Benefits of video cropping?

[maverickluke]

I am watching 1080P and 4K HDR movies on an 85" 4K Sony TV through my receiver in my home theater room using the Apple TV 4K and Nvidia Shield Pro with Kodi/Plex to stream from my NAS drive and would like to eliminate the black borders, utilizing the full picture screen. I am using Vidcoder to encode these movie files and am contemplating cropping the 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 files.

Why would I want to do this? Because I noticed when watching a 1920x800 cropped movie file instead of the 1920x1080 file I can use the Apple TV remote to zoom the picture in to full screen without any distortion. I have found this to be only possible withe cropped files. The same goes for 4K 3840 files.

So I would like to understand more about any potential drawbacks to cropping such as a loss in clarity/picture quality and ultimately just want to be able to stretch/Zoom the picture in.

Thanks for your help in advance.

[DB83]

Crop + zoom in = loss of video on both sides.

[dellsam34]

On top of losing parts of the picture on both sides the picture will look little blurrier, Stretching vertically to fill the screen is dumb, Only cluless people do it because either they are too ignorant to notice it or they just don't care. If you are okay with losing parts of the picture just use zoom all directions don't stretch and the TV will zoom in until the black bars are gone.

[manono]

So I would like to understand more about any potential drawbacks to cropping...

A stupid idea as the quality can only degrade with the reencoding.

Because I noticed when watching a 1920x800 cropped movie file instead of the 1920x1080 file I can use the Apple TV remote to zoom the picture in to full screen without any distortion.

An even more stupid idea. As DB83 mentioned, you lose active video. As dellsam34 mentioned, you get more blur, on top of the blur you got from the reencode.

Why would I want to do this?

Indeed. Because you don't know any better? In the old days people complained about black bars because they made the video too small. You claim to have an 85" television so that excuse won't fly. Not wanting to watch a film in its original aspect ratio because it has black bars is beyond idiotic. Maybe buy one of the 21:9 television sets just so you can watch your 2.40:1 movies. No more black bars.

https://youtu.be/2IoOtEQoRAU

Unless you watch something that's not 21:9.

[Alwyn]

@Manono, you're just plain rude. He's a newby, for goodness sake. Can't you see that?

@maverickluke, I'm confused. You say you are watching 1080P and 4k movies on your 4k TV but you have bars. 1080P and 4k are all 16:9, so there shouldn't be any. There would be no need to crop the 1920x1080 or 3840x2160 files. They should fit nicely.

Then you mention a 1920x800 file. This would be a candidate for cropping the sides to fit your TV (or zoom in with your TV controls).

Ultimately, the decision to crop this one rests with you. Try it and compare the difference between cropping it and using your TV remote to zoom in on it. If you keep the bitrate as high as the original before you crop it, there probably won't be a lot of difference.

@Manono, re "losing active video", if it's not important video way out there on the edges, who cares? @maverickluke is trying to get rid of the bars; if it means losing a bit of video on the sides, it could well be expendable. I've done 4:3 slideshows where I've cropped 16:9 videos and images because the bits on the edges had no practical value.

[netmask56]

Dellsam34 and Manono do you believe or think in belittling someone will somehow convince them to your point of view? Some people hate black bars with a vengeance, the reason? nobody knows? Anyway rather than insulting them maybe a short history on aspect ratio's and basic geometry would be more helpful, always being careful not to go into a "mansplain" diatribe..

[lingyi]

Some people hate black bars with a vengeance, the reason? nobody knows?.

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.
Or using bias lighting behind the screen, possibly necessary with HDR. In all situations it boils down to proper viewing setup and an artistic appreciation of the video/film as close as possible to the the intent of the director.

IMO, cropping a film is no worse than kicking up the saturation to vivid mode and oversharpening the picture to make it more "realistic". All huge no-no's for me.

[manono]

@Manono, you're just plain rude. He's a newby, for goodness sake. Can't you see that?

I can see he's been a member for 15 years. Can you? Look, he obviously wants the seal of approval for this dumb idea. And that from a video site which has real videophiles as members. So, this absurd idea has to be debunked. At least by those that think films should be viewed in their original aspect ratio.

You say you are watching 1080P and 4k movies on your 4k TV but you have bars. 1080P and 4k are all 16:9, so there shouldn't be any.

Uh, no. Have you never seen a 1080p Blu-Ray with the black bars encoded into the video? With those black bars cropped away and the video reencoded, then you might get a 1920x800 picture.

...if it's not important video way out there on the edges, who cares?

So, now you're a better director than the original director? Now you're a better cinematographer than the original one? If they had wanted to make a 1.78:1 film, don't you think they could have and would have? It's not my videos and maverickluke can do whatever he likes, of course. Why not just do it rather than coming here and asking for "advice"?

[Alwyn]

@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.

[_Al_]

Cropping needs re-encoding so yes you loose quality, but if the source is very good (BD, UHD) and it is encoded with enough bitrate, you might not notice.

But then by zooming in, the visual quality drops further more (watching 1920x800 on 1920x1080 TV).

[Alwyn]

Cropping needs re-encoding so yes you loose quality, but if the source is very good (BD, UHD) and it is encoded with enough bitrate, you might not notice.

But then by zooming in, the visual quality drops further more (watching 1920x800 on 1920x1080 TV).

If you had cropped off the sides of your 1920x800 to make it fit your 16:9 screen ie resizing to 1920x1080, then you wouldn't need to zoom in. You only need one to do one or the other.

[azmoth]

I am watching 1080P and 4K HDR movies on an 85" 4K Sony TV through my receiver in my home theater room using the Apple TV 4K and Nvidia Shield Pro with Kodi/Plex to stream from my NAS drive and would like to eliminate the black borders, utilizing the full picture screen. I am using Vidcoder to encode these movie files and am contemplating cropping the 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 files.

Why would I want to do this? Because I noticed when watching a 1920x800 cropped movie file instead of the 1920x1080 file I can use the Apple TV remote to zoom the picture in to full screen without any distortion. I have found this to be only possible withe cropped files. The same goes for 4K 3840 files.

So I would like to understand more about any potential drawbacks to cropping such as a loss in clarity/picture quality and ultimately just want to be able to stretch/Zoom the picture in.

Thanks for your help in advance.

The black bars serve a purpose- to keep the aspect ratio. 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. I used to dislike them, but they dont bother me so much now. If I have a 4.3 aspect I will just zoom in to a 16.10 or 1.5 ratio without compromising quality too much. On a big TV 50" + it shouldn't be too much to live with them. With wide-screen just use your player's super zoom feature to fill the screen more. Don't reencode use MakeMKV!

[Cornucopia]

If this was truly a direct BD rip, it would only be 1920x1080 or similar legit resolutions. 1920x800 is not one of them, so very likely this is already a rip+crop+reencode. Reencoding again after further cropping/zooming to undo is then not a good idea as you will incur further loss.
If the active image is 1920x800, the aspect is likely 2.4:1 so upon playback and display on a 16:9 monitor, it will still have to have bars if you intend to keep the aspect.


Scott

[manono]

If you had cropped off the sides of your 1920x800 to make it fit your 16:9 screen ie resizing to 1920x1080, then you wouldn't need to zoom in. You only need one to do one or the other.

Okay, so crop from the sides to make it 1.78:1 and you might get 1424x800 or thereabouts. At that point you either resize to 1920x1080 during your (quality degrading) reencode, or you let the television do the resizing to fit its screen after your reencode. If the latter, that zoom is also quality degrading. And that 1920x800 version was also already reencoded from whatever source was used. As mentioned already, any reencodes (and resizes) degrade quality, as well as waste time.

It's all academic anyway as maverickluke said he can already zoom those. Either way, though, you lose more than 25% of the picture, and that's hardly "losing a bit of video on the sides" as you claimed earlier.

[Alwyn]

@Manono, don't partially quote me. I also said "if it's not important video way out there on the edges, who cares?" and "it could well be expendable".

Just like it's "expendable" when the OP zooms in to fill his screen and loses the sides!

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.

[_Al_]

Yes, I am horrified for what is going on today, speaking for myself, 4:3 TV shows are cropped, actors heads have a size of an air balloon, talking to someone that is out of frame etc.

[dellsam34]

Dellsam34 and Manono do you believe or think in belittling someone will somehow convince them to your point of view? Some people hate black bars with a vengeance, the reason? nobody knows? Anyway rather than insulting them maybe a short history on aspect ratio's and basic geometry would be more helpful, always being careful not to go into a "mansplain" diatribe..

Wow wow wow, hold your horses, first I wasn't insulting the OP, I explained that he can zoom in if he is okay with loosing parts of the picture and some blurriness, second I referred to idiots the people who stretch the aspect ratio which seems that's not the route the OP is heading, it's technically and artistically wrong otherwise engineers wouldn't have bothered adding black bars, let us all enjoy watching very skinny or very fat people depends on which way the stretch occurred.

[manono]

@Manono, don't partially quote me.

I quoted the part that was relevant.

I also said "if it's not important video way out there on the edges, who cares?" and "it could well be expendable".

You've directed a lot of films, have 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.

A complete non sequitur. Now you claim to know what I think? I did mention earlier, "So, this absurd idea has to be debunked. At least by those that think films should be viewed in their original aspect ratio." You start a thread about how nice it is to see Star Wars fill the screen of your television set, how it's much better to watch it without the black bars, and I might have something to say. As for directors being horrified, some hate what television does to their films. Here's what Spielberg has to say on the subject:

“The only time I lose my integrity as a filmmaker, is when my films go on TV. I lose it because I’m very frame-conscious, very conscious of my visual compositions, and I do a lot of things to tell a story by where I put characters and objects within the frame,” the directing legend told the reviewing legend.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-controversial-history-of-letterboxing-for-mo...ies-on-your-tv

[sophisticles]

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.

720 * 4 / 480 * 3 = 2
1280 / 720 = 1.7778
1920 / 1080 = 1.7778
3840 / 2160 = 1.7778

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 and then the idiocy is compounded by some DVD/BD/UHD authoring houses, and broadcasters, by cropping DCI spec 4096x1714, which has an aspect ratio of 2.39:1, to 3840x1607 and adding padding to get it to 3840x2160 instead of just doing a simple crop from 4096x1714 to 3840x2160.

Yes, my way changes the aspect ratio, but who the hell cares? It's better to have the film look like part of your tv or monitor isn't working properly?

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.

[Alwyn]

Like Speilberg, some people are hanging on too tight. He's not watching the movie, somebody else is. He might want to watch it letterboxed, but others don't. It doesn't matter what he thinks it should be viewed as.

I was going to reply to your rude comments, but I can't be bothered arguing.

When will I get the message: TINPAWA.

[Cornucopia]

Not true, @sophisticles. Shows how little you know.

Movies are shot with all kinds of aspect ratios. From 1:1 (and even less if doing portait mode or iphone productions) all the way up to 3:1 and beyond. Statistically the most common format has changed over the years - it used to be 1.37:1 was the standard/most common, now it is most likely 1.85:1. Not 2.39 or 2.4, though that is popular also.

When engineers analyzed the various aspects in preparation for creating a widescreen tv, they needed to arrive at a single figure, because it would not be economical enough (also profitable enough) to have multiple options and support them.
So they looked at the stats, and calculated which AR would cover the widest range of available (at the time) options, with the least amount of letterboxing or pillarboxing. They arrived at 16:9, which also satisfied other integer ratio conversions (16:9 is 4:3 x 4:3).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9_aspect_ratio

Not stupid or idiotic, just well thought out by engineers who are well versed in the business, the history, and the tech requirements underpinning it all.

Gee I wonder why they didn't consult your genius first.

And @Alwyn, I got news for you. Great producers like Spielberg often watch more movies than most "fans" do. But I'm sure y'all think you can do one better than him so your opinion on AR must make more sense.


Scott

[dellsam34]

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 and then the idiocy is compounded by some DVD/BD/UHD authoring houses, and broadcasters, by cropping DCI spec 4096x1714, which has an aspect ratio of 2.39:1, to 3840x1607 and adding padding to get it to 3840x2160 instead of just doing a simple crop from 4096x1714 to 3840x2160.

Yes, my way changes the aspect ratio, but who the hell cares? It's better to have the film look like part of your tv or monitor isn't working properly?

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 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

[Alwyn]

And @Alwyn, I got news for you. Great producers like Spielberg often watch more movies than most "fans" do. But I'm sure y'all think you can do one better than him so your opinion on AR must make more sense.

Oh come on Scott, you lot are unbelievable. I never said Speilberg was wrong, I never said movies should be shot in 16:9, all I'm saying is that others don't like letterboxing on TVs and prefer 16:9, me included.

Why do you lot get off on bashing anybody with an opinion counter to the almighty videophiles of Videohelp?

Yet another VH thread descending into acrimony at the hands of the usual suspects.

Sad, really sad.

[dellsam34]

To clear the confusion for the OP, Based on what everyone said above; it is okay to change the display aspect ratio if one chooses by cropping or zooming (with minor compromises), but it is not okay to change the pixel aspect ratio by stretching the frame vertically or horizontally (with vey major compromises).

[rrats]

benefit: no black borders

cons: rescalled video, worse resolution, loss of video data

[sophisticles]

After reading through these sources on aspect ratios:

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/film-studies-101-aspect-ratios/

https://nofilmschool.com/Aspect-Ratio-Examples-For-Filmmakers

I believe even more that the 1.7778 was idiotic.

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.

[dellsam34]

Well again 16:9 was a smart compromise not idiotic, Tel that to the folks who though 4:3 is the greatest and Hollywood is adding evil black bars on top and bottom to the movie masking the full version of the movie not knowing that in full screen version almost 50% of the frame is gone due to pan and scan done by broadcasters:
https://youtu.be/kxdWKIfxLNA

[Alwyn]

Hollywood is adding evil black bars on top and bottom to the movie masking the full version of the movie not knowing that in full screen version almost 50% of the frame is gone due to pan and scan done by broadcasters:

16 x 9 = 144

21.15 x 9 = 190

Difference between 16:9 and 2.35:1 is 46.

46 from 190 is not "almost 50%."

By my calculations, only the black bits are lost if you zoom in on your 16:9 TV to fill the top and bottom (or crop to 16:9).


[Attachment 61073 - Click to enlarge]

[_Al_]

Beautiful experience to watch that would be, for everything except movies on TV if there was more geniuses like sophisticles having their say as for standards. I'm glad that engineers are who they are and what they do. . Perhaps I'd need two TV's in living room while watching Sunday football game. btw. it is a nightmare to shoot wide format for everyday content as oppose to a movie, where sets are controlled, because tons of garbage gets into frame. I remember when cameraman used to shoot 4:3 starting to point out, how hard it is to shoot, compose things in 16:9, because you need to have more control of what you shoot. It is hard to make always good composition on 16:9 as oppose to 4:3. Now Imagine wider format. You shoot a kid having his first bike ride and also shooting a neighboring dog pissing on the grass unintentionally because picture is so wide, you cannot have control.

[DB83]

@Alwyn.


1. Dellsam34 was not discussing 2.35:1 and 16:9. He was refereeing to widescreen on 4:3. *


2. 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


You need to start with an actual image and not a multiplication of an aspect ratio. So the simple thing is to express 2.35:1 as 235 * 100. Now to fit that image in a 16:9 window you are adding the letter-boxing = 235/16*9 = 132. The effect of the crop returns the height to 100. So 235/132*100 = 178. And as we all know 1.78:1 is another way of expressing 16:9. So the difference in width = 235-178 = 57


And, before you all tell me, you do not need to go through this convoluted process. It's a simple matter of 235 - 57 = 178


*Using the above the compare for 4:3 can be expressed as 235 - 133 = 102. Or 43% of the original.