I enter the area you said you used (720*384) and Moviestacker gave me those values. Can you check you didn't hit somthing wrong in fitcd ?

@jorel
I never said that will be correct, I just said that with an area of 384, the values of Karl were erroneous. But he is right : the only way to give you the correct values is to have the correct film area !

You can find it with DVD2AVI. We already discuss about that A LOT OF TIMES. And sorry Jorel but I don't wan't to enter into this again as it seems you are still loosing you time in this subject again and again and again. Just return to the previous threads with had on this.

I'm sorry but I really don't understand what is so difficult to catch in this. No offense.

I think you are abble to use Moviestacker by your own. Just do it. Even if you are a little right : Inc found that Moviestaker is sometimes wrong and FitCD is more accurate. So use FitCD if you really want (but the diff is less than 0.3% between the two).

ok Phil:

that was my intention but (and atention please to what you wrote)
and
for me it means that no matter what way i do you will always have doubts, then i posted to follow your recomendations to do that !
how can i do if you don't trust? is clear now why i ask about how to get the correct values
because you don't trust me and less in all pictures posted ?
maybe this is the first reason!

the scripts from:
--->moviestacker
BilinearResize(688, 350, 6, 0, 708, 480)# moviestacker overscan2
AddBorders(16, 65, 16, 65)
--->fitcd
BilinearResize(688,352,8,0,704,480)# fitcd overscan2
AddBorders(16,64,16,64)

what is right, what is wrong?
i don't need to post pictures cos will be the same like posted,just a few diferences but...
well, ONLY IF you trust that i don't did something wrong using the progs, ok?

then,for this reason i can only post the exact film pixel area of that movie
IF you give me how to do it step by step cos will be your way that you trust
and not my way that can give doubts for you

thanks! ....i'm still waiting the right "how to".

hope this solves ur problems kwag n dialhot - no offence

this is wot me and Jorel are trying to explain:

http://www.asimshah.ho8.com/kvcdguides/new-1.jpg

if u still dont understand... god help us!

hope u do understand though...

thanx for ur co-operation!

Bazzy!

__________________
im a noob, sorry!

believe bazzy, i'm praying!

your link show exact what i got in my picture from Facar:
the same that i see in tv from dvd, exact borders and you don't loose anything!
with overscan(x,x,x or NO x) from fitcd,MS or another prog i got big borders!
see bazzy that i change just a little in overscan to 0.03 in Facar....
it's the value that my tv taste(after better adjusts in tv)...nothing more!

very importants details that i tested too:
the dvds Lilo&Stitch and Stitch (the movie) came with blackborders in left/right
and Facar don't loose anything from the source...the borders have the exact size
as i see in pc but that blackborders left/right but
don't in tv,is the same from dvd or from Facar.
test this sources !

Yes, I understand it perfectly
The DVD image is what you would normally see on TV, which cuts off because of TV overscan. Result: Edges you will never see, and that's normal. (Unless you are watching your DVD on a HDTV wide screen, which should NOT do overscan, because it's semiconductor, and not a CRT )
The KDVD/KVCD final image done with FACAR, chopps off (excessive croping), and doesn't reach the TV edges, because of excessive overscan. This is incorrect
The correct way is: Precise crop to get correct aspect, followed by just enough overscan, so when the picture is played back on the TV, it WILL extend flush with the edges

That is the correct way. Any other way is not correct :

@jorel,

Could you please give me the FILM PIXELS of your movie
You do that either with DVD2AVI, or by opening your VOB with Vdub MPEG-2 and adding a null transform to find the film pixel area.

-kwag

Kwag,
means that is better don't use any resize or overscan to HDTV wide screen? i don't have but i will, for this reason i ask!

i'm using a 4:3 tv and Facar adjusted for 4:3!

maybe this informations are irrelevants but take a look:
from ifoedit,
video: Mpeg2 720x480 (NTSC) (NTSC 525/60) (16:9) (pan & scan letterboxed)

in vdubmpeg2 using null transform or in dvd2avi DON'T HAVE blackborders,
but have "egg head" aspect and show different as i see the dvd on tv 4:3.

Are you sure you don't see a little (very small) black border on top and bottom

-kwag

this is the proove that you don't trust me

no , don't have any border
it's like a full screen but "egg head" and....hey, i'm posting the same!

and now?

do you want that i cut a sample from the vob and send to you to remove doubts?

No, it's ok

I believe you

-kwag

Facar does "overlayed overscan" in your case.
Overlayed Overscan means less borders on top and bottom (less compression),AND on the other hand deleted areas on the side!
Nothing new, just a way to do like using Letterbox() in avisynth WITHOUT applying overscan in FitCD before.


Whats the real gain?? Smaller borders = more movie pixels to encode and besides that to much loosing of details at the sides.
In case of 2.35:1 Movies ok, but not in case of others (IMHO)

Find your compromise between overlayed and resized Overscan!

Overlayed Overscan = Bigger Picture but less compression cause of more active pixels to encode!

Resized Overscan = Smaller Picture but MORE compression cause of less active pixels to encode!
And as a 2.35:1 Movie originally IS already very small on a 4:3 TV we here do "should" use Overlayed Overscan

??? What??
Please Jorel, ... maybe on your first view for you in THIS moviecase (AR) you find a "gain" for yourself but dont speak of a "true gain" in general As it sounds like that. In case of a 1.33:1 Source you wont have ANY gain from that!

BUt We DO LOOOOSE Compression as we have to encode more active movie pixels compared to resized overscan.

YEP and better compression! Thats the compromise

As I said "some kind" of overlayed overscan" In case of 2.35:1 Movies a good choice but less compression in case of 1.85:1/1.78:1 movies ...

IT IS a nice job from r6d2, as it contains developing spirits!
BUT ... it ONLY would get my vote on 2.35:1 sources but NOT on other sources(my personal taste in relation to compression).
But he can easely integrate an "if" routine according to the Source active px and the therefore resulting source effective AR!

But you can get that (sory r6d2) also with GripFit!
In case of 2.35:1 Movies NO overscan setted in gripfit but at the end of the script a letterbox(...).
In other cases "overscan" setted in gripfit line and no letterbox().
As Gripfit performs an RESIZED overscan.

I think they (he) do. As IF the final AR stretched (using source PAr) to Tv PAR 1:1 is right, then they DO respect the PAR based way (link above), which is essential

So do a test XVID intermediate still picture encoding where a circle at 768x576 (the test pattern, remember?) is stuffed in the width using par(128/117) = 702 .... padded to 704.
You can do that using the filters in Vdub and no matter if we use in here PAL sizes.

Perform on that intermediate input XVID test source THAT FACAR script at 528x576. (just for testing - no matter if its pal) - beacuse 528x576 (which is MOD out of 526,5) you can directly resize to PAR 1:1 768x576 (whole TV PAL area)

According to the setted destination resolution (528x576) do add at the end of that FACAR script a BicubicResize(768,576) ... be shure u used at facar 528x576!

Preview it! Is the circle totally AR based "round"???
If yes Facar does use right PARs for clculating, if not .... report it to r6d2.

If overscanning overlayed or not, thats just a "taste" someone chooses, but the important thing is that when internally resizig, that the correct PARs are used!

So "overlayed" overscan results in less compression (incl. less moviearea) but bigger view on the TV set!

YEP!

Well no big surpise! Facar just crops to the target purpose (by using the PARs) BUT does an overlayed overscan! (Which is also used in VMequitas "DivxResize" function)

@ Jorel

If you prefer that Jorel, then choose in FitCD NO overscan and add to the FitCD outputted avs script at the end a Letterbox(16,16,16,16) in case of a more than 352 width encoding, Thats all!

By the way, youre doing something wrong when showing your Outputs out of moviestacker.
Did you checked the "ITU" Checkbox the wrong way?


So we do here NOT talk about a gain of FitCD or Moviestacker or FACAR! We do have a discussion about overlayed and resized overscan

And the compromise and diff. between them you can read above

As I told you (in a line that you quoted) : Moviestacker is a little wrong, FitCD is more accurate. This results are from Inc, not me, but I can testify.

hey inc, first let me "lol" !
second: the "real gain" is that i see more movie with less borders
exact like i see the original dvd in my tv 4:3 Facar crops exact what i don't see using the dvd source!
this for me is real gain. why? see the next answer...
third: i encode 2 movies for 1 dvd media, compression is NOT important in my case and i encode as 720x480 !

now very important: your hints about FitCD NO overscan with Letterbox(16,16,16,16), i never tested before and deserve my atention...like i told you i encode 720x480!

now the very very important:
IMPOSSIBLE! the pictures posted are from Facar and from fitcd.
the scripts posted was using the same source(see seamless scripts from fitcd/moviestacker)
the "ITU" is checked automatic,depend of the source. in my sample,even if you "uncheck" it,if you load the source again in fitcd or moviestacker the "ITU" and "anamorphic" in the source automacaly is checked
the programs choose it alone not me!

i have to re-read your post to post more details.

@ phil

Well those differencies to me seem that they do result from DIFF settings related to MODx in Moviestcker and FitCD. Where at FITCD a "higher" vertcal MOD (round) value was used:

- 352 fitCD

- 350 MS

But thats not such an error as you go in using a PAR 1:1 Source as I figured out when using a 544x288 mpeg4 which IS PAR 1:1.
That one was to much stretched in its width.

But those diff. above wouldnt result in such a problem, ... as a 720/704 input is based on PAR 128/117

Inc, personnaly I don't give a s... about all this. This is Jorel that continue to hurt his head against a wall asking "what's better" without understanding that 2 pixels more or less won't change the face of the world.
As I said, the diff between Moviestaker and Fitcd is 0.3%. I really don't care about that.

Why ? Find me a TV set that you are ABSOLUTLY SURE that it is correctly setted and don't distort the A/R by 0.3% itself

In other words: there is really no need to torture our brain for such little diff as you will always have a weak link in your chain...

But Jorel seems to love brain torture

I personally don't mind a .3% either, but I do mind chopping of ~10% of the movie edges :P
We usually say (or I recall SansGrip saying) "Why encode what you can't see?", which is why we use overscan, so we can see the complete picture.
So now I can add my own line: "Why chop of what you could see, if you can properly rescale a DVD, so you CAN SEE the complete picture"

-kwag

NO "real gain" generally, its a gain IF you want a bigger picture BUT that would mean less compression So its no gain in general.
Read above: The compromise between advatage and disadvantage from BOTH methods.

Well on the one hand it "crops" what you dont see from the DVD source! Right. BUT IF the 720 are mastered using PAR 128/117 and NOT gneneric PAR (that would mean in FitCD ITU checked), that would mean "valuable" Movieinformation is kept away when watching the Video on TV out of the orig DVD source. And with FitCD you can "tweak" that even that area is watchable later by keeping right AR .. just an example.

You need no compression advantage when burnig two movies on one DVD-R ??? Well EXACT these workouts do give a little extra in saving Bits which will affect the quality of your encoding.
Safing bits on the one hand give you more compression and in relation to SAME final size that gives you a little better quality.

When u used Moviestacker theres a button which changes from resized to overlayed overscan that makes MS doing regular resizing and adding that letterbox(xxxxx) at the end.

AS told above MS and FITcd do set automatically that "ITU" box related to the parsed source resolution!
BOTH CANT parse the Source PAR! As its not stored in the header of the source.
At 99% they set it right, but IF you look at the Baloonhelp, you can easely see what I mean when saying this here.

Some DVDs (a very few shitty mastered ones) Are just "squeezed" to 720 width OUT OF TV PAR 1:1 and thats WRONG! They do exist and only your sensible eyes when previewing do tell you the trough
Out of a TV PAR 1:1 it has to be scaled to 704.
Thats why a correct produced DVD at 720x576 does NOT come as known 1.3333:1 ! Watch the AR sign at MS/FitCD beside the input resolution.

In case of PAL (logic in NTSC is the same):
Lets do scale the DVD720 to their 1:1 PAR in its width.

720*(128/117) = 787,69 PONG
787,69/576 = 1.368 the REAL AR of that PAL 720DVD is 1.368:1
And thats taken into account of FitCD/MS when doing the correct resizing.

What happened to these "shitty" DVDs?
Well: 768 just squeezed to 720 gives a PAR of 1,06667 ... see my point? And these 1,06667 are NOT the same as 128/117 ! And if you uncheck that ITU a PAR of 1,06667 is used which regualry shouldnt even exist! But as some "crappy" masterings do fly around the world, shh integrated that as an option.

Read caaaarrrefully because then youll see why there are case where you obtain more gain from an overlayed overscan and cases where you obtain more gain from a resized overscan.



@ Phil

I also do give a shit about 2px!! Even 4px wont make my day more worse
BUT the Photoshop proof I sended to you was calculated out of a 1:1 mpeg4 PAR (thats different compared to the calculation abov in its method) and WE both did see that in that mpeg4 case a "recognisable" wrong PAR was used. And that error case wasnt build on just 2-4px

Yes, and all is a matter of taste. The problem is than here, some are trying to obtain the same picture as if they were looking at their DVD, the others continue to explain how to have much than that.

For sure the thread can continue for ever

PS: and let image that in 3 years the majority will have a LCD (or plasma) screen, that DON'T have any overscan, and all our beautifull KDVD will be good to be trashed

Forget this ppl, lets just say.. there are several ways of doing this

FACAR - for wot u normally see on tv with an original dvd source
image cut from sides - no picture lost from top and bottom

FITCD - for the whole image on the original dvd source shown on tv
image not cut/slightly cut from side, also cut from top n bottom
scaled to fit so whole picture is shown, reducing image size

For me, i just want to see my tv filled with more picture, rather then have two huge black borders on top and bottom. i hate black borders less of them - go for facar!

FITCD ppl who dont mind the enormous borders... and want to see full scaled image.

YOU decide wots best for YOU.

Safe Jorel

Bazzy!

__________________
im a noob, sorry!

A good conclusion!
Same thing as said above "Its just a thread about resized or overlayed Overscan" ..... there will never be an end we can push it till in 3 years

And Ill add something: In a short time DVD Medias will be that cheap, that we can really keep everything as it is, ... means no overscan IF we than have the money for a then "cheap" Plasma TV at the ceiling of our Bedroom


Yep and thats also mentiond in r6d2's thread above as explanation