720 x 480 Aspect Ratio

[thecoalman]

That doesn't matter, there isnt enough of that information and data within VHS resolution. If it is not natively recorded at 720 x 480 then it will inevitably have black bars theres literally nothing to argue.

If you are doing this correctly the black bars are added by the playback software/device as required. The only black bars you should be adding is to mask overscan area to remove noise.

Perhaps this will help. If you are looking at raw 720*480 with aspect of 16:9 round objects will take on egg shape. It's flagged as 16:9 so the software/playback device can adjust the playback appropriately and add black bars if necessary. e.g letterboxing for 16:9 playback on 4:3 display or pillar boxing for playback of 4:3 on 16:9 screen.

[_Al_]

But his posted example has a live image width about 640 pixels wide. He has no sar etc., just dar, which is not 4:3 because added bars. sar=1. So dar is whatever black bars add to it.

OP's video is basically square pixel with added black bars about 40pixels left and, 40 right as a filler to get 720x480 (mistake of some sort, he has pillarboxed video, not letterbox that I mentioned earlier).

He should forget fixing something with a new aspect ratio. There is nothing to fix.
If there is a small ar error, not 100% square pixel, he would have to approach it differently, but I'm afraid he needs to forget aspect ratio talk for now. That is why folks are frustrated. He was told that as soon as sample was posted by dellsam34.

[lollo]

The OP does not deserve any answer because his aptitude, but I just want to highlight something for other readers:

- OP confused DAR (Display Aspect Ratio) with Pixel Width and Height since the beginning.

- The avi files originated by an analog capture through a capture card have no DAR (Display Aspect Ratio) flag.

- MediaInfo is just a flag reader, not a video analyzer. The flags can be right or wrong. In addition, when the DAR is not specified, it writes in the field "Display aspect ratio" the Pixel Width and Height numbers (confusing feature).

- The "best ever" JVC DR M100 DVD Recorder has been tested versus the Hauppauge USB-Live 2 here https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/12740-current-capture-device-3.html, and the results were obvious.

- Working with Analog SD material, Topaz VEAI has no better denoise features than AviSynth / VapourSynth.

[Anonymous84]

Anything lower than 1080p on any screen won't look good.

That's what happens when you use modern LCD TVs. I have Panasonic 32'' CRT made 20 years ago and SD look very good. It's bulky and heavy but picture processing is superior. You can't have the same in these slim flat chinese modern monitors, different technology and not made for SD videos.

The AVC software automatically makes the file a 3:2 aspect ratio file along with its enhancements. "

Then it's shitty software. Switch to professional one, mine doesn't.

[Sharc]

But his posted example has a live image width about 640 pixels wide. He has no sar etc., just dar, which is not 4:3 because added bars. sar=1. So dar is whatever black bars add to it.

OP's video is basically square pixel with added black bars about 40pixels left and, 40 right as a filler to get 720x480 (mistake of some sort, he has pillarboxed video, not letterbox that I mentioned earlier).

He should forget fixing something with a new aspect ratio. There is nothing to fix.

^^^ This ^^^

[jagabo]

But his posted example has a live image width about 640 pixels wide. He has no sar etc., just dar, which is not 4:3 because added bars. sar=1. So dar is whatever black bars add to it.

OP's video is basically square pixel with added black bars about 40pixels left and, 40 right as a filler to get 720x480 (mistake of some sort, he has pillarboxed video, not letterbox that I mentioned earlier).

He should forget fixing something with a new aspect ratio. There is nothing to fix.

^^^ This ^^^

I saw that -- and agree it's a 4:3 source in the inner 640x480 portion of the frame with padding out to 720x480. But I thought the OP's processing had introduced the problem. No DVD recorder would record an analog source like that. And no camcorder would record like that. The OP needs to go back to the original and fix his workflow to eliminate the pillarboxing.

[CyberDragon33]

But his posted example has a live image width about 640 pixels wide. He has no sar etc., just dar, which is not 4:3 because added bars. sar=1. So dar is whatever black bars add to it.

OP's video is basically square pixel with added black bars about 40pixels left and, 40 right as a filler to get 720x480 (mistake of some sort, he has pillarboxed video, not letterbox that I mentioned earlier).

He should forget fixing something with a new aspect ratio. There is nothing to fix.

^^^ This ^^^

I saw that -- and agree it's a 4:3 source in the inner 640x480 portion of the frame with padding out to 720x480. But I thought the OP's processing had introduced the problem. No DVD recorder would record an analog source like that. And no camcorder would record like that. The OP needs to go back to the original and fix his workflow to eliminate the pillarboxing.

The pillar boxing is showing up because it's being displayed on a 16:9 screen not a 4:3 one.

[CyberDragon33]

The OP does not deserve any answer because his aptitude, but I just want to highlight something for other readers:

- OP confused DAR (Display Aspect Ratio) with Pixel Width and Height since the beginning.

- The avi files originated by an analog capture through a capture card have no DAR (Display Aspect Ratio) flag.

- MediaInfo is just a flag reader, not a video analyzer. The flags can be right or wrong. In addition, when the DAR is not specified, it writes in the field "Display aspect ratio" the Pixel Width and Height numbers (confusing feature).

- The "best ever" JVC DR M100 DVD Recorder has been tested versus the Hauppauge USB-Live 2 here https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/12740-current-capture-device-3.html, and the results were obvious.

- Working with Analog SD material, Topaz VEAI has no better denoise features than AviSynth / VapourSynth.

What a douchebag response. So everyone on here asking for help doesn't deserve an answer because they don't know how to do something? I see the results in that link you posted had no major differences enough that it's completely different. The black level is different and I see more noise in the Hauppauge so idk what you're even getting at. The colors are slightly different but not enough that it's so off from each other.

[_Al_]

The pillar boxing is showing up because it's being displayed on a 16:9 screen not a 4:3 one.

No pillarbox is always there, does not matter what displays it.

[Sharc]

But his posted example has a live image width about 640 pixels wide. He has no sar etc., just dar, which is not 4:3 because added bars. sar=1. So dar is whatever black bars add to it.

OP's video is basically square pixel with added black bars about 40pixels left and, 40 right as a filler to get 720x480 (mistake of some sort, he has pillarboxed video, not letterbox that I mentioned earlier).

He should forget fixing something with a new aspect ratio. There is nothing to fix.

^^^ This ^^^

I saw that -- and agree it's a 4:3 source in the inner 640x480 portion of the frame with padding out to 720x480. But I thought the OP's processing had introduced the problem. No DVD recorder would record an analog source like that. And no camcorder would record like that. The OP needs to go back to the original and fix his workflow to eliminate the pillarboxing.

Yes. At some stage in his workflow the captured video got deinterlaced and resized to square pixels and eventually padded to comply with the standard NTSC 720x480 canvas.

[CyberDragon33]

But his posted example has a live image width about 640 pixels wide. He has no sar etc., just dar, which is not 4:3 because added bars. sar=1. So dar is whatever black bars add to it.

OP's video is basically square pixel with added black bars about 40pixels left and, 40 right as a filler to get 720x480 (mistake of some sort, he has pillarboxed video, not letterbox that I mentioned earlier).

He should forget fixing something with a new aspect ratio. There is nothing to fix.

^^^ This ^^^

I saw that -- and agree it's a 4:3 source in the inner 640x480 portion of the frame with padding out to 720x480. But I thought the OP's processing had introduced the problem. No DVD recorder would record an analog source like that. And no camcorder would record like that. The OP needs to go back to the original and fix his workflow to eliminate the pillarboxing.

Yes. At some stage in his workflow the captured video got deinterlaced and resized to square pixels and eventually padded to comply with the standard NTSC 720x480 canvas.

They weren't deinterlaced but I had to edit the videos and it could have happened there.

[Sharc]

But his posted example has a live image width about 640 pixels wide. He has no sar etc., just dar, which is not 4:3 because added bars. sar=1. So dar is whatever black bars add to it.

OP's video is basically square pixel with added black bars about 40pixels left and, 40 right as a filler to get 720x480 (mistake of some sort, he has pillarboxed video, not letterbox that I mentioned earlier).

He should forget fixing something with a new aspect ratio. There is nothing to fix.

^^^ This ^^^

I saw that -- and agree it's a 4:3 source in the inner 640x480 portion of the frame with padding out to 720x480. But I thought the OP's processing had introduced the problem. No DVD recorder would record an analog source like that. And no camcorder would record like that. The OP needs to go back to the original and fix his workflow to eliminate the pillarboxing.

Yes. At some stage in his workflow the captured video got deinterlaced and resized to square pixels and eventually padded to comply with the standard NTSC 720x480 canvas.

They weren't deinterlaced but I had to edit the videos and it could have happened there.

When you edited in Shotcut you may have selected the wrong video mode or the wrong source properties, or you applied a resizing filter.
(AFAIK it would automatically kick its deinterlacer in when requested to resize).

[CyberDragon33]

But his posted example has a live image width about 640 pixels wide. He has no sar etc., just dar, which is not 4:3 because added bars. sar=1. So dar is whatever black bars add to it.

OP's video is basically square pixel with added black bars about 40pixels left and, 40 right as a filler to get 720x480 (mistake of some sort, he has pillarboxed video, not letterbox that I mentioned earlier).

He should forget fixing something with a new aspect ratio. There is nothing to fix.

^^^ This ^^^

I saw that -- and agree it's a 4:3 source in the inner 640x480 portion of the frame with padding out to 720x480. But I thought the OP's processing had introduced the problem. No DVD recorder would record an analog source like that. And no camcorder would record like that. The OP needs to go back to the original and fix his workflow to eliminate the pillarboxing.

Yes. At some stage in his workflow the captured video got deinterlaced and resized to square pixels and eventually padded to comply with the standard NTSC 720x480 canvas.

They weren't deinterlaced but I had to edit the videos and it could have happened there.

When you edited in Shotcut you may have selected the wrong video mode or the wrong source properties, or you applied a resizing filter.
(AFAIK it would automatically kick its deinterlacer in when requested to resize).

I believe Shotcut does deinterlacing automatically that could be it. It seems as though the original DVD rips are actually 636 x 480 resolution. So I actually thought they were 720 and I put 720 in Shotcut. This could be it as well. WinX supposedly took the non edited videos and out put it at 640

[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.

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

It shows one of the well-known flaws of tools like MediaInfo. A trap that you fell into because you don't understand the reasoning behind it, and seem to be too stubborn to admit when you are wrong.

Scott

[Cornucopia]

NTSC Dvd rips are never anything but what is listed above in "what is...", unless the software is not just ripping but ripping, resizing and converting - which always loses quality. Mediocre software, or user error or both.


Scott

[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?

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]

It shows one of the well-known flaws of tools like MediaInfo. A trap that you fell into because you don't understand the reasoning behind it, and seem to be too stubborn to admit when you are wrong.

Scott

I have admitted that I'm wrong several times and I'll say again that I lack understanding. You seem to know about everything so if you're so wise then what other way can I read video files with complete accuracy? The DVD rips can rip from a 4:3 resolution so the initial step output them in a 640 x 480. I don't know if it's possible to rip into a 720 x 480 resolution as it only does 4:3. I've changed them to 720 in shotcut so again this could be it

[Skiller]

So I just read the three pages of this topic and I'm staggered.

Guys, remember don't feed the trolls. It wastes your precious time.

[CyberDragon33]

So I just read the three pages of this topic and I'm staggered.

Guys, remember don't feed the trolls. It wastes your precious time.

I'm not trolling you're oblivious if you think I am

[thecoalman]

If you are doing this correctly the black bars are added by the playback software/device as required. The only black bars you should be adding is to mask overscan area to remove noise.

To clarify so this is not misinterpreted.... what I meant was the final playback device. For capture you don't want the playback device adding letterboxing or pillar boxing.

[_Al_]

I'm not trolling

I think too, it is not trolling, it is just lack to kind of analyze what was said, it was told what was going on in post #7 by dellsam34

Sometimes members post answer loud and clear, and and then they are accused of bullying. Life is not ideal, cannot be. You have to admit if dellsam34 used a straight forward language. "Hey Dude, Don't do anything with it! You HAVE a square pixel" you might be offended as well, but you'd register that. He answered precisely, it was structured, precise, even images were involved, but you ignored him. So it went another two pages. No hard feelings though. Everyone is jumpy lately

[Bwaak]

The DVD rips can rip from a 4:3 resolution so the initial step output them in a 640 x 480.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video

[Cornucopia]

They still don't get it through their head that 720x480 not only CAN be 4:3 (using non-square pixel AR) but that they primarily ARE that, and almost never are 3:2 except when using square pixel AR, which is not possible on a DVD. They are still misunderstanding the whole nature of those basic AR relationships. From this misunderstanding comes false assumptions, which breed errors in settings.
I'm sure this sounds quite snarky but for the fact that from the very first response we've gotten from them has been "no, YOU are wrong!", and more. C'est la vie.


Scott

[CyberDragon33]

I'm not trolling

I think too, it is not trolling, it is just lack to kind of analyze what was said, it was told what was going on in post #7 by dellsam34

Sometimes members post answer loud and clear, and and then they are accused of bullying. Life is not ideal, cannot be. You have to admit if dellsam34 used a straight forward language. "Hey Dude, Don't do anything with it! You HAVE a square pixel" you might be offended as well, but you'd register that. He answered precisely, it was structured, precise, even images were involved, but you ignored him. So it went another two pages. No hard feelings though. Everyone is jumpy lately

For the fifth time ill repeat myself that I lack understanding. If I am asking questions then why the hell would I be trolling? Half of you would be terrible at providing customer support skills cause you're attitude is so shit

[CyberDragon33]

They still don't get it through their head that 720x480 not only CAN be 4:3 (using non-square pixel AR) but that they primarily ARE that, and almost never are 3:2 except when using square pixel AR, which is not possible on a DVD. They are still misunderstanding the whole nature of those basic AR relationships. From this misunderstanding comes false assumptions, which breed errors in settings.
I'm sure this sounds quite snarky but for the fact that from the very first response we've gotten from them has been "no, YOU are wrong!", and more. C'est la vie.


Scott

I would love for you to be in an IT position in which you basically told someone to **** off because you're always right. Your hiring manager would fire you in a heartbeat. You're mannerism is terrible and in no way shape or form do you possess adequate soft skills to initiate any healthy customer service

[Cornucopia]

(he don't know me very well, do he?)

I AM in IT, and in a position to give both soft guidance and hard, tough, blunt truth to clients. And have garnered awards for being so helpful, for almost a decade.

What's incongruous between what you said and reality is that in reality, as opposed to the this virtual world, clients have less gall because they realize you know just who and where they are. They are accountable, so they rarely cross over the line.
But, our IT support group, along with many others in the industry, does have its "Wall of Shame" with examples of clients being not just clueless, but downright A-holes.

So, thanks for that vote of confidence.



Scott

[CyberDragon33]

(he don't know me very well, do he?)

I AM in IT, and in a position to give both soft guidance and hard, tough, blunt truth to clients. And have garnered awards for being so helpful, for almost a decade.

What's incongruous between what you said and reality is that in reality, as opposed to the this virtual world, clients have less gall because they realize you know just who and where they are. They are accountable, so they rarely cross over the line.
But, our IT support group, along with many others in the industry, does have its "Wall of Shame" with examples of clients being not just clueless, but downright A-holes.

So, thanks for that vote of confidence.



Scott

I'm also in IT myself and if someone was to act angry at me and an ******* I wouldn't do the same to them and be kind regardless. You came in here with hostility.

It doesn't matter if a client is an ******* or not you maintain yourself because you're the one that needs to keep your shit together not the other person. You'll get a royal kick in the ass if you can't handle angry customers and quite frankly idk how you're even in IT when I can see clear as day your horrible mannerism. You come off as an arrogant cocky POS that thinks someones lack of understanding is a bad thing and you fail to provide good mannerism while giving information across. Its rude so idk how the hell youre in IT. If I was your client I would literally tell the manager to fire your ass. Instead of making me less pissed off you made me more pissed off. You show no ounce of professionalism

[_Al_]

Actually, no one is working here. Let it run thru a system.

[CyberDragon33]

Actually, no one is working here. Let it run thru a system.

Doesn't matter. The ability to show good mannerism should apply to outside of a work environment and inside one. I'll admit I haven't shown it as well but its because a lot of you have genuinely pissed me off. If some people on here were to be humble and not belike "hey this guy is a dumbass he doesn't know anything what a loser attitude" I would genuinely be less pissed off immensly. I'm the one seeking help not providing it. It's not on me to throw my cockinesd in the trash. People will be reluctant to ask questions of anything if they get pushed away and get labeled like some kind of dumb ****. They'll feel uncomfortable as I have. Either control your manner and the way you provide help or just don't bother. It's worse to see this sort of attitude along with advice. It's a turn off

[_Al_]

Do you know that it is polite to actually answer to someone who responds to you? To actually weight on things and build on that. How about that? Talking to a not responding wall is a challenge also. Look at it from the other side.

How about giving you an answer for a day and ignoring those solutions only answering unrelated things. Starting answer #2, #3 etc, it was you starting giving an attitude in #4 answer. You started it. They were right. Then giving polite lessons. Grow up.

[Bwaak]

I'm the one seeking help not providing it.

Since you work in IT, I suppose you know how to ask questions the smart way. In particular,

It sometimes looks like we're reflexively rude to newbies and the ignorant. But this isn't really true.

What we are, unapologetically, is hostile to people who seem to be unwilling to think or to do their own homework before asking questions. People like that are time sinks — they take without giving back, and they waste time we could have spent on another question more interesting and another person more worthy of an answer. We call people like this “losers” (and for historical reasons we sometimes spell it “lusers”).

We realize that there are many people who just want to use the software we write, and who have no interest in learning technical details. For most people, a computer is merely a tool, a means to an end; they have more important things to do and lives to live. We acknowledge that, and don't expect everyone to take an interest in the technical matters that fascinate us. Nevertheless, our style of answering questions is tuned for people who do take such an interest and are willing to be active participants in problem-solving. That's not going to change. Nor should it; if it did, we would become less effective at the things we do best.

We're (largely) volunteers. We take time out of busy lives to answer questions, and at times we're overwhelmed with them. So we filter ruthlessly. In particular, we throw away questions from people who appear to be losers in order to spend our question-answering time more efficiently, on winners.

Substitute "workflows we use" for "software we write", and it will be pretty much on the mark for this forum.