MrDarcy
24th November 2003, 11:58
Consider these two resolution from the same source
704 x 304 = 214016 Square pixels
(this doesn't need horizontal resizing, just a little crop)
608 x 352 = 214016 Anamorphic pixels
(this of course need both horizontal and vertical resizing)
Of course, the bits/(pixel*fram) ratio is the same.
I have a 16:9 TV set and I use a Stand-alone DivX player (Kiss 450).
At 608x352 I manually set the TV to "Widescreen" mode (the same used to watch anamorphic DVD's). This enlarges the picture horizontaly to have the correct DAR.
So, my question is: is there an advantage in having 15% more lines even if this requires a width compression (option 2) rather than keeping the original width but with less lines (otpion 1)?
Does the DivX encoder "prefer" one of these resolutions?
704 x 304 = 214016 Square pixels
(this doesn't need horizontal resizing, just a little crop)
608 x 352 = 214016 Anamorphic pixels
(this of course need both horizontal and vertical resizing)
Of course, the bits/(pixel*fram) ratio is the same.
I have a 16:9 TV set and I use a Stand-alone DivX player (Kiss 450).
At 608x352 I manually set the TV to "Widescreen" mode (the same used to watch anamorphic DVD's). This enlarges the picture horizontaly to have the correct DAR.
So, my question is: is there an advantage in having 15% more lines even if this requires a width compression (option 2) rather than keeping the original width but with less lines (otpion 1)?
Does the DivX encoder "prefer" one of these resolutions?