Yes, I understood that after.

Okay, this remember something I had also the first time I used moviestaker: if you load a source, then change the slidder value to 16, the parameters ARE NOT modifed.
But if you have the slidder on "16" and load the source... THEN the values are computed correctly.

This is a bug of the GUI (even if it happens only the first time you change the slidders). You are right. :bowdown:

No, you are clear. You mention a GUI bug and I was talking about the values generated by Moviestacker. These values are correct WHEN the value of the slidder is really taken in account and it is not the case anytime due to this GUI bug :-)

Do as I do : never change the slidders value :-)

Yes, that's a fact. That is the ultimate purpose of the tool. :)
The reason is obvious and has been pointed out before on this very thread, so I won't repeat it. Also, because the question is meaningless. I could ask "how possibly can you settle for a technique like KVCD, that reduces quality considerably, just for fitting a movie on much less space than actually needed?"

You see? Pointless. It's a matter of taste.
What you're saying is that people who have 4:3 TVs don't get the "true" director vision when playing their original DVDs. That is a religious topic, my friend, and I won't get into it. I hope you don't have a problem with other people encoding just what their TV allows them so see, just like the original DVD.
Nope. When you resize in two dimensions, you create many more resizing artifacts. This has nothing to do with precision, but distortion. Of course is a distortion you can live with. Not extremely terrible (like the 1% AR error).

As an example, think of anamorphic sources. They are created to resize in one dimension only on any TV. Vertically for 4:3, horizontally for 16:9. It's interesting you have never noticed that.

Cheers.

Because it's a proven fact that the visual quality is maintained, compared to standard mpeg encodings, and that's another fact :!:
Specially with KDVD, where you can have ~5 hours looking identical (to the eye), compared to a regular 2 hour DVD. And that't another fact.
But you see, you are trading quality for quantity, because you are chopping off about 15% of the movie, and that my friend, is clearly visible to anybody's eye. No. It's a matter of math, with VERY poor taste.
Again, you are sacrificing movie pixels, so the encoder has less pixels and can create higher quality. Sure, less movie pixels = higher quality, at the expense of loss of BIG movie area. Not religious at all. Any wide screen DVD will correctly play as letterboxed on a 4:3 TV, just with black borders, so don't swing things around ;) Yes I do :!:
If you can recover what you won't see on a TV, and you can re-encode so you can see it again, then why not explain to people how to correct that deficiency :?:
What you are telling people, or making them believe, is that they will see "as seen on TV"., but you are not telling them the other true side of the story, and that is that they could FIX that with a proper crop/resize, which is what MovieStacker and already FitCD do :!:
NO NO NO :!: :!: :!:
If you precisely crop and rescale, you WILL have no artifacts, because you are now scaling by a correct factor, so once the movie is resized on the TV, it will have the same aspect ratio of the original. No, it's interesting that you still don't grasp the basics :lol:
Please go back and read the uwasa site, and read some more :!:
And download this too: http://www.kvcd.net/Karl_cap_v1_en.pdf

-kwag

Oh, then I recommend you to let the movie industry know this discovery order to have them fit a whole season of Friends in a single DVD, right from the factory. :D:D:D
I have yet to meet someone whose eyes allow him to see what is on the overscan area of a regular 4:3 TV. When you know of somebody, please let me know. :lol:
My friend, by scaling down you are also sacrifying movie pixels. I will not insult you intelligence by telling you why.
Really? And the overscan area? Doesn't that belong to the original vision of the director? :lol:

Anyway, you seem to think that anamorphic and widescreen are the same thing. :lol: Interesting.
You should do some reading too. ;)
http://www.widescreen.org/dvd_anamorphic.shtml
Yes, it is interesting. You see? I told you this was a interesting thread. :) I guess I have some learning to do before I can challenge your superior mind. 8O

Cheers,

Trust me, it won't happen, not because of quality but because the will want to "stick" you with many DVDs instead of a couple of DVDs.
KDVDs are an advantage to users. NOT to the industry ;) Please don't twist the meaning. You know damn well what I mean ;) My intelligence tells me that anyone who cuts 15% of the edges of a movie, instead of doing it THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DONE, and says it's to "See it as on TV", reminds me of marketing spam ads of "As seen on TV", TV commercials :lol: NO :!:
When you go to the theatre, YOU SEE ALL the movie :!:
There are NO overscans, so your DVD contains ALL the movie, and the TV is what cuts it off.

Pleeeeeease, stop this nonsense, and do a correct crop/resize, so people see ALL the movie as ENCODED on the DVD, but not seen on the TV :!:No. You have A LOT of reading to do, so you can challenge THE INDUSTRY standard aspect ratio and calculations :!:
I just follow them ;)

Greetzzz!,
-kwag

As much interesting as reading that you seem to think that CINEMA directors shoot their movies with TV broadcast in mind.
You see, we can do silly shortcuts in the words written too... :-)

thank you r6d2 for accept my invitation and you will be always welcome here......different opinions don't have power to break our friendship. "our" means :arrow: we all, not only you and me. elegant positions are encreasing our knowledge and firendship more and more every day and that differents opinions are to find better results.
thank you very much again! :D
and remember: you don't need more invitations to came here, trust me, you're always welcome :!:

Phil,
i found this little thread posted a long time(that i was forgot):
http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3741

Overscan is not really worth fighting about. By definition it's impossible to know how much of the frame will be projected beyond the TV's edges (and thus out of sight) because every TV is different. Even things like local magnetic fields can affect it slightly. My old TV's overscan region varied by the overall luminosity of the frame, with a very bright frame somehow "contracting" so that the overscan region became smaller than if it were showing a very dark frame...

Most DVDs do include a small amount of black on the left and right sides of the frame. Possibly this is to increase compressibility slightly, though more likely it's to maintain correct aspect ratio. As far as KVCDs go, though, the main reason for adding overscan borders is to increase compressibility, which is why I made GripFit operate the way it does.

Saying "this is what you're MEANT to see" is kind of pointless, because even in a movie theatre edges get cut off. That's why directors never place anything important at the extreme edges of the frame. TV graphics are always offset by at least 32 pixels from the edge, because some TVs (especially older models) cut lots off the sides.

So by using the other method of resizing, which is to cut parts of the image from the left and right in order to give smaller borders on the top and bottom, not only are you increasing the amount of data that has to be compressed (and thus reducing the quality overall) but also you're going to lose EVEN MORE of the sides when you show it on a TV, because it'll cut some off too. What you end up with is even further from "what you're meant to see" than the method used by GripFit.

Oh, and hi, btw ;).

Hi SansGrip :D
Welcome back, and thanks for clearing things up ;)

-kwag