setting sar or dar

[agilpwc]

I'm trying to understand anamorhpic encoding 720x480 which I want to display as 16:9.
Do I set it in x264 with something like sar 16:9 or is it something set when you mux with mp4box?
I would like it to work on Apple TV and QuickTime (do I need special version of mp4box?).

When I just tried setting sar 16:9 in x264 command line vlc seemed to double stretch it and QT didn't do anything.

Any help would be appriciated.

[J_Darnley]

x264's --sar argument is the Sample Aspect Ratio, so you need to set that correctly following what ever standard you want to follow. Generic 16:9 NTSC-sized video is 64:54, simplified to 32:27. This does not follow any standard (AFAIK) but it is correct to make a 720x480 video be shown with a DAR (Display Aspect Ratio) of 16:9.

To set the DAR, you will need to use what ever muxing application you use (oh, mp4box) and look for the aspect ratio controls or setting in that. As for Quicktime and the Apple TV, I don't know if it supports anamorphic video.

[Koti]

I'm trying to understand anamorhpic encoding 720x480 which I want to display as 16:9
I would like it to work on Apple TV and QuickTime (do I need special version of mp4box?).


http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1058021#post1058021

MP4Creator QTF (QuickTime Friendly) Build 1.0 (http://forum.doom9.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=7704&d=1193161244)

1. Support for QuickTime Display Aspect Ratio
2. Support for QuickTime Chapters


This has worked well for me :)

[fibbingbear]

I think setting SAR is preferable to setting DAR --- if you do things like cropping, the DAR changes, but the SAR doesn't.

I really like the following post that explains all this, along with the values of SAR to use:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1058927#post1058927

[Brother John]

As long as we’re talking about x264 DAR is not an option anyway. x264 only allows setting the SAR (= PAR) with the --sar option.

You can find all the PAR values you’ll ever need for DVD here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1058927#post1058927

Edit:
Oops, missed that fibbingbear already posted the same link. Well, twice won’t hurt. ;)