4:3 Aspect Ratio (Image too narrow)

[nfv]

The aspect ratio for this attached pic is 4:3 but the characters look a tad skinny. What's the best way to size it correctly so it's proportionate and for it to look the way it was originally intended?

http://i62.tinypic.com/av4mjs.jpg

This problem exists on the official DVDs so it's not a conversion issue.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

[TheSkiller]

Better use an image hosting service, because attachments usually take some time to get approved.

My first guess it's a square pixel versus rectangular (non-square) pixel issue. It is normal for all standard definition videos sourced from DVD and TV to use rectangular pixels. The most common frame sizes are 720x576 and 720x480. Those can both contain both 4:3 and 16:9 pictures. To view those properly on a computer screen you have to resize them to the equivalent square pixel counterpart, otherwise you get skinny people (except for 4:3 720x480).

[hello_hello]

Your picture somehow changed when I refreshed the page, but for 4:3 the usual resizing method is to remove 8 pixels left and right and resize to 4:3. Only 704 of the 720 width makes the 4:3 aspect ratio. ie 704x480 = 4:3 which you could resize to 4:3 dimensions such as 640x480.
If you resize the whole 720x480 frame it's around 1.36:1, so something like 656x480 would be pretty close.

There's a list of pixel aspect ratios here: https://www.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1058927#post1058927

Storage aspect ratio x pixel aspect ratio = display aspect ratio.

(720/480) x (10/11) = 1.3636

If you crop any of the picture (remove the black bars etc) you'd use the new storage aspect ratio with the above formula. So if for example, you removed 16 pixels left and right and 4 top and bottom:

(688/472) x (10/11) = 1.3251

Or have a play with this:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/09v9bldu9a6hm00/YodaResizeCalculator.exe

The B&W picture I saw originally was actually too wide, not too "skinny". It was the original 720x480 frame. If you resized it to 656x480 without any cropping, that should be the correct aspect ratio (only a very small aspect error).

[Katie Boundary]

If anything, the characters aren't skinny enough. Those are 3:2 images intended to be played back at a 4:3 aspect ratio, though it looks like black overscan bars have been included. I'd chop 8 pixels off the left and another 8 from the right, then resize to 640x480 (unless you're burning back to DVD, in which case I'd resize back to 720x480).

[hello_hello]

I'd chop 8 pixels off the left and another 8 from the right, then resize to 640x480 (unless you're burning back to DVD, in which case I'd resize back to 720x480).

How do you remove 16 pixels and then resize back to the original dimensions without stretching the picture?

[Ghitulescu]

The aspect ratio for this attached pic is 4:3 but the characters look a tad skinny. What's the best way to size it correctly so it's proportionate and for it to look the way it was originally intended?

Yet another thread where the OP has been scared off :)

You should see this image (actually the movie) normally (id est 4:3) on your TV. So this part is solved - you have to do nothing, except watching, if the playback chain is correctly set (DVD/BD player to TV set).

Where EXACTLY this picture doesn't "look OK"?

[Katie Boundary]

The aspect ratio for this attached pic is 4:3 but the characters look a tad skinny. What's the best way to size it correctly so it's proportionate

without stretching the picture?

:rolleyes:

[hello_hello]

I imagine you're assuming the player would be resizing 720x480 to exactly 4:3 and therefore resizing back to 720x480 after removing 16 pixels would fix it. I suppose it would, until you use a different DVD player displaying with ITU 4:3 and then the characters mightn't look skinny enough because you've stretched the picture.

[ndjamena]

A DVD player that did that would be operating outside of specs.

It's the original authors of the DVD who are in the wrong.

(if I recall what Jabago said correctly)

[hello_hello]

I'm not sure what you mean. Software players usually resize 720x480 to 4:3 but if the video is being displayed by a DVD player, 4:3 would be more likely to be 704x480.
Although I've read reports of DVD players being schizophrenic and the same might apply to Bluray players. 4:3 over HDMI and ITU 4:3 from composite out.

If the OP is viewing the original DVD using a software player that might explain why he/she thinks the images look a bit narrow, but he/she hasn't returned to clarify. The way I look at it, cropping and resizing back to 720x480 for DVD isn't a solution as such as there's no way to always control how a DVD will be displayed.

Apparently DVD players (NTSC, at least) crop some of the picture and that's not consistent either. Scroll down to "Pixel Cropping" near the bottom of the page. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_3/dvd-benchmark-part-1-video-9-2000.html

From Jabago: http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/350702-720x576-PAL-DVD-not-cropped-to-center-most-704x576-%284-3%29-part?p=2198691&viewfull=1#post2198691

[ndjamena]

"Pixel Cropping" says they crop 9 pixels, not 16, so it's not related to ITU specs.

Maybe we should author all DVD's as 704, just in case we stumble across incompatible players...

Why don't we just say they'd be better off NOT resizing unless necessary and leave the ITU vs MPEG specs out of it.

Personally I'd make sure I crop ALL the black bars from the video, including those annoying little buggers on the top and bottom, then resize back to 720x480... and ITU, NTSC and quality loss through resizing be damned.

[Sharc]

Nothing is wrong with this 4:3 NTSC picture IMHO.
The PAR is according ITU, the active area should be 704x480 i.e. with 2x8 pixels borders left and right.
The DVD-studio however decided to crop 2x16 pixels in order to account for "TV overscan" which was quite common in analogue TV times.
Any standalone will play it right. Old standalones with SCART will actually play it perfect i.e. shrink it acc. ITU specs, while newer standalones may introduce a slight error of 2.3% (shrinking according the generic PAR rather than ITU) which is hardly noticeable to the eye.
No reason to worry. Just leave it as is.

[ndjamena]

Yes, I believe I said that would be best...

...yet sadly, it's not what I'd do. :(