aperture size of 0.825 × 0.690 inches (20.96 × 17.53 mm), and an aspect ratio of 1.1956…∶1, and thus retaining the un-squeezed ratio of about 2.39∶1. The camera's aperture remained the same (2.35∶1 or 2.55∶1 if before 1958), only the height of the "negative assembly" splices changed and, consequently, the height of the frame changed.

    Anamorphic prints are still often called 'Scope' or 2.35 by projectionists, cinematographers, and others working in the field, if only by force of habit. 2.39 is in fact what they generally are referring to...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

    The upshot is the percentage of video lost from pan-and-scan (or just crudely cropping) is even greater than your figures suggest.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    ..... I'm against stretching in one direction.

    Have to agree with you m8


    Back in the day when I was actively trading self-made dvds of one particular rock band I thought it 'cool' to make a 16:9 version of an earlier edit of a gig which combined commercial VHS with fan-shot footage to re-create the whole thing.


    This 16:9 version was just that. A horizontal stretch of my original 4:3 edit. I did not actually trade this one but just gave away a dozen or so for charitable purposes. Whether those who actually received them noticed the somewhat 'fat' bodies etc. I know not. I certainly did.


    Later I revisited the edit correcting some errors and created a 'proper' 16:9 version. Of course there were still issues inasmuch as with the current crop discussion there is a loss of video information beit top and bottom or a variance of both. That often works if there is sufficient room. But it does not when you crop of half a head.


    Any cropping is a compromise and I would personally always prefer a full image (with bars) to a cropped or pan + scanned one any day. I still have 'nightmares' of watching a film on a non-widescreen tv. The scene was set in a courtroom. Yet the broadcaster could not be arsed to pan + scan and all you saw was a wall with voices from either side.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Australia-PAL Land
    Search Comp PM
    But I took a closer look at yours since you have formulae and, unfortunately, your logic is flawed. You simply can not compare a 16:9 image with, effectively 90% (2.35 * 90% = 2.115) of 2.35:1
    I was merely base-lining the two resolutions at 9. Nothing to do with "90%".

    Originally Posted by DB83
    It's a simple matter of 235 - 57 = 178
    57 loss from 235 is 24%, the same as my 46 from 190. What's flawed about my logic?

    Originally Posted by Manono
    Nothing new for him in this thread. In addition, using 2.35:1 as the benchmark for 'widescreen' also further skews it to his flawed thinking. I used 2.4:1 for my figuring earlier but, after doing some research, decided 2.39:1 is more accurate.
    239-178=61. 26%. Whatever floats your boat, Manono.

    As for Delssam's 4:3 and stretching, there has been no suggestion from the OP that they are trying to/going to do that. So what's the point of even raising it?
    Quote Quote  
  5. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Right there is no point until someone dragged me into it and accused me of insulting the OP, see post #6.
    Quote Quote  
  6. maybe a short history on aspect ratios
    Here is a good one — “delsam34” beat me to it :
    Code:
    Well 16:9 was just a compromise aspect ratio, If you watch this you'll get all your questions answered:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CgrMsjGk7k
    The big reason is they're not watching in a properly darkened room. Another is that they're sitting too far away and don't have their field of view properly filled by the screen.
    First World problems... are not problems.

    You can remove them easily by re-encoding, as they occupy zero bitrate
    I don't get how the fact that black borders occupy or require (nearly) zero bitrate should make their removal somehow easier.

    As for losing "more 25% of the picture" apparently being so shocking to you, I don't see you complaining about 2.35:1 Star Wars being broadcast, full screen, on Free To Air TV, in 16:9, with no letterboxing, with the "sides" obviously "expendable". The directors would be horrified. Or maybe not.
    If it's George Lucas we're talking about, he did enough to butcher his own movies to not have any right to be horrified at what other people might do to further butcher them.

    I don't know why the OP is getting so much hate, I hate the black bars also, it looks stupid and it's a reminder that when the specs for DVD, HD and UHD where being finalized they never bothered to consider how movies and films are shot.
    Those formats were designed for home video, to be played on television screens, which are first and foremost designed to... watch television. And the current standard television aspect ratio is 16:9. And as it's been pointed out already, movies come in a variety of (original) aspect ratios, so it had to be a compromize.

    720 * 4 / 480 * 3 = 2
    Anamorphic AR, so completely moot (and I don't get the point of this calculation).

    But movies are generally shot with an aspect ratio of 2.4:1, sometimes 2.39:1, I don't get why they didn't set the spec as 2.4:1 instead of 1.778 (16:9), it was a stupid move
    See above.

    Yes, my way changes the aspect ratio, but who the hell cares?
    Reminds me of Dick Jones in Robocop :
    « It's only a glitch, a temporary setback. [...] WHO CAAARES if it works or not ? »

    I don't know how many times I have changed the channel on a movie I like because it has the black bars at the top and bottom.
    Well, at the risk of sounding a bit rude (but who the hell cares at this point in this thread ?), that's just plain stupid.

    When will I get the message: TINPAWA.
    Wot ?

    (and even less if doing portait mode or iphone productions)
    Those are NOT movies ! Õ_Õ

    As for Spielberg, I can honestly say that there are few of his movies which I truly like or have actually seen partially or all the way through. Jaws, the Indy movies, Catch Me If You Can, Saving Private Ryan, Back To The Future, Poltergeist, that's about it, the rest, I do not care for them and in some cases never even bothered to try to watch them.
    Mentioning 10 movies{*} you do dig from a director you don't care for is a bit amusing (besides, that's more than the total number of movies Stanley Kubrick or Andrei Tarkovsky made in their entire career).


    {*} I assumed that you were referring to the first three “Indy movies” — although the fourth, which I watched only about a year ago, and which I expected to be lousy based on the critics I had read at the time of its release, turned out to be surprisingly good and “true-to-form”, with a villain character that was actually interesting for a change, nuanced and “multidimensional”, c'est le cas de le dire ; I certainly liked it better than Temple of Doom, which creeped me out as a child, and features what might be the dumbest and most irritating blond female character ever to appear in a movie.
    Last edited by abolibibelot; 2nd Oct 2021 at 21:17.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    As for the Op's question..Benefits of video cropping?

    None.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Perhaps it's worth mentioning that MKVToolNix has a “cropping” option, obviously lossless since it doesn't re-compress anything by design, but with a warning : “Note also that there are not a lot of players that support the cropping parameters.”
    Out of curiosity, has anyone tested this, and are there at least some standalone players which do support that rather obscure MKV feature ?
    Quote Quote  
  9. iirc VLC was the only player which supports the crop options of mkv.
    users currently on my ignore list: deadrats, Stears555
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by Alwyn View Post
    @Manono, as I said, just plain rude.

    I was going to reply to your rude comments, but I can't be bothered arguing. I'll let @maverickluke comment on my post.
    Wow! You think Manono is being rude . . . ? Oh boy. Don't get into an argument with . . . well, almost anyone else! If the OP is THAT big a snowflake then it's probably better for him to have his wake-up call here, on a video themed website rather than out there in the real World, where there are genuinely rude people. Lots of them.

    The OP's idea IS stupid and, IMHO, your pandering to his stupid idea doesn't help anyone, especially the OP. Back in the day, when WS TVs weren't generally a thing and the four national TV channels here in the UK (we have more now!) were only just starting to show some films in WS, I had a similar discussion with my Dad. He didn't like the black bars top & bottom of the screen on our 24" (25"?) 4:3 Sony Trinitron TV. I'd pointed out that almost every film he'd seen in the Cinema since the 50s would have been in WS, and that cropping to 4:3 lost getting on for a third of the picture. Ch4 was showing "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" in WS that weekend and I knew he had a VHS recording of an earlier 4:3 broadcast. I suggested that he re-watch his recording and then compared it with the WS broadcast that weekend. Of course, my Dad being my Dad, he set it up so he could switch between his 4:3 recording and the live broadcast . . . his comment to me afterwards was that he hadn't realised that he'd only ever seen 5 Brides for 5 Brothers before!

    If the director and cinematographer are any good then they'll be framing EVERY shot to show off what's in frame either to it's best appearance OR to convey something extra to the audience. Who in their right mind would want to watch a clipped picture as the scrawl disappears off into infinity, and the camera pans down to give us our first view of Tatooine? Or when Omar Sharif's Ali first makes his appearance on screen in Lawrence of Arabia? Or almost any scene in Ryan's Daughter? Or any scene in Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator or The Martian? Hell, even Prometheus? (Despite the dreadful writing, it's still a starkly beautiful looking film.) Or how about, 'Houston. We have a problem! Some idiot has clipped off the edges of the picture!' Or that final shot of Butch & Sundance? SO much of Dances with Wolves? Most of Firefly and Serenity? Babylon 5? LOTR? Not to mention all of the gloriously shot spaghetti westerns starring, amongst others, Clint Eastwood? I'm sure that THAT shot of Chief Brody when he realises that not only is the shark not dead, but that it's in the lagoon(?) where his kids are playing would lose at least some of it's impact? Likewise the last time we see that muted red coat amongst all the greys & black in Schindler's List . . . ? Why would anyone be stupid enough to lose even a teensy bit of any of those amazing images, to highlight just a few?
    "Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Captain Malcolm Reynolds
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Australia-PAL Land
    Search Comp PM
    Whatever you reckon Tim. You better take your apoplexy pills before you read this topic!

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/402578-Automatically-pan-and-scan-2-35-1-and-16-9-videos-to-4-3
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by Alwyn View Post
    Whatever you reckon Tim. You better take your apoplexy pills before you read this topic!

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/402578-Automatically-pan-and-scan-2-35-1-and-16-9-videos-to-4-3
    Nah. I'm good thanks. I do find it interesting that the OP hasn't bothered to come back to this thread? Unless he's got more than one account . . . ? Anyway, in this instance I'm right! You, the OP and anyone else is perfectly capable of being wrong, but they should expect to be called out on it when they are in the wrong. As I do.

    p.s. You thought I was apoplectic in my last post? You REALLY don't read people well, do you?

    p.p.s. Have a good week!
    "Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Captain Malcolm Reynolds
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member azmoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Indian Callcenter
    Search Comp PM
    You can remove them easily by re-encoding, as they occupy zero bitrate
    I don't get how the fact that black borders occupy or require (nearly) zero bitrate should make their removal somehow easier.
    abolibibelot said!


    I said "You can remove them easily by re-encoding, as they occupy zero bitrate, but your TV will likely add them back in during play back to restablish the aspect."

    At least when you quote me abolibibelot, please quote the full sentence during your diatribe! I bet the OP wishes he never asked such a basic question here with the amount of pathetic reply rants! Answer keep the cropping as it(ratio)is worked out by experts you know, who actually know tech, and do not recode your original bought untouched source. If one must, most converters will allow EASY removal of those nasty little black bars from those painfully annoying non perfect torrented sources or original, leaving you with another quality hit!
    Last edited by azmoth; 3rd Oct 2021 at 14:13. Reason: Sp
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!