Quote:
Originally Posted by ogrgkyle
How important is it to have standard resolutions like 640x480? For example, my current script outputs 628x474, which is not quite 4:3.
|
To many people I guess it's not really important. You could make it 474x474 square and tell your encoder to play it 4:3. Or make it a skinny 400x100 rectangle and tell your enocder to make it 4:3 on playback. You can make it anything you want. Some people thrive on chaos.
I like to do what the commercial DVD, BluRay, and broadcast industries do, which is to stick to mod-16 or at least mod-8 frame dimensions. I realize that many eccentric users don't like what the commercial industry does and that they feel some compulsion to re-invent the wheel, but since I've never had a problem playing products produced by the commercial video industry I place more trust in following their lead. 640 and 480 are two mod-16 numbers. So are 720, 704, 352, 576, 1280, 1440, and 1080. The only popular format dimension that isn't mod-16 is 1920, which is mod-8. Many Avisynth filters will insist on mod-8 images. If you want to play with mod-2 and mod-4, it's up to you. Two of the reworked video samples linked below are square-pixel and at least mod-8, and the anamorphic is mod-16.
There's an obsession I guess with 4:3 Hollywood movie frames at exact 4:P3 sizes, but Hollywood never shot 4:3 movies except for Tv shows. Hollywood used several aspect ratios since the ancient 1880's, but 4:3 wasn't one of them. Most movies until the early 1950's were shot in the world-wide "Academy" format, or 1.37:1, which is a little wider than 1.333:1. The "4:3" samples you posted are movies that were all shot as 1.37:1. As far as I can tell, TV broadcasters have three ways of handling those 1.37:1 movies. They either crop from one or both edges to make the broadcast image 4:3, or they cleverly have a couple of pixels of top and bottom border that has a 1.37:1 image inside of it, or they just squish a 1.37:1 image into 1.333:1. The edge crop is the one I see most often.
Determine what you're going to do with the two movies that were shot at an aspect ratio of 2.35:1. On a typical 1920x1080 display, if you want full width without playtime resizing, you need a square-pixel frame of 1920x816.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogrgkyle
That's nice that you can crop down to the pixel.
|
No, you can't crop down to a single pixel -- at least, not with YV12. There's a 2-pixel minimum, and with interlace or telecine YV12 there's a 4-pixel minimum vertically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogrgkyle
my current script seems to do a pretty good job of IVTC with TFM, but I still see combing in the video introduction.
|
That's because the introduction is almost always pure interlace, not telecine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogrgkyle
So how do I properly deinterlace this section, and can I convert this section to 24p like the movie without it looking choppy?
|
The movies aren't 24p, they're 23.976p after IVTC (yes, the difference matters during processing). And the introductions aren't 30i, they're 29.97i. In their original form as MPG's, both the intro and the movie are both treated as interlaced videos. How do you match up your 29.97i with your 23.976p in the same video? You don't. On an authored DVD or BluRay you mount them as separate tracks. If you did it the normal way, you'd replace the telecine during your re-encode. Welcome to the world of screwing around with standard formats.
Where did you get these dark, low-bitrate videos? I'm afraid those low bitrates will hinder your effort to get clean resizes and re-encodes. Some samples are so dark they're unwatchable. If you try to brighten the details in those crushed blacks you'll find mostly noise and distortion, not detail. There's some bad object ripple and temporal warping, motion smear, block noise, some very noisy, simmering gradient areas, details and lines that disappar during motion, etc. After brightening, some of the segments look like late 50's tv kinescopes. That's quite a cleanup job ahead, I don't ency you. The more resizing and re-encoding you do, the more you'll see those defects.
You can brighten the originals or not, or a little or a lot, whatever. Others might have better ideas. I resized the "49th Man" video from anamorphic 4:33 to 640x480 square pixel. I resized "The Apartment" from letterboxed 4:3 to 856x364 (2.35:1) in an 856x480 letterboxed 16x9 frame. You could get the same thing from "The Apartment" if you sized the 16x9 frame to 720x480 and encoded for 16:9 playback. Why not do it the anamorphic way? Because too many so-called smart TV's are too stupid to play anamorphic video properly (why do we call them smart?). Actually the anamorphic plays cleaner because only the height was resized for anamorphic rather than height and width for square pixel. In any case, all three of the linked mp4 reworks still need
a lot more repair -- I'm certain many members here will offer their excellent solutions.
frame 714 original played as 640x480 DAR in 16x9 display.jpg
frame 714 new 640x480 square pixel in 16x9.jpg, won't fill very much of a 6x9 display.
frame 714 new 856x480 in 16x9 display.jpg -- can get same results with the 16:9 anamorphic.
Ideas for reworked samples:
49thMan_640x480_square.mp4
https://www.mediafire.com/file/eya69...480_square.mp4
Apartment_16x9_square.mp4
https://www.mediafire.com/file/2mzix...6x9_square.mp4
Apartment_16x9_anamorphic.mp4
https://www.mediafire.com/file/6ba3s...anamorphic.mp4
The color samples can be resized the same way as the others, but they're really too fuzzy for me right now, I lost so much patience with the other two samples I was too worn down to struggle with fuzz. Not that they're impossible, because overall color balance is about right. As for the 352x480 sample of "20,000 Leagues" recorded at a paltry 6-hour bitrate, that's a mistake that I hope you didn't repeat.