720 x 480 Aspect Ratio

[CyberDragon33]

I'd leave it as is. You can try to find a frame with a ball or round clock to see if you see real 1:1 ratio. It might be just about ok.

Do you have a device that would show it incorrectly? I think all devices would show it the same, does not matter what monitor or phone etc. you have.

I mean I don't know if there's a substantial difference as all present day devices are 16:9 anyway. The only difference is if a 4:3 aspect ratio is used on display devices

[Alwyn]

Seems to be the software always outputs 3:2 regardless.

It's either badly designed software or you don't know how to use it properly. Analogue video is supposed to be 4:3, fullstop. You can crop it later, if you want, to whatever display ratio you like, but the original video on the tape is 4:3 and should be captured as such. If your process is producing 3:2, you're doing it incorrectly.

and none of them use usb devices this has been recent.

Of course they wouldn't; it takes more time and effort.

[_Al_]

Your video might not have ANY aspect ratio. It is only DAR those 3:2 ergo 720:480. DAR could be any ratio we want, because it depends what black bars are . But live frame aspect ratio (sar or par whatever we call it) is 1:1. That might be your case most likely.

[Cornucopia]

See what I mean about SAR (storage AR) effing people up? This person knows just enough to get themselves into trouble, but not enough to get themselves out, nor know how/why they got there in the first place.

O vainglorious one, if you truly know that these are 3:2, please do show us where in the file(s) that ratio is stored/encoded?

Scott

[Bwaak]

• Wikipedia: Different pixel and display aspect ratios.
• Jukka Aho: A quick guide to digital video resolution and aspect ratio conversions.
• EBU Tech: Rec. 601 — the origins of the 4:2:2 DTV standard.

Analogue video is supposed to be 4:3, fullstop.

It can also be 5:3 for analog HD as well as 16:9 for analog SD and HD

[CyberDragon33]

Seems to be the software always outputs 3:2 regardless.

It's either badly designed software or you don't know how to use it properly. Analogue video is supposed to be 4:3, fullstop. You can crop it later, if you want, to whatever display ratio you like, but the original video on the tape is 4:3 and should be captured as such. If your process is producing 3:2, you're doing it incorrectly.

and none of them use usb devices this has been recent.

Of course they wouldn't; it takes more time and effort.

I know how to use it and I've tested multiple videos on it. It's always that aspect ratio. I was just thinking of adjusting the aspect ratio in a video editor and finalizing it then

[CyberDragon33]

See what I mean about SAR (storage AR) effing people up? This person knows just enough to get themselves into trouble, but not enough to get themselves out, nor know how/why they got there in the first place.

O vainglorious one, if you truly know that these are 3:2, please do show us where in the file(s) that ratio is stored/encoded?

Scott

Do you have any reading comprehension or do you just make crap up?

[CyberDragon33]

[QUOTE=Alwyn;2727242]

Seems to be the software

and none of them use usb devices this has been recent.

Of course they wouldn't; it takes more time and effort.

No it doesn't it's no different than recording from a DVD

[Alwyn]

No it doesn't it's no different than recording from a DVD

Whatever you say boss.

[Alwyn]

It can also be 5:3 for analog HD as well as 16:9 for analog SD and HD

Captain Tangent has arrived.

[Alwyn]

@Cyberdragon/Whatsastory, FWIW, given I'm no expert, but it looks to me like the sample you posted in post #6 has major issues; there's numerous "pause" moments when frames are repeated before jumping to the next frame. Open it in VDub and step through each frame slowly. Another indication the AVC encoding process (or the DVD "master") was probably borked.

[Cornucopia]

See what I mean about SAR (storage AR) effing people up? This person knows just enough to get themselves into trouble, but not enough to get themselves out, nor know how/why they got there in the first place.

O vainglorious one, if you truly know that these are 3:2, please do show us where in the file(s) that ratio is stored/encoded?

Scott

Do you have any reading comprehension or do you just make crap up?

I see you have nothing to back up your claims, and only infantile insults as a retort.

[jagabo]

Many programs don't respond to flagged aspect ratios and assume the frame aspect ratio is the display aspect ratio. Also, in the absence of a flagged aspect ratio MediaInfo will report the frame aspect ratio as the display aspect ratio. A 720x480 frame has a 3:2 frame aspect ratio -- so such programs will report 3:2 as the aspect ratio

You should keep your video as 720x480 throughout your processing (unless you really know what you are doing) and make your final encoding at 720x480 and flag the display aspect ratio as 4:3 or the sample aspect ratio as 10:11 or 8:9 for 4:3 material, 40:33 or 32:27 for 16:9 material.

Alternatively resize the video to a 4:3 frame right off the bat, do all your processing at that frame size, the make your final encoding 640x480 and flag it as 4:3 DAR or 1:1 SAR.

[whatastory]

See what I mean about SAR (storage AR) effing people up? This person knows just enough to get themselves into trouble, but not enough to get themselves out, nor know how/why they got there in the first place.

O vainglorious one, if you truly know that these are 3:2, please do show us where in the file(s) that ratio is stored/encoded?

Scott

Do you have any reading comprehension or do you just make crap up?

I see you have nothing to back up your claims, and only infantile insults as a retort.

Wtf does this show then?
[Attachment 77553 - Click to enlarge]

[whatastory]

Many programs don't respond to flagged aspect ratios and assume the frame aspect ratio is the display aspect ratio. Also, in the absence of a flagged aspect ratio MediaInfo will report the frame aspect ratio as the display aspect ratio. A 720x480 frame has a 3:2 frame aspect ratio -- so such programs will report 3:2 as the aspect ratio

You should keep your video as 720x480 throughout your processing (unless you really know what you are doing) and make your final encoding at 720x480 and flag the display aspect ratio as 4:3 or the sample aspect ratio as 10:11 or 8:9 for 4:3 material, 40:33 or 32:27 for 16:9 material.

Alternatively resize the video to a 4:3 frame right off the bat, do all your processing at that frame size, the make your final encoding 640x480 and flag it as 4:3 DAR or 1:1 SAR.

AVC I don't think responds to a 4:3 aspect ratio. I like the denoise from AVC and its top quality compared to everything i've done so I would just need to make it 4:3 in a video editor and finalize it. AVC is AI processed so the AI can't process the change from 3:2 to 4:3 even if I tell it to. I've mentioned this to the support team so i'm hoping it gets fixed. I wish other editors had better denoise, the ones by Topaz and AVC AFAIK produce the best results otherwise I wouldn't use them and avoid the 3:2 output.

[Bwaak]

Captain Tangent has arrived.

You chose to quote me correcting your bold "Analogue video is supposed to be 4:3, fullstop" claim, but ignored three links just above.

Talking about tangents, I think it is more productive to provide links to reliable sources that explain PAR, DAR, FAR, SAR and whatever other AR in detail, and then answer questions if those still exist, than trying to explain on two pages why 720x480 is not 3:2.

[whatastory]

I've done the method in which I took a 3:2 720 x 480p video and then adjusted the ratio to 4:3 but now theres black bars on the top and bottom. I have an LG 16:9 TV 4k resolution. It has the option to use 4:3 aspect ratio. The file that I play with 4:3 is centered on the screen and it looks too small. The 3:2 file is able to viewed on the screen with only black bars on the side which is normal since its a 16:9 display. I dont know what weird crap is going on but the 3:2 file looks better and fits better. Its something done in my process, but whoever is saying that 720 x 480 looks bad at a 3:2 aspect ratio is wrong it looks fine. I'm probably going to just upscale this because viewing this material on modern displays just looks bad. Anything lower than 1080p on any screen won't look good, but upscaling 480 to 720 via Topaz or AVC, im using AVC anyway, would just make it to look decent on 1080/4k display. TV upscaling is terrible. If I was living in the 1990s or 2000s I'd be satisfied with 720 x 480p. The AVC software automatically makes the file a 3:2 aspect ratio file along with its enhancements. So from what i've seen is that if taking this file would add more black bars, it has something to do with the softwares processing, but I see no issue in 3:2 aspect ratio even if that is not the "standard."

[whatastory]

In case anyone wants to see what it looks like on my TV. The one with the black bars on the top and bottom is the file I have playing with 720 x 480 with a 4:3 aspect ratio the one that doesn't is the one without any adjustments made taken from the AVC software at 3:2. The only difference is the actual window size of the video, whats contained in the video there are no distortions but from an aesthetic standpoint and for viewing purposes the 3:2 file looks much more normal to me and the 4:3 does not. It could simply be a software thing. I also have the picture showing the 4:3 aspect ratio on my TV and the 3:2 video file shows up fine.

[Alwyn]

I dont know what weird crap is going on but the 3:2 file looks better and fits better.

I partly explained that way back. Your 3:2 file has the correct, 4:3 picture inside it. The side bars take your file from 4:3 to 3:2. Looks at Dellsam's images again. When you play it on your TV, you'll see no bars on the top or bottom, and black side bars, part of which are in the file itself and the rest, to the edges, is black screen from the TV.

The reason, I surmise, that you're now getting black bars on the top and bottom is because the program is saying "I've got a 3:2 file here, he wants 4:3, so I'll pad top and bottom to achieve 4:3". IOW it won't crop the sides to achieve 4:3, it'll pad top and bottom to achieve that. I'm till thinking about it but it might distort the active video area when it does so.

Anything lower than 1080p on any screen won't look good, but upscaling 480 to 720 via Topaz or AVC, im using AVC anyway, would just make it to look decent on 1080/4k display. TV upscaling is terrible.

Have you actually done it or theorising? I have an LG UHD 55" SK8500 model TV and the upscaling works great.

[whatastory]

I dont know what weird crap is going on but the 3:2 file looks better and fits better.

I partly explained that way back. Your 3:2 file has the correct, 4:3 picture inside it. The side bars take your file from 4:3 to 3:2. Looks at Dellsam's images again. When you play it on your TV, you'll see no bars on the top or bottom, and black side bars, part of which are in the file itself and the rest, to the edges, is black screen from the TV.

The reason, I surmise, that you're now getting black bars on the top and bottom is because the program is saying "I've got a 3:2 file here, he wants 4:3, so I'll pad top and bottom to achieve 4:3". IOW it won't crop the sides to achieve 4:3, it'll pad top and bottom to achieve that. I'm till thinking about it but it might distort the active video area when it does so.

Anything lower than 1080p on any screen won't look good, but upscaling 480 to 720 via Topaz or AVC, im using AVC anyway, would just make it to look decent on 1080/4k display. TV upscaling is terrible.

Have you actually done it or theorising? I have an LG UHD 55" SK8500 model TV and the upscaling works great.

Yes I just have tested it on my TV for analysis and this is on point. Its strange how it works but whatever is being done is being done right. The LG TV I have is from 2019. I find that Topaz and AVC is a great 2 in 1 you can denoise and also upscale at the same time. Most 480 and 720p footage looks much better cleaned up its a night and day difference. If i'm going to clean up the videos I might as well upscale them as well, TVs don't denoise maybe in the future they will but I highly doubt they'll catch up to software like Topaz or AVC anytime soon.

[dellsam34]

Stop insulting the members, they are trying to help you learn something, If you don't want to listen just keep doing what you are doing, no one is forcing you to follow any advice, But when you post publicly asking for questions, expect to receive answers showing you what you did wrong.

You stated that you don't want to use capture cards from the Windows 7 era, yet you are claiming the experts are still copying VHS to DVD, a technology that predates Windows 98.

Standard 480p resolution has never even existed in the 80s and even most of the 90s because video was never digital in the first place in those time periods.

What the standard rec.601 was made for then back in 1982? It defines how to convert an analog video to digital, The first digital cassette recorder was made by Sony in 1986, It was the foundation of SD digital video and analog to digital video conversion.

[whatastory]

Stop insulting the members, they are trying to help you learn something, If you don't want to listen just keep doing what you are doing, no one is forcing you to follow any advice, But when you post publicly asking for questions, expect to receive answers showing you what you did wrong.

You stated that you don't want to use capture cards from the Windows 7 era, yet you are claiming the experts are still copying VHS to DVD, a technology that predates Windows 98.

Standard 480p resolution has never even existed in the 80s and even most of the 90s because video was never digital in the first place in those time periods.

What the standard rec.601 was made for then back in 1982? It defines how to convert an analog video to digital, The first digital cassette recorder was made by Sony in 1986, It was the foundation of SD digital video and analog to digital video conversion.

I'm not insulting anyone if someone is rude to me then I won't take it kindly and will not be kind back its that simple, you are guilty of it yourself. Others have not shown a superiority complex and have been understanding so I responded to them kindly. Analog to digital conversion didn't exist in the 1980s as computers were in its infancy in the entire decade so there was hardly such a thing. 1998 is more further from the analog era and more closer to the digital era. I have never stated I wanted to use cards in the Windows 7 era. Windows 7 came out in 2009 and I clearly stated cards before 2010 are the best, Windows 7 was clearly around in 2010 and was widely used so I advise you to please learn more about these things you're stating here. You also need to read carefully too.

[dellsam34]

Your problem is you don't know what you don't know, Instead of accept the reality and learn, You start back paddling when proven wrong and keep doubling down on it, Good luck in your endeavor.

[Alwyn]

Whatsastory, you're waaay out of line criticising people such as Dellsam34 and Cornucopia. You don't realise it but you've posted a large amount of nonsense here and I'm very surprised you know who hasn't come on and torn strips off you. For example, arguing about when 480P came into vogue is just so irrelevant, and when you start jumping up and down about it of course you're going get blowback. Similarly, "480P on a TV is awful and 1080P must be better" and going on about 4:3 TVs. It's almost incoherent, not to mention your claims about best quality is DVD/MPEG because your mates say (would they, by any chance, work at Legacybox?) and there are no good current model USB digitisers, which is also nonsense. Dellsam34 even pointed you to a thread on that.

Could you please post your screenshots top side up.

[CyberDragon33]

Your problem is you don't know what you don't know, Instead of accept the reality and learn, You start back paddling when proven wrong and keep doubling down on it, Good luck in your endeavor.

Have you ever thought that when actually helping people it's better to be less of an arrogant prick but rather be more humble and suck in your pride?

[CyberDragon33]

Whatsastory, you're waaay out of line criticising people such as Dellsam34 and Cornucopia. You don't realise it but you've posted a large amount of nonsense here and I'm very surprised you know who hasn't come on and torn strips off you. For example, arguing about when 480P came into vogue is just so irrelevant, and when you start jumping up and down about it of course you're going get blowback. Similarly, "480P on a TV is awful and 1080P must be better" and going on about 4:3 TVs. It's almost incoherent, not to mention your claims about best quality is DVD/MPEG because your mates say (would they, by any chance, work at Legacybox?) and there are no good current model USB digitisers, which is also nonsense. Dellsam34 even pointed you to a thread on that.

Could you please post your screenshots top side up.

I've asked questions multiple times to better my understanding. I did not really ask for these two to show their mighty ego off and that royally turns me off. I'll admit that there is lack of understanding on my part but in no way whatsoever do I ever want someone to play me out as a dumbass like this dellsam and cornucopia do. Quite frankly I don't even like them as a person let alone their attitude in trying to "help"

[dellsam34]

I highly doubt you are looking for help here, You are just trolling without realizing you're making a fool of yourself in public.

[CyberDragon33]

I highly doubt you are looking for help here, You are just trolling without realizing you're making a fool of yourself in public.

I am looking for help, by people that aren't cocky. This is not public at all. This site doesn't represent the whole world and no one really gives a shit. There are people who have answered my questions and didn't shove their pride into my face like you or whoever else and they know who they are. One guy even called someone "captain tangent" on here. If you guys are gonna help people then literally don't be a cocky dick about it.

Before I even came on this forum I've seen comments from you and cornucopia. You guys have this attitude that is far from being helpful. If you were in IT or customer service your ass would be getting fired from day 1. You don't just tell people they're wrong a better way is saying something like "this is probably not the best way to do it, would you like me to show you how I've done it." When a question from someone is asked you don't just shove them off and act all superior. You analyze what they've done and I've told you what I've done yet you still refused to acknowledge me. You want to see things your own way without seeing how it is from someone else. You haven't even friggin used AVC video enhancer and I've mentioned this multiple times that's what is causing it yet you and the other guy I've mentioned fail to acknowledge that and literally play me out as a dumb ass. And you say I'm insulting people? Yeah okay

[Anonymous84]

I have a question regarding 720 x 480 aspect ratio. I understand that this aspect ratio is a 3:2 aspect ratio. My question is that should 720 x 480 be left as a 3:2 aspect ratio or should it be changed to a 4:3 aspect ratio? If its left as a 3:2 aspect ratio how would it look on 16:9 displays compared to it being 4:3 aspect ratio?

There is no obvious answer. Depends how video picture looks like on screen.
If it's stretched and in 3:2 AR it should be changed to 4:3.
If looks normal in 3:2 AR leave it as it is. I saw some 4:3 videos cut on top and bottom therefore resulted in 3:2 AR used, changing it back to 4:3 would make picture look squeezed and bad.

[jagabo]

Every video has three aspect ratios: the Frame Aspect Ratio (the ratio of the frame width and height in number of pixels, the Sample Aspect Ratio (the "distance" between successive pixels, horizontally and vertically*), and the Display Aspect Ratio (the shape of the final displayed picture). The mathematical relationship between the three is:

DAR = FAR * SAR

where DAR is the Display Aspect Ratio, FAR is the Frame Aspect Ratio, and SAR is the Sample Aspect Ratio. Some people prefer not to use the acronym FAR and explicitly use the frame dimensions instead

DAR = Frame Width / Frame Height * SAR

For a 4:3 ITU NTSC video capture the SAR is 10:11 so we get:

DAR = Frame Width / Frame Height * SAR
4 / 3 = 704 / 480 * 10 / 11
1.333... = 1.333...

So if you only know the frame dimensions and the SAR you can calculate the DAR:

DAR = Frame Width / Frame Height * SAR
DAR = 704 / 480 * 10 / 11
DAR = 1.333...  (AKA 4/3 or 4:3)

* Pixels are theoretically points, not little squares or rectangles. So pixels don't have a shape but a distance between them, horizontally and vertically, when instantiated. For this reason modern documents use the term Sample Aspect Ratio rather than Pixel Aspect Ratio.