1440x1080 to 1920x1080 is it Upscaling or not ?

[MaXiMuS]

Non square PAR 1440x1080 to square 1920x1080
would that be considered as upscaling ?

i think it is.

source is HDV video from canon hv20 (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=177&modelid=14869)

also which freeware/payware application can help with this.
and if you can explain this process or post link where to find more info, that would be great

[Inventive Software]

Just setting the PAR with some tool or other to correct the Aspect Ratio would work. You're going from 4:3 to 16:9 though...

[MaXiMuS]

maybe i should explain better ...

if u input non square PAR 1440x1080 (anamorphic) source to NLE program and output it as square 1920x1080, are you upscaling the video ?

The individual photosites on a typical 1440x1080 sensor are not square pixels, but anamorphic in shape. Commonly referred to as non-square pixels, they each have a PAR (pixel aspect ratio) of 1:1.333, which allows an HDTV monitor to display this HD signal properly as 1920x1080 (all HDTV displays use square pixels, or a PAR of 1:1). Basically, the CCD target area pixel matrix is anamorphic in nature due to the PAR value of 1.333 of each pixel. The width of the matrix and its non-square pixels is displayed through the square pixels of an HDTV monitor. In mathematical terms, this can be expressed as (1440 x 1.333) x 1080 = 1920 x 1080. quote from dvinfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxlh1/articles/article06.php)

so if i understand this corectlly i can change par (PixelAspectRatio)& resolution without upscaling/interpolation (creating something from nothing) ... and the only difference will be that my output screen will not have to scale anamorphic image, because it is already done by me using NLE software...

[check]

answer is yes. upscaling = increasing resolution. Wheter it is 'bad' or 'good' upsizing... well that's a "best" question and therefore personal preference. I would generally not bother and leave the video as anamorphic.

[MaXiMuS]

answer is yes. upscaling = increasing resolution. Wheter it is 'bad' or 'good' upsizing... well that's a "best" question and therefore personal preference. I would generally not bother and leave the video as anamorphic.

<1> if i playback 1440x1080 (anamorphic) to native 1080p HDTV screen then TV scales video to 1920x1080.

<2> if i playback 1920x1080 to native 1080p HDTV screen then TV does not scale video, and picture is presented as is.

i think option <2> might be a bit better because you can predict your output quality better (not relaying on good/bad scalers built in TV) and some built in tv scalers introduces slight audio de-sync.

i agree upscaling = increasing resolution is generally BAD but pixel scaling is not equal upscaling. ufff just trying to understand this stuff makes me head wanna explode :)

[check]

upscaling just means increasing the resolution. Just because you are changing the resolution so the PAR is the same as the DAR doesn't magically make it non-scaling :)
While 2 does mean you can guess better what resizer is used, it will require a LOT more bits (33% more), I doubt the difference in resizers will be very noticeable and I heavily doubt you will see any audio desync.
Anyway, as I said previously, it is your choice in the end :)

[delacroixp]

I tried a similar thing with regular Mpeg2 anamorphic material (Encoding at DisplayAspectResolution (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=996750&postcount=18)). [Full thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=125273)]
It all started when I was getting some really poor colour quality (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=977686&postcount=1684) with my first full resolution encodes... In a quest to improve quality I encoded at Q18-CQ-CRF@DAResolution (1024x576).

However, the dual-core-workstation and printserver (Roland Large Format printer (http://www.rolanddga.com/color/products/printers/)) was not entirely happy and healthy... a print-rip can involve a 10 GB or 20 GB output file running at 100% CPU usage which is, perhaps more stressing than H264 encodes...

Anyway, I think anamorphic encodes are generally better in all catagories... 1) encodes are faster because you're encoding at a lower resolution, 2) files are smaller with more quality and 3) the quality is better compared to an equal filesize at DAR...


:):D:eek:
Pascal

[MaXiMuS]

@all

thanks for your answers, i finally understand this issue better.

:thanks: