aspect ratio height when anamorphic?

[lancer]

put this in the wrong forum by mistake. too general to really go anywhere else.

2.35:1 aspect ratio height when the footage is anamorphic??
I think I'm right but I want to double check on the group here.

704 x 480 NTSc capture of a 2.35:1 movie.

I run the original file full screen. tape the side of the casing where the black bars are.

I crop the black bars off which leaves me with a file 272 pixels high.

then I tmpgenc a bit of video and see if it matches.

with a height of 384 and add borders for the remaining height ie add borders 58 top and bottom, that to me looks like the original footage on my 19" monitor.

but some posts i've searched for have a lot of people resizing to a vertical height of 366 for a 2.35:1 film.

is one example (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17792)

so am I missing a trick here? If I keep my file 704 wide to avoid a slight width distortion of making it 720, 384 seems to give me an anamorphic file that matches the original footage. but am I right? is this 2.35:1 or not? 704 divided by 272 would inidicate an aspect ratio of 2.58 which is quite a bit off.

what size have people vertically resized too to make their footage 2.35:1 anamorphic properly?

[Fairlight Excalibur]

1:2.35 movies: 720x304, 640x272, 576x240, 512x224, 480x208, 400x176
1:1.85 movies: 720x384, 640x352, 576x304, 512x272, 480x256, 400x224
1:1.33 movies: 720x544, 640x480, 576x432, 512x384, 480x368, 400x304

I always use this or the math formula to make sure mines correct.

[lancer]

if I understood whats above I'd use it.

are you saying that your values are for anamorphic? or just plain 4:3 TV aspect with a bit of black bar or what?

my capture is 704 x 480 and removing the black bars makes it's base height 272 pixels.

not close to your 304 and your figure is nowhere near the 366 others suggest.

[Wilbert]

He's talking about encoding to DivX (where the source is anamorphic).

You can do the following:
1) resize to 704x360
2) add borders ending up with 704x480

check:
aspect ratio = 16/9*480/(480-120) = 853/360 = 2.37

You can also do the following:

1b) resize to 720x366 (scaling of 704*360)
2b) add borders ending up with 720x480

check:
aspect ratio = 16/9*480/(480-114) = 853/366 = 2.33

I don't understand how you came up with this 384?

[movmasty]

1- 2.35 or 1.85 are only indicative values, each movie has its own

2- to capture is different from dvd, always capture to 640xxx both in ntsc and pal


3-if anamorphic width is always 480x16/9=853,3 or 576x16/9= 1024
(in dvd you have to cut to 704 before enlarging to 1024/853)

4-if 4/3, ntsc is already ok, pal goes to 768xxx

5- the height is that u get after cutted the bars.

6- always cut bars before resizing, or you will get a grey area between movie and bars.

then u can resize maintainig proportions.

in your example,lancer, you got a true 2.35 movie, in fact the height of 272 refers to a widht of 640(like you should have captured),
but you cant guess what the aspect ratio really is.

[lancer]

but by that arugment if I capture at 640 then I am losing 64 pixels of picture in width, ergo I am not getting the whole film which is kinda counter productive surely?

[movmasty]

Originally posted by lancer
but by that arugment if I capture at 640 then I am losing 64 pixels of picture in width, ergo I am not getting the whole film which is kinda counter productive surely?
no, you get the whole film also when capturing at 352x480, only less defined, horizontal is different from vertical res, if you capture less pixels vertically you cut some line, if you do horizontally you get the same frame but less sharp, for this you have only 480 and 240 vertically, but 720/704/640/480/352/320 horizontally.
The fact is that 640 pels of horizontal res give an optimal resolutin of tv stuff, capturing at 704 ,or having a tv set with 700 dots,gives a very very slight improvement, and since on capturing we have always speed/drop/size problems is better to capture always at 640.
further doing this simplify also all the calculations.

[movmasty]

ok, i read better your post
Originally posted by lancer
704 x 480 NTSc capture of a 2.35:1 movie.
I run the original file full screen. tape the side of the casing where the black bars are.
I crop the black bars off which leaves me with a file 272 pixels high.
then I tmpgenc a bit of video and see if it matches.
with a height of 384 and add borders for the remaining height ie add borders 58 top and bottom, that to me looks like the original footage on my 19" monitor.
but some posts i've searched for have a lot of people resizing to a vertical height of 366 for a 2.35:1 film.
is one example (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17792)
so am I missing a trick here? If I keep my file 704 wide to avoid a slight width distortion of making it 720, 384 seems to give me an anamorphic file that matches the original footage. but am I right? is this 2.35:1 or not? 704 divided by 272 would inidicate an aspect ratio of 2.58 which is quite a bit off.

what size have people vertically resized too to make their footage 2.35:1 anamorphic properly?
to be more specific, since ntsc has 480 vert linees,and its 4/3, this gives 640 hor linees to maintain proportions, and 640 is good to capture,
you just capture to 640x480, then cut the bars, and all is ok.

In pal you have 576 vert linees, to get a 4/3 aspect,like the screen, you should capture at 768x576, that is really too much,
so capture at 640x576, then crop bars, you should get an height of 326 for that movie.
Then one of the two,
1- resize width to 768 (640 x 576/480)
2- resize height to 272 (326 x 480/576)

or resize what you want maintainig proportions.

[lancer]

well I tell you one thing, you must be missing out on an awful lot of film when you capture at 640.

i thought it sounded odd but I tested it anyway.

when I captured @ 640 instead of the usual 704 it did miss off picture from the left and right, IE it wasn't capturing the whole picture available.

[Ookami]

If you're talking about capturing, there is a special forum for that on this board.

BTW, use FitCD for all those AR calculations, since it has gone out I've forgot all the AR stuff (the little I knew).

[movmasty]

@Ookami(hi), why you didnt move the thread?
i cant do, i just answered.

@lancer
you mean that when you capture at 352x240 only half picture is captured??
NOT AT ALL!! all the frame is captured, but at half definition
just you have only 2 way for vertical res, all(480) and half(240)every other interlaced line,
while you can capture at any horizontal res you wish, 640 is the optimal, 480(SVCD) is also very good.

[lancer]

no, that's not what I said.

@movmasty.

I capture at 704 x 480. I tested capturing at 640 x 480 and what I found was that picture was ,missing from the left and right side of the screen. I know if you capture at 352 x 240 you get the full width, but if you capture at 640 you are giving up some picture information which is not what I want.

I want the full film in width.