Log in

View Full Version : XviD Anamorphic Aspect Ratio with iPod?

Elias
12th February 2006, 23:59
I'm thinking about encoding some stuff with the resolution of 320x240, but make use of the DAR/PAR in XviD. Will this work on an iPod? I mean, will it show the anamorphic aspect ratio?
bond
14th February 2006, 00:44
the screen is so small already, why use par? ^^
Elias
14th February 2006, 00:48
the screen is so small already, why use par? ^^Well... it's for a friend. He wants me to encode a clip for his iPod, and the clip is 368x272 that's supposed to be widescreen (16:9), and I'm going to resize it to 320x240, but use anamorphic in order to enable the real aspect ratio. Encoding it to 320x180 will just make it smaller, and I'm not sure if 180 is compatible with the 16 rule of MPEG-4...?
bond
14th February 2006, 00:57
the ipod screen is 320x240?
why not simply resize to 320x240 without ar?
Elias
14th February 2006, 01:49
the ipod screen is 320x240?
why not simply resize to 320x240 without ar?Because the image will look distorted?
bond
14th February 2006, 11:42
why??
Elias
14th February 2006, 12:25
You like watching content that is originally widescreen in 4:3 mode? I hate how it looks stretched and all. Anyway, all I want to know is if iPod supports PAR/DAR? QuickTime and iTunes don't, so the chances don't look good.
bond
14th February 2006, 12:34
368/272 = 1.35
320/240 = 1.33

are you sure that things will look stretched when simply downsizing to 320x240 without ar?
Wilbert
14th February 2006, 12:55
Well... it's for a friend. He wants me to encode a clip for his iPod, and the clip is 368x272 that's supposed to be widescreen (16:9)
I assume your source clip (368x272) has a PAR of 1:1. Why do you think it originates from an anamorphic widescreen source? Does it contain black borders?
Elias
2nd March 2006, 05:47
368/272 = 1.35
320/240 = 1.33

are you sure that things will look stretched when simply downsizing to 320x240 without ar?I used the wrong word. Replace stretched with squeezed. And yes, it looks squeezed with both 1.35 and 1.33 ar.I assume your source clip (368x272) has a PAR of 1:1. Why do you think it originates from an anamorphic widescreen source? Does it contain black borders?Because the image looks squeezed, and when resized to a 16:9 resolution (or close to 16:9) in VirtualDub, it looks like the original aspect ratio.