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 ? :roll:
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...
:arrow: 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! :wink:....i'm still waiting the right "how to".

hope this solves ur problems kwag n dialhot - no offence :wink:

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! :lol:

hope u do understand though...

thanx for ur co-operation!

Bazzy!

believe bazzy, i'm praying! :lol:

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:
:arrow: 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.
:arrow: test this sources ! :wink:

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

8O :roll: :rotf:
:arrow: this is the proove that you don't trust me :!: :rotf:

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

and now?
:lightbulb:
do you want that i cut a sample from the vob and send to you to remove doubts?
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :lol: :lol: :lol: :hihi: :hihi:

No, it's ok :!: :lol:

I believe you :lol:

-kwag

:lol:

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" :arrow: 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 :lol:

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.

:hihi: hey inc, first let me "lol" !
second: the "real gain" is that i see more movie with less borders
:arrow: 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! :wink:

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 :arrow: not me!

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

@ 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 :arrow: 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 :arrow: 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 :lol:
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 8)

Bazzy!

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 :lol:

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 8)


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

@Dialhot

Not if u have a huge LCD tv... 60" :lol: :wink:

Wont matter much at all i dont think... just black borders.. which i sed i dont like, but if the pictures big then thts gr8

Not exactly :!:
The ones doing KDVDs, the proper and correct way with precise resize/crop/overscan, will probably see slight black bars on the left and right of their Wide Screen TV. The good thing is that most (all?) plasma/digital, etc., wide screen (non-CRT) TV's have a little button called "zoom", (usually a linear zoom, non stepping) which will let you just expand your movie, again flush with all four edges.
Anyone using FACAR's method, will be able to do the same, but with precious movie completely chopped off on the sides, because it was cropped off when encoded :P
And that my friends, is a waste of movie, just like a 16:9 panoramic movie that has been converted to 4:3 Pan&Scan.

-kwag

If A Plasma would not be able to compensate such overscan areas, that would mean that 80% of all broadcastings will be shown including these nice errors at the edges. Some do come broadcasted with "black bars", and some ones are almost filling the 768x576 .... but show me one which gots clean edges :wink: (and so much DVDs do get cropped in my cases also as often they got some alwful edges).

Exactly :!:
That's why they have the "linear" zoom" feature, so you can correct the picture ;)
Not like a regular CRT TV, where the overscan is fixed, because of horizontal analog raster, and you can't make adjustments. Well, you can, but being analog in nature, it's prone to temperature, etc., drifts, which produce errors with time.
BTW Inc, here's a nice document about Analog Video Signals that I'm sure you will add to your bookmarks. It's titled: Bandwidth Versus Video Resolution
http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/750

-kwag

not true Phil, sometimes that little difference give error and the script DON'T open in vdub or any other player....for this reason i posted that the last MS is buggy! you can test all with overscan and you'll get errors too!

if in each detail i got 0.3% after some months with more adictions i will get 10 or maybe 20% of gain!
for me all details are importants. i think that i am the only one in the forum that delay :arrow: 6 months searching the best adjusts to encode a simple musical.....searching for that details,i found that using the sharpen filter (unfilter,asharp,etc) before the resize give more quality and short final size....and that the image was pulsing and the dark parts was with "dark green"....remember? i "discover" this all cos i'm lucky cos i have big atention with "everything" :!:
give me 0.3% of gain in my encodes every month and i will be very thankful!!!!
the "brain torture" from my point of view is called "searching perfection".
:wink:

about tvs (trc)
the image is like a "rubber". if the scene is dark,you will get more width(less current ),if is very bright you will get less width(more current),than never you will get "perfect" size in trcs! but all parameters with good adjusts add quality in the result....just my point of view but it's nothing against your point!

Isn't it the other way around :?:
The brighter, the wider. The darker, the narrower :?:
Brighter means more "bias" (less difference between plate and grid), conducting more electron flow, and causing wider deflection.
Darker means a more negative bias to the grid, reducing electron flow, and the opposite occurs.
Or did you swap the "more width" with "less width" :cool:

-kwag

That's completly wrong !
The only thing that can make a bad resize not open in vdub is that and the user didn't set correctly Moviestacker (or FitCD) to produce only correct values ! That is NOT the fault of Moviestaker or even fitCD (you can have this problem on both) :!:

NO IT IS NOT :!: You just didn't set the slider that is under the crop area to the correct value that's all. Moviestacker does only what you asked it to do.

If you had set the slider on the correct value, the two softwares would have give you the same resize parameters.

Sorry, I NEVER have this because all my sliders are on the 16 value ;-)
(sometimes I put them on 8 but it's rare).

We are not talking about cumulative gain here but about less distort. You wil never have a gain of 20% in this domain :-)

But in this case is not a detail, is a nonsence. Just like I said just above : WHAT GIVE YOU THE PROOF THAT YOU TV ISN'T SCREWING THE A/R OF YOUR SOURCES ?
You are the best guy here to tell that is impossible to have a perfect (and stable in the time) circle drawn on a TV set. Am I wrong ?

So WHAT is the matter of having a PERFECT A/R that you TV will NEVER display ? I call that losing your time...

Excuse me but this problem of pulsing had NOTHING to do with a 0.3% of distort in the A/R (let me remember you that 0.3% of distort in the A/R on a 28" TV represents a diff in the height of the image of 0.11 centimeters, ONE MILIMETER)

Stop watching your video on a NTSC TV then ;-)

one milimeter on a 28" TV... let put the things in their real dimension :-)

Phil,
after you posted:
i still don't read the rest of your post to do pictures to show you.
the site where i can post the pictures don't accept big sizes and was needed to cut part of the pictures to show the details needed,ok?

fitcd: http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8690/fitcd.jpg

moviestacker(resize/video stream): http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9844/ms27.jpg

mpviestacker(avisynth script): http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7382/ms28.jpg

see that importants details:
:arrow: no matter if i uncheck the "anamorphic" or "ITU",WHEN i load the source they are checked ALONE!
see if have differences from the scripts and adjusts in each program.
WHAT I DID WRONG TO GET DIFFERENTS VALUES BEFORE :?:

after you see the picture,look here:
see my old post:
http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic....r=asc&start=32
HOW I GOT THIS VALUES FROM MOVIESTACKER :?:
change everything and you never get this values...this is buggy!

as i wrote before, i get sometimes wrong scripts from the last moviestacker that don't open in "any" place !
if you never get this problems not means that they don't exist!
:arrow: PLEASE, DON'T CALL ME LIAR, NEVER MORE :!:
here you are not posting about mistakes or problems from programs,
you are posting about MY PERSON! THIS IS INADMISSIBLE :!:
for WHAT KIND OF REASON i need to LIE about a program build by muaddib that is my friend(yes,i send little gifts to his kids and talk in telephone sometimes) to be RIGHT in "something" :?:
IF i posted that i buggy and some scripts don't open THEN this is TRUE cos i'm posting the problems that i get using the program from my FRIEND and if you don't know,i was his BETA TESTER in his second moviestacker version.
muaddib knows that IF i found something wrong in moviestacker i will post about this problem and he TRUST ME!
i never will lie about anything cos i'm not this way and think that i'm posting buggys from the program of my friend...IS UNADMISSIBLE :!:

the remainder of your post i will read in few minutes!

i understood what you mean, it's right the aspect that you posted cos you talk about the width of deflection and i was talking about the width of the "image" that we see...with dark scenes you see more image than with very bright scene
...more bright-more deflection-less image(like little zoom),
dark scenes-less deflection but more image..
...you understood what i mean?
:wink:
or it's worse? :? :lol:

@ Phil

you quoted this phrase from my post? :
:arrow: "the script needs a dimension mod."
but i don't wrote this. where did you found it? :?

i forgot to ask:
do you want that i cut part from the vob and send to you :?:
maybe you trust in your own scripts using fitcd and moviestacker.
this was the better idea that my poor brain can think to remove YOUR doubts!
just choose the size!!!!
....and you can choose what i have to do to cut the vobs too, i will follow your way without lie!

ah...you don't understand "a thing" how we see our movies in Brasil.
here is pal-m and not ntsc...we can choose PAL or NTSC but the standard still "M"! you understood what i mean?

i'm still reading your last post!

yes, you're wrong if the image from dvd source and the encoded from the script show the exact AR....not perfect but source and target are EQUAL :!: :arrow: this is what i posted about Facar :!: :arrow: EQUAL.

if the tv have error will be small and the same using all sources!(or the tv have big problems but it's another problem)
the error is equal in the tv, you watch the SAME,
then the error IN THIS CASE is irrelevant :!:

You should have because all the explanation was under that.


350 is NOT A MOD 16 VALUE. Moviestaker gives it to you BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SET CORRECTLY THE SLIDDERS that are under the crop zone.

So the error is YOURS, not Moviestaker.
If you don't tell to Moviestacker that you want mod16 only value, it gives to you what you have asked !

NO IT IS NOT
Please Jorel, first try to use correctly a tool before to say it is buggy.
To be precise, Moviestacker is not as much accurate in its value than FitCD but it is definitely NOT bugged.

If you can't read my explanations on how to avoid the problem FOR SURE YOU WILL HAVE IT FOREVER.

I never tell you don't have the problem, I never tell you invented the problem, I tell you that you don't do what must be done to NOT have the problem.

And I spent time to post an answer to you that you didn't even read.
Flame me about that !

Where did I say that ? Do you see in my line a place where I say "Jorel, stop lying, you can't have these values with movie stacker ?".

I said exacly : "the only way to have bad values...". So in other words, I say here that you CAN have bad values, isn't it ?

The problem is still taht you stop reading when you want and obviously don't see the explanation that are under the problem.

For you question about a bads quoted line : this is surely a problem I had in posting because I started to type a sentence without looking at the screen and it seems the the cursor wasn't in the correct place :-)
So this was a phrase for me :-)

You do not answer to my question. Forget FACAR, forget DVD, forget your PC.
I'm asking you if, yes or not, it is possible to have on a TV set a perfect circle drawn on the screen, that stays a perfect circle in the time.
This has nothing to do with DVDs, I ask it to the TV technician that you are.

Now, please, answer that question.

Of course, I agree with that. So why look for the perfect source if this perfection will be screwed by the TV ?

Note: FYI FACAR does nothing else that I said to you I do on all my DVD aand you answered to me that it was'nt acceptable for you.
With FACAR you just CUT parts of the image and don't do ANY resize.


In fact the problem is that you have in mind a idea where all the defaults are cumulative. But NOT AT ALL !
You can have a sourec that is, let set, shrink in the width by 0.3%. And, by chance, a TV set that expand the width to much by... 03% :!: The 2 defaults will give you a "perfect" image.
Now, if your source was "perfect" (0.0% of error). On the same TV set your image will have an error of 0.3% :!:
Morality : you lose a lot of time to have a perfect source where a little "not" perfect can give you in the end a better "perfect" image.

:?: :?: :?:

So you wish is NOT to have a perfect image BUT to have an image with the SAME DEFAULTS that your DVD have ? 8O 8O

The problem is that all this work with moviestaker is not to have the same image than you have with your DVD, but to have MORE image, like Kwag explained to you. And this is what introduce this little 0.3% error of Moviestacker.
(by the way, we are still talking about 1 milimeter... It seems that you dropped also this part)

EDIT: I forgot this part :
I don't need that. I just need the film area of your picture that Karl and I asked to you in top of the thread but I can't find the aswner.
So if you can just sday :

source is : ... x ...
image area is : ... x ...
target size is : ... x ...

And I will give you the line given by Moviestacker WHEN IT IS SET CORRECTLY and also the EXACT SAME LINE that you received with the explantion on HOW you have obtained it.
(just to prove to you that I also receive bad values from moviestaker if I do not set it correctly)

Note: Some weeks ago we had a thread where I told you taht, as i'm doing myself, you should NOT resize the DVD sources but only do a crop AND addborders (or do a letterbox that gives the same result in a faster way). You answered to me that it was not acceptable for you and wanted to have THE MAXIMUM of the image on your screen.
Today you "discover" FACAR and can you tell me what it is doing ? CUT and CROP with NO RESIZE :!:

I don't bother to explain to you how to do things but please, do not change your mind anytime ;-)

answering your question about "perfect circle":(scan lines never give perfect circle)
it's impossible, no matter what you do to get it and, IF you got, a simple different adjust in brightness or contrast will "egg" that "perfect circle"!
:arrow: but this is OT! the topic is the script used to get the same AR just like the source in 4:3 tvs!!!! if the tv have little error, that error will be the same using the dvd or the movie encoded with the script :arrow: that is the point! :arrow: for this reason r6d2 build: FACAR - As seen on TV! (this is the title of his script) http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...ighlight=facar

another:
as you wrote:
"350 is NOT A MOD 16 VALUE" and "Sorry, I NEVER have this because all my sliders are on the 16 value" :
did you saw that picture from moviestacker?
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9844/ms27.jpg
:arrow: see the adjusts used PLEASE!
loading the source i get:
BilinearResize(688, 350, 6, 0, 708, 480)# moviestacker overscan2
AddBorders(16, 65, 16, 65)
loading the SAME source later(or in another day,another hour,later):
BilinearResize(688, 352, 8, 0, 704, 480))# moviestacker overscan2
AddBorders(16, 64, 16, 64)
without change anything in MovieStacker LIKE THE PICTURE POSTED!!!
I DON"T CHANGE ANYTHING, MS do the changes ALONE in the final script!
:arrow: IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!!!!
that adjusts give me wrong scripts SOMETIMES, not all the times, then it's buggy!!!
I DON'T DID ANY DIFFERNTS ADJUSTS IN MS OR FITCD BUT GOT THAT WRONG SCRIPT FROM MS :arrow: :arrow: CLEAR :?:
or i'm still UNCLEAR? :?

He should change the title to:
"FACAR - As seen on regular TV's!, that are not Wide Screen HDTVs" :idea:

Or maybe: "Cut & Scan" :idea:, so your Wide Screen movie is converted to almost a "Pan & Scan" :lol:

-kwag

I have a widescreen tv... still has overscan!

but before u say - i dont know about widescreen hdtv's

but i m 100% sure of widescreen tv's they sure do have overscan

ps... i think this topic has really gone overboard lol
i dont even understand half the stuff.. and before u say y i was also "defending" facar - i was just trying to explain wot it does.

my overall word is tht after reading so much... FitCD is great - fair enough, and so is FACAR. MovieStacker to me is just - bLaH - lol.

using anyone one of the methods is fine.
both have bad n good points
and depends really on ur taste.

@ bazzy2004 (Kwag and Phil too) and all
some clarifications:
what Kwag posted you can true believe,in what Phil posted,the same!
we are only having discutions cos we all(you too) always search good results...and the most important:
:arrow: if Phil or Kwag will post bad things about my mother,i will still love this friends,i really like his persons...for this reason i have freedom to post things like: "PHIL,WE NEED TO KNOW WHO IS MORE STUP...YOU OR ME?" (this phrase with "caps lock" is an example) for me,no matter what words they post i always will like this friends and his opinions are full of wise...this is the real reason of that discutions:
first, i don't know everything about "everything" and they are the best teachers that i have BUT i always try to show my point of view cos,soon or later in all problems get more friendship,respect and knowledge.
all references caming from this guys always shine like gold! trust me! :wink:
the real problem is that THEY HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO PROOVE IT FOR ME COS I THINK THAT I KNOW "SOMETHING" :!: :lol: :lol:
this great thread is still running and in the end will get full clarifications...this is the target! :wink:

ok, ok Phil!
i'm not changing my mind cos i still don't have a final position about it!

look that scripts from MS and fitcd with ITU and anamorphic source
(if needed, i can post without ITU and anamorphic checked)

MS (blocks tv overscan=0 overlap)
Mpeg2Source("F:\a.d2v")
BilinearResize(720, 368, 8, 0, 704, 480)
AddBorders(0, 56, 0, 56)
LetterBox(0, 0, 0, 0)

fitcd (no resizing)
Mpeg2Source("F:\a.d2v")
Crop(8,0,704,480)
AddBorders(8,0,8,0)
#Trim(0,3998).FadeOut(150)

choose and change what needed and i will do a sample to watch in my tv(4:3)...can you do it please? thanks!

Hi guys,

I had not visited this site for a while. I was invited to this thread by jorel at Doom9 forum. I thank him because this is an interesting thread indeed. I’ve seen a lot of strong statements made by several people. Some of them are correct, others are very misinformed, IMHO.

I would rather not get into a one to one discussion to sort out which is the best resizer/cropper, since I think that in general "what's best" is not a valid question and has lots to do with personal taste. Also, because of some previous personal experience at this forum (debating very simple topics with direct questions I’ve made), it has been fruitless.

I try to use reason to accomplish an understanding, but my gut feeling is that some people here do not like that. They just want to find ways to justify things that resist no analysis whatsoever.

But I'd like to clarify some topics to alleviate some “misinformation”. :)

First, yes, I did check the Jukka Aho’s page Kwag quoted when I was building FACAR on top of Gerti67’s GPL code. That’s how I discovered one of the bugs of FitCD which shh corrected (and muaddib did not).

I even changed some e-mail with Jukka Aho for specific questions about the kind of resolutions some of KVCDers like to use, like 528x480 or 544x480. In fact, he had no clue about those weird resolutions at that time, and he suggested me to do some experimenting. I did, and in fact created my own aspect/resolution/overscan measuring tool, which then I used to build FACAR.

Rest assured that the decisions I made building non-standard resolutions into FACAR are backed up by facts and not by mere intuition.

Second, incredible is incredibly :) right about some of his statements. He is right when he details the overlay cropped mode used in FACAR. He is not right, though, when he says that it is equivalent to use the Letterbox command. Part of the optimization FACAR does is to reduce the resizing overhead, which you don’t get if use plain Letterbox. (This one was even hard to get by shh, but finally got it.) I also agree with him that FACAR is more suitable for 2.35:1 sources. With full screen sources I prefer to use AutoFitCD.

He is also correct by pointing out that overlay cropping does not help compression as much as full film pixel resizing.

Third, any aspect ratio error below 1% or so is not noticeable by most humans. Some experts say that even up to 2% is acceptable.

Fourth, the Grip suite has the same bug that FitCD 1.1.2 does. Those of you which use 3/4 DVD frame sizes are probably not aware, but your AR is likely to be wrong in most of your encodes. But don’t worry since as stated on my previous point, you won’t be able to notice. (Unless you are not human, of course.) :)

Fifth, the number of overscan blocks depends on the frame size of the output. There is no magic value for all resolutions. A percentage will do instead (which is what FACAR does).

Sixth, FACAR is not perfect. It still has some bugs. In particular, non standard resolutions with subtitles don’t work in DVD2SVCD. Also, the postresize script won’t take every filter out there in Debug mode. It also lacks some nice to have features, like interlaced resizing. But what it does, “As seen on TV” mode, does it well. So I don’t think I’ll take Kwag’s suggestion on a new name. :)

Also, since I’m more quality driven instead of space driven, I prefer to create the least resizing artifacts possible. This is achieved better by the overlay cropping approach, since resizing is done in only one dimension (this is the greatest asset of the anamorphic sources technique, BTW).

Seventh, you indeed may have proper AR preview with DVD2SVCD. Just use FACAR and select preview with debug mode set to 3.

Cheers,
r6d2

PS: Please let jorel change his mind whenever he wishes. It does not hurt to have an open mind. ;)

Hi r6d2,

Long time no see :)
Really, you're making a 16:9 movie almost a Pan&Scan :lol:
And I'm not kidding :!:
My question is, why so much crop :!:
I understand perfectly that your resize/crop routine creates: "As seen on TV", but the problem of "As seen on TV", is that much of the pixel area is being lost on the sides, and that's a fact.
So why would you settle for creating a script that does that, instead of creating a script that does "Accurate and Precise" cropping, to maintain the correct source to target ratio as accurately as possible (FitCD already does that), so people don't loose active picture area, and then resize correctly with overscan so the movie reproduction fills the screen with the "true" director's perspective and vision :!:
That's what this is all about :) This is achieved by correctly calculating the most precise crop, so when the scaling is done, you have the minimum % difference from source to destination.
This is plain math, and there's no other way around it, as described in the documents posted in the links, related to aspec ratios ;)

-kwag