Media Player Classic Aspect Ratio Correction

chris1379 · 23rd April 2011, 17:39

I'm setting up an old computer on an HDTV to use as a video player. It's an old ASUS mobo with onboard Via/S3G Unichrome Pro graphics. This chip won't display 1920x1080 but that's OK. The Sempron 2800+ will only decode 720P comfortably. I also have discovered that 1280x720 is not possible. The closest I've come with the newest driver from Via is 1280x768 or 1280x800. The problem is that Media Player Classic thinks I have an aspect ratio of 16:10 when the actual screen is 16:9. I've tried lots of settings in MPC and I can't seem to get it to work. I'd like to set something permanent so I don't have to change it every time I open a video. I don't have easy access to the keyboard on this thing. It also has to work on many different resolutions and aspect ratios.

Thanks,
Chris

pirlouy · 23rd April 2011, 17:47

This message is not clear to me.
Do you mean the video is stretched ? If you don't change default settings, aspect ratio should be the one specified by video file...

Snowknight26 · 23rd April 2011, 19:16

1280x800 is 16:10. What's the issue?

-TiLT- · 24th April 2011, 01:24

His vc is outputting 16:10, consequently adding black borders in full-screen. His display device is 16:9 but accepts the 16:10 resolution, and just displays the black borders and a squeezed video.

Chris1379: Have a look at ffdshow as your video decoder (or postprocessor).
The "Size and AR" configuration allows to scale the AR of the overlay. You need to define a factor that corrects from 16:10 to 16:9. Got no idea how to calculate this right now, but I think it is something at 1.6:1.

chris1379 · 24th April 2011, 02:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by -TiLT-

His vc is outputting 16:10, consequently adding black borders in full-screen. His display device is 16:9 but accepts the 16:10 resolution, and just displays the black borders and a squeezed video.

Chris1379: Have a look at ffdshow as your video decoder (or postprocessor).
The "Size and AR" configuration allows to scale the AR of the overlay. You need to define a factor that corrects from 16:10 to 16:9. Got no idea how to calculate this right now, but I think it is something at 1.6:1.

That's exactly right. a 16:9 video has black top and bottom and a 4:3 video has less black on the sides than it should. All video looks shorter and wider than it should.

MPC is using ffdshow as the decoder for h.264 but will this work for DVD's and other video? quess I'll try some experimenting.
Thanks.

Snowknight26 · 24th April 2011, 03:52

Everything looks wrong because you're setting a resolution that isn't the same aspect ratio as your display.

chris1379 · 24th April 2011, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowknight26

Everything looks wrong because you're setting a resolution that isn't the same aspect ratio as your display.

You are correct, but I can't set a resolution that matches the screen due to limitations of the video card. I know a new video card would allow me to set the resolution to 1920x1080 but I would also need a bigger power supply for that. That would defeat the purpose of using the old PC.

JanWillem32 · 24th April 2011, 14:40

Custom aspect ratios can be set in View->Pan&Scan->Edit...->New. In your case it would be a zoom from 1 to 1.1· (it will round that to 1.1110).
Note that this really is a bad solution. If even the native aspect ratio of the display device isn't detected properly, then there's a lot of things wrong. I advise to use this setup temporarily to try out if you like a HTPC setup. There are plenty of modern/somewhat older (passively cooled) video cards that don't consume more power than your current card, by the way.
To go a bit off-topic, I've seen a similar case when a 16:9 panel had a native resolution of 1024×768 (really weird, indeed). It had an analog D-sub input and luckily it supported the normal ranges for RGB and disabled overscanning, so it could do 1:1 mapping on 1024×768. It's pretty much a constant struggle to get all programs to compensate for the aspect ratio difference, though.
Bad scaling in a media-to-user chain is one of the best and most common ways to totally mutilate a picture (I've seen a lot, believe me). Even expensive TVs use overscanning, a cheap sharpen method, dynamic backlight "torch" mode, over-saturation, super-brightness and nothing better than non-gamma corrected bilinear scaling by default. Quite a while ago, I've read a British review on DVD to BR visual comparisons and it concluded that half of all blu-rays didn't really look any better than the DVD version. One of the best comments on that review was that all pictures, taken for both for DVD and BD, were clearly overscanned, edge-sharpened, et cetera. The standard section on methods and materials of the review totally lacked information on the settings used for the TVs and the colorimetric data. I agreed on that person's conclusion that a reliable review on this point can only be done on a basis of a controlled setting when no more filtering than the absolute minimum is applied, except for the color correction from calibration. (With a another correct comment about that default settings on consumer devices just can't be trusted.)
What I'm trying to say is: a media-to-user setup where no content can be viewed in its (near) lossless state, with the display device's native resolution (1:1 pixel mapping), fails in my honest opinion.

-TiLT- · 24th April 2011, 18:15

I googled a bit and found out the S3G Unichrome Pro IGP is able to output 1280x720 but there might be a bios update required.

chris1379 · 25th April 2011, 16:48

JanWillem32, I agree with you on all points but I was hoping there was a simple solution. I see so many widescreen TV's that stretch a 4:3 image to 16:9 and it makes me sick.

-TiLT-, I saw that too but apparently the S3 Unichrome Pro was used in many different chips and applications. I am using the latest driver and BIOS combination for my ASUS K8V-MX motherboard and K8m800 chipset but there are no 16:9 resolutions available, even with Powerstrip.

So I looked around here and found 2 video cards I could possibly use that give me 1280x720 and 1360x768. One is a Geforce 2 MX 32MB and the other a Geforce 4 MX4000 128MB. So here's the strange part. The Geforce 2 MX has the same 65-75% CPU usage as the Via but isn't totally smooth. The framerate drops on fast pans. The Geforce 4 MX40000 is totally smooth but has 90-100% CPU usage on the same 720p h.264 video. I plan to use the MX4000 but can anyone explain why this is? Does the decoder skip some frames on the Geforce 2 MX because it can't keep up?

Chris

23rd April 2011, 17:39	#1 \| Link
chris1379 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 8	Media Player Classic Aspect Ratio Correction I'm setting up an old computer on an HDTV to use as a video player. It's an old ASUS mobo with onboard Via/S3G Unichrome Pro graphics. This chip won't display 1920x1080 but that's OK. The Sempron 2800+ will only decode 720P comfortably. I also have discovered that 1280x720 is not possible. The closest I've come with the newest driver from Via is 1280x768 or 1280x800. The problem is that Media Player Classic thinks I have an aspect ratio of 16:10 when the actual screen is 16:9. I've tried lots of settings in MPC and I can't seem to get it to work. I'd like to set something permanent so I don't have to change it every time I open a video. I don't have easy access to the keyboard on this thing. It also has to work on many different resolutions and aspect ratios. Thanks, Chris

24th April 2011, 14:40	#8 \| Link
JanWillem32 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,083	Custom aspect ratios can be set in View->Pan&Scan->Edit...->New. In your case it would be a zoom from 1 to 1.1· (it will round that to 1.1110). Note that this really is a bad solution. If even the native aspect ratio of the display device isn't detected properly, then there's a lot of things wrong. I advise to use this setup temporarily to try out if you like a HTPC setup. There are plenty of modern/somewhat older (passively cooled) video cards that don't consume more power than your current card, by the way. To go a bit off-topic, I've seen a similar case when a 16:9 panel had a native resolution of 1024×768 (really weird, indeed). It had an analog D-sub input and luckily it supported the normal ranges for RGB and disabled overscanning, so it could do 1:1 mapping on 1024×768. It's pretty much a constant struggle to get all programs to compensate for the aspect ratio difference, though. Bad scaling in a media-to-user chain is one of the best and most common ways to totally mutilate a picture (I've seen a lot, believe me). Even expensive TVs use overscanning, a cheap sharpen method, dynamic backlight "torch" mode, over-saturation, super-brightness and nothing better than non-gamma corrected bilinear scaling by default. Quite a while ago, I've read a British review on DVD to BR visual comparisons and it concluded that half of all blu-rays didn't really look any better than the DVD version. One of the best comments on that review was that all pictures, taken for both for DVD and BD, were clearly overscanned, edge-sharpened, et cetera. The standard section on methods and materials of the review totally lacked information on the settings used for the TVs and the colorimetric data. I agreed on that person's conclusion that a reliable review on this point can only be done on a basis of a controlled setting when no more filtering than the absolute minimum is applied, except for the color correction from calibration. (With a another correct comment about that default settings on consumer devices just can't be trusted.) What I'm trying to say is: a media-to-user setup where no content can be viewed in its (near) lossless state, with the display device's native resolution (1:1 pixel mapping), fails in my honest opinion. __________________ development folder, containing MPC-HC experimental tester builds, pixel shaders and more: http://www.mediafire.com/?xwsoo403c53hv Last edited by JanWillem32; 24th April 2011 at 14:44.

23rd April 2011, 17:47	#2 \| Link
pirlouy _ Join Date: May 2008 Location: France Posts: 692	This message is not clear to me. Do you mean the video is stretched ? If you don't change default settings, aspect ratio should be the one specified by video file...

23rd April 2011, 19:16	#3 \| Link
Snowknight26 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,430	1280x800 is 16:10. What's the issue?

24th April 2011, 01:24	#4 \| Link
-TiLT- Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Germany Posts: 43	His vc is outputting 16:10, consequently adding black borders in full-screen. His display device is 16:9 but accepts the 16:10 resolution, and just displays the black borders and a squeezed video. Chris1379: Have a look at ffdshow as your video decoder (or postprocessor). The "Size and AR" configuration allows to scale the AR of the overlay. You need to define a factor that corrects from 16:10 to 16:9. Got no idea how to calculate this right now, but I think it is something at 1.6:1.

24th April 2011, 03:52	#6 \| Link
Snowknight26 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,430	Everything looks wrong because you're setting a resolution that isn't the same aspect ratio as your display.

24th April 2011, 18:15	#9 \| Link
-TiLT- Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Germany Posts: 43	I googled a bit and found out the S3G Unichrome Pro IGP is able to output 1280x720 but there might be a bios update required.

25th April 2011, 16:48	#10 \| Link
chris1379 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 8	JanWillem32, I agree with you on all points but I was hoping there was a simple solution. I see so many widescreen TV's that stretch a 4:3 image to 16:9 and it makes me sick. -TiLT-, I saw that too but apparently the S3 Unichrome Pro was used in many different chips and applications. I am using the latest driver and BIOS combination for my ASUS K8V-MX motherboard and K8m800 chipset but there are no 16:9 resolutions available, even with Powerstrip. So I looked around here and found 2 video cards I could possibly use that give me 1280x720 and 1360x768. One is a Geforce 2 MX 32MB and the other a Geforce 4 MX4000 128MB. So here's the strange part. The Geforce 2 MX has the same 65-75% CPU usage as the Via but isn't totally smooth. The framerate drops on fast pans. The Geforce 4 MX40000 is totally smooth but has 90-100% CPU usage on the same 720p h.264 video. I plan to use the MX4000 but can anyone explain why this is? Does the decoder skip some frames on the Geforce 2 MX because it can't keep up? Chris