Quantcast Aspect Ratio, Source, Player, TV.. What a Mess! - Page 4 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #61  
02-19-2005, 02:06 AM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
I can repeat this for ever : an anamorphic picture is not 16:9, it is 4:3 and MUST be undistort to be seen as 16:9.
As Muaddib said "we know (it) doesn't have 16:9 dimensions". We... the humans. Not the computers nor the TV set. For them, as as long you do not tell them "this is a 16:9 frame", they treat and display them as 4:3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
4:3 - 16:9 and 16:9 anamorphic are THREE different things !
I agree with you that 16:9 does not mean anamorphic (as some rare examples like the Euro1080 you gave), but anamorphic do mean 16:9.

I believe I'm starting to understand what you mean, and I think that our disagreement is with the word "aspect ratio", not with the word "anamorphic" (or 16:9).

Please, could you tell me what is the aspect ratio of a standard svcd stream?
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #62  
02-19-2005, 01:29 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
I agree with you that 16:9 does not mean anamorphic (as some rare examples like the Euro1080 you gave), but anamorphic do mean 16:9.
Again no, for anything but you (the human), it is 4:3 That is the purpose of the anamorphism : to be abble to handle 16:9 sources on hardware designed for 4:3 ! All VCR for instance can record 16:9 anamorphic with no problem but they wouldn't be abble to record it if it was other thing than 4:3. That is also why, as Inc said, all 16:9 at channels are anamorphic (except the Euro1080 so, but this is the future...).

Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
Please, could you tell me what is the aspect ratio of a standard svcd stream?
4:3. Anamorphism (16:9 if you want to call it like this) is supported only by DVD.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
02-22-2005, 02:59 PM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
Please, could you tell me what is the aspect ratio of a standard svcd stream?
4:3.
Thank God we agree with that!
Yes, you are right, it is 4:3, and that's because we need to get those 480x480 pixels and distort it to a 4:3 proportion frame in order to view it correctly. That's what we call 4:3 A/R. That's the same thing with anamorphic. We call it 16:9 A/R because we need to distort it to a 16:9 proportion frame in order to view it correctly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
When you make a 16:9 screen for your projector, you do not buy a 4:3 piece of elastic material that you shrink horizontally. You buy directly a 16:9 material.
That's what I call a 16:9 size proportion!... 16:9 aspect ratio is a different thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
As Muaddib said "we know (it) doesn't have 16:9 dimensions". We... the humans. Not the computers nor the TV set. For them, as as long you do not tell them "this is a 16:9 frame", they treat and display them as 4:3!
Well, I think you are taking this too far separating the concept in terms of "humans" and "machines"... but I'll try to explain that no matter if you are talking about humans or machines, a anamorphic stream will always has a 16:9 A/R.

Talking about them (the machines), of course they don't know it is 16:9 until we tell them (insert the 16:9 flag in the stream). They are so stupid that need every thing explained in all details. They can't look at an anamorphic picture and know if this picture is anamorphic or not. As incredible said, for them, it's just a bunch of pixels. For them, an anamorphic stream will be an anamorphic stream if (and only if) it has a 16:9 flag. So when they found that flag they "think": "Ah... I have an anamorphic stream here! This stuff has a 16:9 aspect ratio, so I have to distort it into a 16:9 frame."

That is exactly the same for a 4:3 svcd stream (for example). If we (the humans) don't tell them (the machines) that it's 4:3 they would never have a clue of that. So we have to tell them: "Hey, look for a 16:9 flag... If you find one, then it is a 16:9 stream; else it is a 4:3 stream (as anything not flagged is treated as 4:3). This does not mean that an anamorphic stream will be 4:3 IF it's not flagged. Because a not flagged stream IS NOT an anamorphic stream (for the machines).

Now talking about us (the humans)... We don't need a flag to tell us that the right aspect of a anamorphic frame is 16:9, we know the process, we know the theory, or even if we hadn't knew the theory, we are different from the machines that only see pixels... just looking to a anamorphic picture we know that it has a wrong aspect if it was not distorted into 16:9. In the same way we know (just looking at it) that a 480x480 svcd has a wrong aspect if it's not distorted into 4:3.

So, it doesn't matter... for machines or for humans, an anamorphic stream is always 16:9!
Reply With Quote
  #64  
02-22-2005, 03:55 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You know what ? You're right.
Next toppic.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
02-22-2005, 03:59 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Reply With Quote
  #66  
02-22-2005, 08:38 PM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
You know what ? You're right.
Next toppic.
Okay... I'll look for another salutary discussion!


Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag



[edit:] Please, I don't want to push it any further, but I just found another program that makes that "stupid noob error" (?) you told.
DVD2AVI identify any anamorphic stream as "Aspect Ratio: 16:9"
Reply With Quote
  #67  
02-23-2005, 04:43 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
DVD2AVI identify any anamorphic stream as "Aspect Ratio: 16:9"[/size]
As Inc said, encoders speak en strange language

But as you do not want to push it further, I won't tell you to take a ball, to put in into a square box and to tell us what is the shape of the box now (not the content, the box).

One day you will look further, in electronics and shortwave broadcast domains, and you will understand what is a 4:3 stream and what is 16:9 (in words of box, not content). Video editing does not rules the world...

But be happy, I said you are right. Enjoy !

DV recoders (some ?) have true 16:9 mode (not anamorphic). Give it to DVD2AVI or any other encoders and make me laught...
Reply With Quote
  #68  
02-24-2005, 12:27 AM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Haha... This thread just didn't want to die!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
As Inc said, encoders speak en strange language
Sorry, but Inc didn't say that... YOU did!

Quote:
I won't tell you to take a ball, to put in into a square box and to tell us what is the shape of the box now (not the content, the box).
Oh, I see... we passed through "machines and humans", now we are getting down to "balls and boxes"! But that's fine… and you are wrong (again).
The box is square, of course! Putting a ball inside it doesn't change its shape, but that's exactly what you still don't understand. We are not talking about the box, we are talking about the BALL! It was YOU that said you always think about aspect ratio and not about frame size proportion, but you are doing exactly the opposite! If you just look to the "box", then you are looking to the "frame size" and not to the "aspect ratio"! IF we would follow you into this, them we need to call an SVCD stream as 1:1, because it is inside a box of 480x480! But as you already said, an SVCD is 4:3, even if it is inside a box with size proportions of 1:1.

Quote:
One day you will look further, in electronics and shortwave broadcast domains, and you will understand what is a 4:3 stream and what is 16:9 (in words of box, not content). Video editing does not rules the world...
Ok Phil, enough is enough... go watch your 4:3 box. I'll keep watching my 16:9 anamorphic.
I know video editing does not rule the world, but in case you didn't notice, this site, this forum, this community is ALL about video editing! In this thread you just keep saying this is all wrong, including the developers of such great programs like TMPGEnc, CCE and DVD2AVI; and you are the one that is right. I'm tired of this, and using some words of yours: "I can live with that!" Do as you whish.

Quote:
But be happy, I said you are right. Enjoy !
Oh no Phil... don't do that. I really expect more from you...
That's exactly the attitude of people that don't have arguments but just want to be right.

Quote:
DV recoders (some ?) have true 16:9 mode (not anamorphic). Give it to DVD2AVI or any other encoders and make me laught...
I don't have a DV recorder (with true 16:9 mode), but I'm sure it will not make me laugh, because it's quite logical what would be the result, and I think I already explained that in my previous post about "the machines". I can explain it again, if you insist, but I guess it's not necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
02-24-2005, 05:50 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
(note: last word on this toppic. don't be worry if you ask me new questions that I do not answer : I probably won't even read next post(s))

Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
But as you already said, an SVCD is 4:3, even if it is inside a box with size proportions of 1:1.
Actually I'm saying exactly the opposite : SVCD are 1:1 but are carried into a 4:3 box. SVCD, VCD, 1/2 DVD, DVD (anamorphic or not)... they are all carried into a 4:3 box. That is why I told (to StephanV) I didn't think in words of resolution of whatever. And that is why you are so confusing about how a SVCD and a VCD can be both 4:3.

Note: for me SVCD is 480*576, so not 1:1 nor 4:3 (in proportion)... but this is still SVCD, so still 4:3 (in words of box).

What I call the box is the nature of the stream, the container. But you are talking about the content (the ball). I admit that what made me wrong about Tmpgenc's source A/R setting is that it was referencing to the content (that is 16:9) and I wrongly refered the box. But nevertheless, when I say "anamorpic IS 4:3" I am talking about the box.

Quote:
I know video editing does not rule the world, but in case you didn't notice, this site, this forum, this community is ALL about video editing!
But you can't ignore what will be done with what you encode ! If you were playing your video on your PC, then the problem does not even exists. But on other hardware a 4:3 streams (flagged or not with an "anamorphic" flag) and a 16:9 is not the same.

Quote:
In this thread you just keep saying this is all wrong, including the developers of such great programs like TMPGEnc, CCE and DVD2AVI;
THIS POINT WAS ALREADY FIXED BY INC ! All encoders called "16:9 anamorphic" by just "16:9". Even if this is dangerous (because of the raising of true 16:9 streams like Euro1080 and DV camcorders that will be the majority in the future), this is a commonly admitted confusion.
Nevertheless I still considers that as an error that shouldn't have been done because it causes SO MUCH confusion and this will be more and more tricky.
Edit : this confusion can be considered as logical for the input as in this case encoders focus also on content, but it's really confusing for output.

All those encoders will have to be modified to handle true 16:9 streams. And like I said to Inc, how the hell will they call this mode ? As "16:9" is already used for "16:9 anamorphic". ?

Quote:
That's exactly the attitude of people that don't have arguments but just want to be right.
Many post above I told you that I can't explain you differently. It's not a matter a not having arguments. I tried a last time with the "box" but you still continue to be hanged to what is inside.

Quote:
because it's quite logical what would be the result, and I think I already explained that in my previous post about "the machines". I can explain it again, if you insist, but I guess it's not necessary.
The only problem is that the encoders won't be abble to identify those streams because they are true 16:9. The anamorphic flag is not raised in true 16:9 streams, so the encoders will identify them as 4:3 !
And you think that "it's quite logical..." ? I don't think so.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
02-27-2005, 01:47 AM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
And that is why you are so confusing about how a SVCD and a VCD can be both 4:3.
There is absolutely NO confusion about how a SVCD and a VCD can be both 4:3. I really don't know where you take that from.

Quote:
Note: for me SVCD is 480*576, so not 1:1 nor 4:3 (in proportion)... but this is still SVCD, so still 4:3 (in words of box).
It sure is still SVCD and still 4:3 in words of "aspect ratio" !

Quote:
But on other hardware a 4:3 streams (flagged or not with an "anamorphic" flag) and a 16:9 is not the same.
I never said they were the same. In fact, I think they were three different things. There is a 4:3 stream; there is what you call a 4:3 stream with anamorphic flag and I say that it's not a 4:3 stream but a 16:9 one; and there is a "non anamorphic" 16:9 stream.

Look, I'm sure that we both know what an anamorphic stream is. We know how to create and how to render it. We know the process, the differences and how to deal with them. We just don't agree with the language, or the terminology of the subject. As I say that an anamorphic stream has a 16:9 aspect ratio and you say it has a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Quote:
THIS POINT WAS ALREADY FIXED BY INC ! All encoders called "16:9 anamorphic" by just "16:9". Even if this is dangerous (because of the raising of true 16:9 streams like Euro1080 and DV camcorders that will be the majority in the future), this is a commonly admitted confusion.
Edit : this confusion can be considered as logical for the input as in this case encoders focus also on content, but it's really confusing for output.
The point fixed by Inc was also (and IMO mainly) for the output...
Quote:
Originally Posted by incredible
16:9 output means a SQUEEZED image including a 16:9 Stream-Header-Flag which lets stretch or letterbox the squeezed anamorph picture by the SAP to fit CORRECT a .... 16:9 TV proportion
Basically what he said was: Ask an encoder to make a 16:9 stream and it will make it anamorphic. That's about the output, but it can be considered for the input too, and thank God it's this way! I find it logical for both (input and output). It would be really a mess if it (the encoder) focused on the content for one and not on the content for the other.

Quote:
All those encoders will have to be modified to handle true 16:9 streams. And like I said to Inc, how the hell will they call this mode ? As "16:9" is already used for "16:9 anamorphic". ?
About "true 16:9" streams like Euro1080 become the majority... If it will ever come, imho it's faaaaar away in the future. But I agree that encoders will have to be modified to handle that. "That's inevitable! ™" But don't worry, when the time comes, it's really not a difficult job, and if I was going to do it, I would create two different names (as, like you said, it's two different things):
1-) 16:9 anamorphic
2-) 16:9 non anamorphic
... quite simple hum?

Quote:
Many post above I told you that I can't explain you differently. It's not a matter a not having arguments.
Okay... that's fine enough. But that doesn't mean you need to be sarcastic.

Quote:
I tried a last time with the "box" but you still continue to be hanged to what is inside.
Yep, I do... but not just me! All encoders and all video editing community that speaks this "video editing language" also do. When I (we) say a stream has a X:Y aspect ratio, I don't mean a wrong aspect ratio or a "box carrier" aspect ratio or something else. I mean the right aspect ratio it was meant to be played.

Quote:
The only problem is that the encoders won't be abble to identify those streams because they are true 16:9. The anamorphic flag is not raised in true 16:9 streams, so the encoders will identify them as 4:3 !
And you think that "it's quite logical..." ? I don't think so.
Of course I do
As I told in my other post, machines are completely stupid. How the hell do you want them to identify this kind of stream if they are not prepared to?
They were told to treat everything that doesn't have a 16:9 flag as 4:3, and that's exactly what they are doing! For me it is quite logical. Don't you think so?

Quote:
note: last word on this toppic. don't be worry if you ask me new questions that I do not answer : I probably won't even read next post(s)
No problem, Phil. Even though I don't think this is the best way... That's fine.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
02-27-2005, 05:03 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
About "true 16:9" streams like Euro1080 become the majority... If it will ever come, imho it's faaaaar away in the future.
Just FYI (I discovered that last week), 1st january 2006 USA networks are mandatory to end analog broadcast. As this "put a 16:9 stream into a 4:3 box" way of handling a 16:9 source has its origin in the analogic electronic of all broadcast equipements (they are like the encoders, they weren't prepared to handle 16:9 - and that explains also why "16:9 anamorphic" streams are considered as 4:3 and not 16:9 !), the anamorphic broadcast should disappear very quickly now. The last problem is in the individual equipment of peoples. But if they (electonic brands) can force you to buy a new equipement, they won't miss this chance .
Future of DVD (HD-DVD and Blu ray) also dropped the anamorphic flag for HD materials.

So "faaaaar away" is in three to five years.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
02-27-2005, 09:33 AM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You know what?
I haven't figured out what the hell you've been talking about here.
Even though I'v read the thread twice.
Let's see...
I do acknowledge 2 standards:
1) - 4/3 non-anamorphic
2) - 4/3 anamorphic (16/9 when viewed on SAP)

1) - The 1st is the one that is NOT anamorphic flagged. Thus the SAP doesn't need to unsqueeze the image.
2) - The 2nd is the one that has an anamorphic flag. Any SAP will need to unsqueeze the image. This mode will look as 16/9 to our eyes when viewed on screen unsqueezed.
Both are 4/3 but one can be used to show 16/9, right?
So what the hell have you guys been talking about for so long??
Cheers
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #73  
02-27-2005, 09:55 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
You know what?
I haven't figured out what the hell you've been talking about here.
Even though I'v read the thread twice.
Me neither

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #74  
02-27-2005, 10:21 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Both are 4/3 but one can be used to show 16/9, right?
Right ! That is what I try to explain

Quote:
So what the hell have you guys been talking about for so long??
Cheers
Because encoders are so confusing that peoples easily think that they can produce 16:9 streams while they don't ! And muaddib is only one of them.

Probable future releases of encoder will... when then will be adapted to true 16:9 streams. In a more a less nearby future.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
02-27-2005, 10:44 AM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hmmm, I could be wrong but I don't think it has much to do with the encoder.
The encoder just sets the anamorphic flag (as per our instructions) or not.
I haven't seen any encoder taking a regular 4/3 picture, setting the flag and squeezing the picture by itself.
That would be a real 16/9 encode, right?
Any SAP would read the flag and try to unsqueeze it back.
But all the encoders I know, just set the flag.
So, it's up to the source you're dealing with, IMHO.
Since I only deal with 16/9 DVD sources, I don't have to worry much.
For anamorphic KDVDs I set FitCD/Moviestacker with anamorphic in and anamorphic out.
For non-anamorphic KDVDs or even K(S)VCDs I set FitCD/Moviestacker with anamorphic in and NON anamorphic out.
So I still don't get where you guys didn't agree on...
I think you don't agree with the words both of you are using, just that
Cheers
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #76  
02-27-2005, 11:57 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
That would be a real 16/9 encode, right?
No. Real encode a 16:9 is taking a real (not squeezed)16:9 in input and outputing something that is 16:9 (not squeezed) without any flag. In other words, no encoder can actually do that (except high level professional encoders like Discreet Cleaner).
So I suggest you to read again the thread

Quote:
Any SAP would read the flag and try to unsqueeze it back.
No current SAP can handle true 16:9 stream !
(except if HD-DVD are already on the market but I don't think so).

Quote:
But all the encoders I know, just set the flag
Not really. If you ask to tempgenc to take care of the resize, then it does not just set the flag. We use to do the resize with avisynth so we just ask to tmpgenc to set or not set the flag, but it can do more.
That is what I forget also, and were I was wrong in the begining of the tread.

Quote:
Since I only deal with 16/9 DVD sources, I don't have to worry much.
So you set to the encoder to produce "16:9". And what does it produce ? Exactly what you said in the begining : it produces a 4:3 stream with a flag not a 16:9 one.

Quote:
So I still don't get where you guys didn't agree on...
We don't agree about : "is 16:9 anamorphic 4:3 or 16:9".
It is 4:3.

Quote:
I think you don't agree with the words both of you are using, just that
I use real english. Not stupid encoders bullshit that will have to be changed in few years. That is all the problem.
16:9 has to be called 16:9. Anamorphic has to be called 16:9 anamorphic or anamorphic and nothing else. By using errorneously "16:9" for anamorphic they stupidly screwed up minds and completly locked them to false ideas that won't agree with what will be the reality in the future (I mean true 16:9).

When you use to call "black" something that is in fact "dark gray", just because at this moment nothing can produce a real black, the day "real black" comes out, how will you deal with this ?

That is the same idea. And I will continue to call that stupid even if all encoders act like this. I don't care being alone
Reply With Quote
  #77  
03-01-2005, 12:42 PM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
The last problem is in the individual equipment of peoples. (…)
So "faaaaar away" is in three to five years.
I definitely don't think that in 3 years they will be majority. Maybe in 5 years they would be much stronger but I believe still not the majority. But that only time will tell...
Personally, I hope you are right. I like new tech stuffs!
Reply With Quote
  #78  
03-01-2005, 12:58 PM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Both are 4/3 but one can be used to show 16/9, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
Right ! That is what I try to explain
Nope! They are not both 4:3! The anamorphic one is 16:9!
I understand what you are trying to explain, and I can accept if you say that they are both in a 4:3 "box carrier", or in a box that is used to carry a 4:3 stream, BUT inside that box there is a 16:9 stream!

To use that "ball and box" analogy of yours, a ball doesn't stop being a ball just because it is inside of a box.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
Because encoders are so confusing that peoples easily think that they can produce 16:9 streams while they don't ! And muaddib is only one of them.
Oooh, come on Phil. You can twist the idea as you want, but I never said that! You are talking about non anamorphic 16:9 streams, and what I said is that anamorphic streams have a 16:9 aspect ratio.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Hmmm, I could be wrong but I don't think it has much to do with the encoder.
The encoder just sets the anamorphic flag (as per our instructions) or not.
You are right, Rui! It doesn't have much to do with the encoder. That "flag" is only important for the SAP that will play the stream. What is important to us is the idea as a whole.

For example, in the computer, I can get an anamorphic stream from an AVS script (so no flag) and render it with various aspect ratios. Let say... 1:1, 4:3, 16:9, 2.35:1, etc. What is the correct aspect ratio of this anamorphic stream? Of course it is 16:9 and that is why we call it 16:9. It's the playing (or projecting) aspect that defines the aspect ratio of a format, not the way it is recorded or printed! We do not say that a ball is square just because it is inside a square box!

I'm sure I'm not as knowledge as Phil about theaters and projection lens, but I know that a Cinemascope film is also an anamorphic (distorted, squeezed) picture. If we do not use special lens (that's the flag to SAP) to un-distort the picture it will produce a standard 1.33:1 fullframe.

We do NOT call Cinemascope as 4:3 because it is inside (or printed in) a standard film strip frame. We call it 2.35:1!
That's exactly the same for 16:9 anamorphic! It is 16:9!


Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Since I only deal with 16/9 DVD sources, I don't have to worry much.
Yep... I think you really don't have to worry... because your DVD sources are 16:9 (as printed in the box). But... IF what Phil is saying is right, then you will have to worry! Because those "16:9 DVD sources" you have, are not 16:9. They are anamorphic and so 4:3! My God! That's what I call confusion. Imagine explaining it to newbies!
Reply With Quote
  #79  
03-02-2005, 08:06 AM
stephanV stephanV is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
i dont understand one single thing anymore about this discussion...

symantecs are not worth the effort if you ask me...
Reply With Quote
  #80  
03-02-2005, 09:09 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
May I ask you something ? What do you think if I tell you that Dolby surround mp2 streams are stereo ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
That's exactly the same for 16:9 anamorphic! It is 16:9!
So let take an appointement in 5 years and we will see you what you will call 16:9 at this moment, and how you then call "16:9 anamorphic".

Note : I was operator in a theater for 2 years and we NEVER called a cinemascope movie "2.35:1". We ALWAYS called it cinemascope. I wonder who is this "we" that according to you call cinemascope "2.35:1". You probably don't know 70mm material where 2.35:1 movies are NOT cinesmascoped, than mean that you do NOT need to add a lens in front of the projector to restore the picture (that you need for cinemascope).

I undestand that you are still hung to the content because you never faced to other thing that "16:9 anamorphic". As I said before, you will need to change your mind in few years.
(or months ! EVD standalones arrive in European market mid-june. And EVD is like HD-DVD : it uses true 16:9).

16:9 anamorphic = 4:3 (with a flag) even if you do not want to face the reality !

As you said, if you give this stream to something that do not interpret the flag, it will show it as a 1.333333 frame. Find me a single example where a 4:3 stream is displayed by mistake with an 1.77 ratio ! There is not !

In one hand you have something you want to call 16:9 but that can be wrongly displayed with 1.3333 A/R, on the other hand you have something that will never be confused with a 1.7777 A/R. Take the conclusion you want.

Again you should look a little outside the video editing world and try to answer to this VERY simple question : why do they use anamorphism insteed of simply use the real 16:9 A/R ?
I already gave the answer : because at this time the only thing all the electronics can handle was 4:3. They had the choice between force people to change all their equipement (and you said yourself that this takes 5 years), and to find a trick to carry the 16:9 content in a 4:3 stream ! If you don't want understand that, I'm really sorry.

I never tell that putting a ball into a box change the nature of the ball so please do not claim to have the box name changed because of what is inside. By doing this you simply forget the History and all engineers that are at the origin of this. Trust me, they are a lot clever than video editing softwares editors.
(I can tell you about D2-MAC, a french norm for sat broadcast that was dropped after one year because it featured true 16:9 that nothing can handle in the mid-80's !)

Of course, the content of 16:9 anamorphic is 16:9 (as in theater, the content of cinemascope is 2.35:1).

Quote:
Imagine explaining it to newbies!
Why do you think newbies do not understand why their DVD sources look "coneheaded" when they open it in wmp ?
That is people like you (no offense) that put in their mind that "16:9 anamorphic" is 16:9 that make them not understand why this not happens when they open a Divx of the same movie (that is also 16:9) !
And then you have to explain them that Divx are true 16:9 that are not anamorphosed while DVDs are anamorphic, insteed of explaining them from the start that DVD are not 16:9... (don't call them 4:3 if you want, but call them 16:9 anamorphic and nothing else)

It's faster to screw up a virgin mind then to unscrew a corrupted one and this thead is the perfect demonstration...

Edit: I just realize something. Take TMPGENC, take a 16:9 (in proportion) Divx as source. What do you use in source A/R ? You use 1:1 and not 16:9. Why ? Because you know that Tmpgenc calls "16:9" something that is "16:9 anamorphic" and so, even if your source is 16:9, you musn't use the setting "16:9" else the result will be vertically shrinked.
Let me make your words mine "My God! That's what I call confusion. Imagine explaining it to newbies!"

(note: finally tmpgenc will be abble to handle true 16:9, it's juste like a Divx, you need to use 1:1 - It's sooooooooooo logical that I wonder how I didn't think about that before. I must be too stupid compared to those great designers that made this wonderfull software).
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TMPGEnc: Aspect Ratio vs Source Aspect Ratio? Brenth Video Encoding and Conversion 3 08-14-2008 03:26 AM
TMPGEnc: What to use for Source Aspect Ratio supermule Video Encoding and Conversion 7 07-11-2007 08:31 AM
KVCD: Source Aspect Ratio for 16:9 ? miksmith Video Encoding and Conversion 5 10-04-2004 05:56 AM
KVCD: Source Aspect Ratio? VORTECH Video Encoding and Conversion 5 12-09-2003 11:11 AM
Aspect ratio vs source aspect ratio? marky Video Encoding and Conversion 1 08-02-2002 07:09 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 PM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd