Okay. You're right. The end.

Note: next time you will encode an anamorphic picture, tells to tmpgenc it is 16:9, and you want it 16:9 and good luck for the A/R of the output.

Okay. I see it. The end.

Did you already try it? I did. Please, do yourself a test.

Beside that, in the beginning of this discussion, I just questioned why we have to set the source to 4:3 (like you said). I didn't say it was wrong or write. You answered me with " :arrow: Anamorphic means 4/3". That is what I didn't agree. And as this "4/3" didn't mean the AR or the resolution, them I still not agree with that.
But we are going to nowhere with this... so, as you said, the end.

Yes I did, and I was sure you will say that you did test and not have any problem, because I know the reason of this. But continue... use 16/9, I don't mind.

Because you have to. It is not because using 16/9 worked in the test you did that this is the correct setting. There is something else in settings of tmpgenc that makes the choice of 4/3 - 16/9 or whatever else (for the source I mean) completly void. I know it, you miss it, I will let you discover it by yourself and then you will understand why 16/9 was not the correct setting. Till then, do as you wish as long as your encodings give you satisfaction (this is the most important after all).

And I told after this something that you miss : "To follow your way of thinking then my statement has to be changed to "an anamporphic picture is ALWAYS something 16:9". All other proportions are first turned to 16:9 by adding black borders, then anamorphism is applyied on the 16:9 box (to become a 4:3 box). "

You can turn the idea as you want in your mind, for tmpgenc point of view your source is 4/3. period.

And I can live with you thinking this. Even if it is wrong. As I said, I can't explain it differently.

Don't mean to heat this debate but I want to learn, you know :)

Would this be "Video Arrangement Method" --> Center? :?:

Tmpgenc help isn't very extensive on this topic but I understand that centering on the screen an image that's alerady anamorphic will result in a correct output aspect ratio wichever the source A/R selected.

Even Center (keep aspect ratio) should work as potentially needed bars would be already in place.. Of course, not shure about this.. :?:

yes it is.

More exactly, whatever is not tagged with "keep aspect ratio" won't give a shit about what you set for source and target A/R.

Try...

Note: to compare quiclkly the arrangement method, you can go in "Clip frame" (in advanced settings), in the second tab (video arrangement) you can change the method and see the impact on the preview directly.

Relax man... I don't know why you are taking this personally. It's NOT. I just want to get it clear.

Oh, please "mystery man" (just kidding :wink: ), I know (well I guess) what you mean, and I didn't miss it.
But I think you did...

It sure is! See... here is one more thing that we agree! :D :wink:

Now we are back to my original doubt... but I still don't know why you say that. :roll:


That’s exactly the reason that if you set 4:3 and “center” will not ruin your AR.
You are doing exactly what you said that I would do! :mrgreen:
You set a wrong AR in the source and then you tell TMPG to ignore that setting.
Try to set "keep aspect ratio" and then encode two samples... one with 16:9 and other with 4:3.
Now tell me which one has the wrong aspect.

The basic rule I use is that I always use "Full Screen", and let AviSynth feed in the correct aspect to TMPEG.
That will guarantee that TMPEG won't try to do any corrections on the source, like if you set "Full Screen (keep aspect)", etc.

-kwag

And that is the correct way to do because... tmpgenc designer completly screwed up the meaning of anamorphic.

If you do the test suggested by Muaddib, then "16:9" will have the correct aspect (and "4:3' is shrinked horizontally 8O 8O). I never saw that on whatever video editing tool I used. (I mean the horizontal steching).

Muaddib is right (about tmpgenc) but the problem is that... tmpgenc does the same error than anyone that is a noob in video does : to make a confusion between 16:9 and anamorphic !

What they call "16:9" is in fact "16:9 anamorphic" (the exact word that should be used insteed of just "anamorphic").

And it was called "16:9 anamorphic" because it is not a 16:9 picture !

Anamorphic means 4:3. I can't change the definition of the word (anamorphic = "distorted image" you can check in whatever dictionnary you want). If anamorphic means 16:9, tell me in wich way it is distorted ?

Edit: I wonder what they call "2.21" :?

Yes, that's the right way to do it! Not because TMPG screwed with anything, but because that's the way we want TMPG to work... as an encoder, not as an editor, for that we use AviSynth... as we know it is a much better editor.

Following this way o thinking of not letting TMPG do any corrections on the source, I think the best setting would really be "center" (without the "keep aspect ratio" of course). That's because if we set "Full Screen" and for some strange reason :confused: we screwed up with the script and didn't feed TMPG with the correct frame size, then TMPG will resize the source to fit the frame size we set. If we had used "center" TMPG would had not touched the source (just centered it), making it easier to detect the problem, especially if we are encoding a 4:3 fullscreen. :idea:

Oh Phil... you are really a hard one. :wink: You need to be right even when you say you are wrong! 8O :D
Come on... Now is the TMPG designer that screwed up the meaning of anamorphic and committed a noob error?
No man, they didn't screw up with anything. That setting is doing exactly what it's supposed to do. That is setting the source aspect ratio. Just look at the name of the setting! It can't be clearer! It's called "Source aspect ratio".

So here comes the million dollar question... If we agree that all anamorphic streams have a 16:9 aspect ratio... How should we set the "source aspect ratio" setting of a source that is anamorphic?

Now about the "horizontal stretching" that you didn't understand... What you think TMPG was going to do if you say that you have a 4:3 aspect ratio source and you ask it to keep this aspect ratio when encoding a 16:9 frame?
It was going to do exact the same job of a widescreen TV (that is 16:9) when you say you want to play a 4:3 stream and keep the right aspect... That is put black bars on the sides to preserve the 4:3 aspect.

Should I ask you to read the name of the setting again?
What they call 16:9 is 16:9 aspect ratio.

Of course it's not a 16:9 picture. It's a picture that has a 16:9 aspect ratio!

Oh no... are we going through this again :?: :( :arrow: Anamorphic means 16:9 aspect ratio!
It's distorted in a way that this frame (that we know doesn't have 16:9 dimensions) need to be distorted into a 16:9 box to be viewed correctly.

To clear this a bit up in an example of PAL:

We got physical DVD conform sizes of

- 720(704)x576
- 352x576
-352x288

Lets imagine the case of 704x576.
The physical size is 704x576, means finally a 4:3 (1.33:1) proportion on TV.

The main question now is WHAT is inside these 704x576, means whats the content of the image?

Do these 704x576 contain a full recognisable unsqueezed image content? Like this:
(dont take care of the green border its the overscan area)
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2005/02/1.jpg

Or do these 704x576 contain a full recognisable unsqueezed image content but with black bars? Like this:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2005/02/2.jpg
(this image IS!! 4:3 out of a letterboxing from a 16:9 origin = black bars WITHIN the 4:3 image!)

All these images above do have a 4:3 aspect ratio. Why? because they are NON ANAMORPHIC, means NOT horizontally Squeezed in a significant way.

So when re-encoding these, we choose as Source 4:3 and also as target 4:3



Now lets assume the case IF we got an anamorphic image within our 704x576 pixels.
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2005/02/3.jpg

This is anamorphic, means horizontally squeezed, means it has to be stretched on TV (not in the encoder) by a factor of 1.333 horizontally, to obtain a perfect 1024x576 image proportion finally on a 16:9 TV/Beamer device ;)

If I want to keep it that way, then I do choose in TmpgEnc as Source 16:9 and also as target 16:9, because I do keep the anamorphic 16:9 state.


What do I have to do IF I want to make an anamorphic Image to bekome a 4:3 one as IF I want to safe Bitrate for example?

Easy:
I do choose 16:9 as source as my source is anamorphic (squeezed) and choose 4:3 as target by keeping the aspect ratio.

This will result in a letterboxed 4:3, means a 16:9 image proportion within the effective 4:3 704x576 pixels:

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2005/02/3.jpg :arrow: http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2005/02/2.jpg

Conclusion:
The encoder itself DOESN'T care whats within the 704x576! The encoder ONLY recognises the 704x576 as a total pixel area.
If in the encoder the option 16:9 as target is choosen (no matter if CCE, TmpgEnc, mencoder, Qenc etc) THEN this means that a 16:9 flag will be set in the header of the mpeg file while encoding. WHICH causes the playback device (SAP) finally to stretch (undistort) the encoding by a factor of 1.333 horizontally finally to match the 16:9 Image area of the TV/Beamer.
... And thats what Phil meant ...


Heres also some info about AspectRatios etc.
http://www.incredible.de.tf/aspectratios.html

All the problem comes from this :
In these two sentenses, the word 16:9 is used for two different things ! The first one is the correct one "a 16:9 picture" is a picture that has a 16:9 A/R.
The second one is what I call a screwy stupid usage of the word "16:9" (done in tmpgenc and A LOT of noobs article) insteed of "16:9 anamorphic" or just "anamorphic".

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 :!:

These two sentences quoted in the way you did above do not stand in context like I wrote it in my Post further above. These where Taken out of two different cases I did explain.

In that explained case they is NO word used of "16:9" but "Letterboxing out of a 16:9" and I also explained that THIS case is 4:3 source to 4:3 reencoding as the source gots NO squeezed picture.

People do think IF they see a movie incl. black bars on top and bottom than that this is a case of 16:9 ... and it isn't.

4:3 = NOT squeezed horizontally (non-anamorph)
16:9 = Squeezed horizontally (anamorph)

And I dont know why we always do bring doubts about such facts again on top as so many threads already dealed with that where discussions and conclusions already have been made :?:

:wink:

Again NO !

4:3 - 16:9 and 16:9 anamorphic are THREE different things !

Ok, I drop it, do as you want. But do not ask yourself this :
"And I dont know why we always do bring doubts about such facts"

The doubt is created by the usage of a single word for two different things.

Note: I'm sure you know some 16:9 SAT TV broadcast channels (like new HDTV Euro1080). Are they anamorphic ?. :roll:

In an "encoder language" (and we are talking about encoding in here) 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 :arrow: stretching horizontally means 1024x576px (seen digitally)
or ...
4:3 TV proportion :arrow: squeezing vertically means 768x432 incl. adding black borders at top/bottom.

All ---16:9--- DVB broadcastings are broadcasted in a squeezed state! The DVBviewer appl. does show that flag in the Informationspanel and de-squeeze them like a SAP.
There do exist many 4:3 broadcastings (and movies seen in a whole) where a 16:9 effective moviearea was letterboxed into the 4:3 image = black borders.
AND THATS the confusion!
MANY MANY TV-Magazines do describe some Movies as broacasted in 16:9 but they are just 4:3 using black borders at top/bottom = a detail-fake.

16:9 regulary means a squeezed/anamorph image within the choosen resolution when encoding
4:3 means NON squeezed, so non anamorph

16:9 Letterboxed in 4:3 is a conversion-word misusage where the Image comes in effective non squeezed 4:3 incl black borders.

I do think very clear that we both do mean the same thing! As I also know all your other threads and skills about that in here. :wink:

FYI, we do not discuss about the output (for that at least, we all agree :-)), but about the input.

All, including the HDTV Euro1080 ?

Again no... Or more precisely "in what you called 'encoder language' (this is a new thing ?) people regulary use 16:9 for saying anamorphic but it is a wrong usage".

Like the other misuse that you point just after :
When you buy a LCD projector that is 16:9, it does not means that it can handles the squeezed picture. It does mean that it use a 16:9 matrix.
When you buy a 16:9 TV set, it does not have a "squeezed" screen, it has a rectangular 16:9 screen.
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.

16:9 is one thing, 16:9 anamorphic is an other. And I'm sorry to continue to tell that 16:9 anamorphic is "a sort of" 4:3 picture.

Thats what Im also was refering to in my examples more above ;)
Im not shure if 1080i mpeg2 streams do support the 16:9 flag if not then the 1080i stream ONLY can be broadcasted as 16:9 Letterboxed to 4:3 = a technical 4:3 Image proportion.
ahhh ... thats the way you want to explain ...
ok, if you see it like that THEN a 16:9 Stream is a squeezed Image so it fits in a 4:3 total technical image proportion like 704x576 (=768x576) ... which will be stretched finally on your 16:9 TV back to its real 1.78:1 state.

But anyhow .... in mpeg encodings 16:9 means regulary squeezed/anamorph ... thats a fact ... sorry but I dont want to push it more now.
A friend of mine who gots a 1024x768 effective px projector enjoys the capability of the projector that the incoming 16:9 mpeg stream component signal can be "stretched" in the projector technically out of 704x576 to 1024x576px where THESE will be send to the LCD/DLP panel.
If the projector is feeded via analogue component or svideo signal, then the projector deals with 625Lines at 50hz! If the projector will be feeded via RGB VGA connection (like via PC) then the effective resolution will be directly provided to the LCD panel, like 1024x768 at 75hz.
Shure as a squeezed! 16:9 anamorph image is within 704x576 (so technically in a 4:3 state incl a 16:9 flag).

Do set in CCE "16:9" and this means that the encoder gets the message that a squeezed picture input has to be encoded in a kept state where a 16:9 flag has to be included so the SAP "recognises" that he deals with a 16:9 anamorph input where the result is a letterboxing to 4:3 or a DIRECT squeezed deliverence to the TV set is given where the TV set stretches the signal to its 16:9 image state finally.

(related to 1080i DVB broadcasting):

STOP! Youre right! (in case of HDTV) as the resolution of HDTV is

1920x1080i

and

1280x720p

So thats an "effective image of 16:9"-encoding, means the new HDTV Format.

BUT all my explanations where based on the encoding techniques and defenitions of NON!-HDTV where the Output mainly is purposed for 625/50Hz devices playback at 14.769 Hz @ 52.000 = 768x576(seen digitally). HDTV Devices do not follow those known analogue Playback devices signal technique as theyre capable to show digital input directly.

I guess when time will come to encode such sources, a new word will appear in "encoder language" (16:9 HDTV may be ?)

All that because "encoders" can't speak basic english... :lol:

That's perfect.

That's also perfect, and exactly what I was trying to show to Phil. While in the middle of it we felt into a discussion of what is anamorphic.

Again perfect! But just to clarify, that's not what we used to do, because that would make the encoder act as an editor. We are used to feed the encoder with the 16:9 active image proportion within the effective 4:3 already edited. Then we would encode 4:3 to 4:3.

To complete there is also one more (strange?) possibility.
What do I have to do IF I want to make a 4:3 fullscreen image to become a 16:9 one?

Easy:
I do choose 4:3 as source, as my source is fullscreen and choose 16:9 as target by keeping the aspect ratio. (<-- that is what Phil was doing setting the source as 4:3)
This will result in a "letterboxed" 16:9 with black bars at the sides, means a 4:3 image proportion within the effective 16:9 image. This image still has 704x576 pixels. Do you know why? Because in the end, this frame is an anamorphic picture! That has to be finally stretch (undistort) horizontally to match the 16:9 Image area of the ws TV/Beamer.

BTW, setting the encoder this way, we are also using it as an editor. We can easily do that with an AVS script and feed the encoder with the 4:3 active image proportion within the effective 16:9 anamorphic frame already edited, and encode a 16:9 to 16:9.

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?

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...).

4:3. Anamorphism (16:9 if you want to call it like this) is supported only by DVD.

Thank God we agree with that! :wink: :D
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.

That's what I call a 16:9 size proportion!... 16:9 aspect ratio is a different thing.

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!

You know what ? You're right.
Next toppic.

:ole: :lol:

Okay... I'll look for another salutary discussion! 8) :D


:mrgreen: :lol: :mrgreen:


[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"

As Inc said, encoders speak en strange language :-D

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...

Haha... This thread just didn't want to die! :lol:

Sorry, but Inc didn't say that... YOU did! :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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))

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.

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.

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". ?

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.

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.

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. :)

It sure is still SVCD and still 4:3 in words of "aspect ratio" !

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.

The point fixed by Inc was also (and IMO mainly) for the output...
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.

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! ™" :lol: 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? :wink:

Okay... that's fine enough. But that doesn't mean you need to be sarcastic.

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.

Of course I do :!: 8O
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?

No problem, Phil. Even though I don't think this is the best way... That's fine.

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.

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?? :lol:
Cheers

Me neither :lol:

-kwag

Right ! That is what I try to explain :)

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.

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... :roll:
I think you don't agree with the words both of you are using, just that :lol:
Cheers

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 :)

No current SAP can handle true 16:9 stream !
(except if HD-DVD are already on the market but I don't think so).

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.

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.

We don't agree about : "is 16:9 anamorphic 4:3 or 16:9".
:arrow: It is 4:3.

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 :)

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! 8)

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.


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.


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! :arrow: It is 16:9!


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! 8O My God! That's what I call confusion. Imagine explaining it to newbies! :lol: :wink:

i dont understand one single thing anymore about this discussion...

symantecs are not worth the effort if you ask me...

May I ask you something ? What do you think if I tell you that Dolby surround mp2 streams are stereo ?

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).

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!" :D

(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).