| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Latest Threads |
How to use eac3to to edit...
Forum: Audio and video editing
Last Post: ilpubzo5ie
Yesterday, 02:46 PM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 16,707
|
Laserdisc PCM Capture Gui...
Forum: Capture and rip
Last Post: ilpubzo5ie
Yesterday, 02:37 PM
» Replies: 140
» Views: 68,937
|
Introduction
Forum: Presentation
Last Post: PixelPlate
Yesterday, 06:49 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 26
|
Kill Bill The Whole Blood...
Forum: Released
Last Post: PixelPlate
Yesterday, 06:46 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 3,894
|
Hi
Forum: Presentation
Last Post: athomasm1
Yesterday, 12:11 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 27
|
Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2 UNCU...
Forum: In progress
Last Post: SHN_TRU_92
2024-11-23, 09:31 PM
» Replies: 15
» Views: 7,224
|
No Time To Die (IMAX/Open...
Forum: Released
Last Post: Hitcher
2024-11-23, 05:51 PM
» Replies: 18
» Views: 874
|
Highlander II - European ...
Forum: Released
Last Post: el_hache
2024-11-23, 09:07 AM
» Replies: 96
» Views: 51,130
|
Hello there!
Forum: Presentation
Last Post: el_hache
2024-11-23, 02:05 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 28
|
Ransom Extended Version
Forum: Released
Last Post: DreckSoft
2024-11-22, 08:07 PM
» Replies: 16
» Views: 4,049
|
|
|
| Hello |
|
Posted by: Memorex - 2021-02-24, 06:14 PM - Forum: Presentation
- Replies (5)
|
 |
Long time lurker of this forum. Long time member of originaltrilogy.com. The TR47 laserdisc captures of pre-SE Star Wars movies over 15(20?!)
years ago is what introduced me to fan-restorations and such. The art of recreating and/or preserving a piece of movie history that is not commercially
available on currect formats, that is movie magic to me!
Have started a few projects of my own over the years, while having finished even fewer..
*Dragon Fist, synced uncut english mono track to the HKL dvd (Obsolete since 88 released their BD)
*Operation Condor, recreation of the HK-cut in HD with english dub based on the japanese print (rendered obsolete by 88 films release)
*Armour of God, uncut with english dub based on Miramax BD paired with Mediumrare BD (paused due to HKR releasing their version before I finished mine)
*Wheels on Meals, synced the old english dub to the old HKL dvd (obsolete since Eureka released their bluray. Starting to see a pattern..?  )
*Police Story 2, recreation of the shorter HK-cut with english hybrid dub track and color corrected to match theatrical print (harddrive failed, starting over from scratch...  )
*Drunken Master, color correction to remove green tint (slowly getting there..)
*Snake in eagles shadow, synced the english dub with alt. music to japan HD print (I believe the german BD has it, and 88s' release is coming, so obsolete again. But it's a good thing! )
Also donated a few bucks to the 35mm TGTBTU project a couple of years ago.
Among my favourite fan-res projects are the color-corrected Fellowship of the Ring - Extended, Terminator 1 with mono audio, various Star Wars projects and most things related to Hongkong-cinema.
Cheers!
|
|
|
| PAR, SAR, DAR... pfwoar! (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Rec.601) |
|
Posted by: pipefan413 - 2021-02-24, 09:23 AM - Forum: Converting, encoding, authoring
- Replies (28)
|
 |
This is something that's kinda driven me insane for months now because it seems that there is no consistency from one release to another. I don't think there's really any one "right way" of doing it and that frustrates the hell out of me. But I'll document it here and if anybody knows something I don't they can maybe tell me if there's some generally accepted wisdom on this, regardless of what the releasing companies actually do in practice.
I'm hoping that this might serve not just as an extremely long-winded way of me asking a complicated question, but also as something of an "idiot's guide to aspect ratio conversions", since I spent quite a long time trying to structure it in a way that would help others to understand some of these otherwise quite baffling concepts, even a complete beginner who has absolutely no idea about any of it. Whether I succeeded in that, I don't know. But hopefully it's useful to somebody, somewhere along the line. And if you happen to have any bright ideas for how to go about solving the 486 vs 480 px problem and the unpredictable DAR problem I've described in excruciating detail below, please, please do let me know! I have literally hundreds of LaserDisc captures that I am trying to work my way through and organise, and I do not want to discover months or years later that I have been encoding them all stupidly from the start and there was a simple solution all along...
EDIT: I've finally comprehensively clarified everything I was looking to find out here and I kind of feel like an idiot now that I've realised what it was that I was missing. Essentially all of this comes down to one very fundamental concept that, in the midst of my insomnia-addled internet research frenzy, I had leapt over while trying to understand the other aspects. This realisation came from finding a resource that described how to correctly adjust from non-square to square pixel aspect ration (a.k.a. sample aspect ratio), which it describes doing before any cropping and then cropping afterwards. But there's more to the order of operations, it really just comes down to what pixel/sample aspect ratio actually is and how the numbers all work. I should probably edit this original top post to incorporate all that info but that's going to require a lot of work and I'm extremely busy so for now I'll just point you to the posts later in this thread where I discuss it...
First off here's me talking about the aforementioned method of adjusting anamorphic 720 x 486 to square pixel AR: https://fanrestore.com/thread-3813-post-...l#pid69967
Then me realising the core thing I'd been missing and explaining with numbers why it's significant and explains all the stuff I was wondering about: https://fanrestore.com/thread-3813-post-...l#pid69976
And finally, confirming all that by correlating it back to the original questions as laid out in this top post: https://fanrestore.com/thread-3813-post-...l#pid69993
-
The issue is the one of non-square pixels in standard definition video as it's stored in the digital domain.
In the most basic sense, the image on a "full screen" 4:3 NTSC DVD should be stored at 720 x 480 resolution but then reshaped during playback to the "display aspect ratio" (DAR) of 4:3. One would perhaps assume that this would mean resizing 720 x 480 to either 640 x 480 or 720 x 540. That's almost correct, except that there is also 16 pixels' worth of horizontal blanking on the sides to take into account. According to Rec.601, this should not be included in the 4:3 display aspect ratio.
Here's the crux of the problem though:
Wikipedia Wrote:Although standards-compliant video processing software should never fill all 720 pixels with active picture (only the center 704 pixels must contain the actual image, and the remaining 8 pixels on the sides of the image should constitute vertical black bars), recent digitally generated content (e.g. DVDs of recent movies) often disregards this rule. This makes it difficult to tell whether these pixels represent wider than 4x3 or 16x9 (as they would do if following Rec.601), or represent exactly 4x3 or 16x9 (as they would do if created using one of the fudged 720-referenced pixel aspect ratios). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overscan)
In other words, it *should* be the case that in a 720 x 480 NTSC image, only an active picture area of 704 x 480 actually contain picture that is intended to be visible and thus intended to be reshaped to 4:3 (ergo the image should be reshaped such that only that active 704 x 480 should appear as 640 x 480 to display pixels as square and achieve 4:3 display aspect ratio) but in practice, many DVDs actually ignore this guidance and instead include active picture beyond the intended active picture area and using the horizontal blanking (such that the entire 720 x 480 image is intended to be reshaped to 640 x 480). The reason for the 16-pixel horizontal blanking is essentially just to avoid too much picture bleeding off the edge of the screen into overscan, methinks. But this creates a really irritating problem, because it rarely seems to be absolutely clear whether a given disc is supposed to be 720->640 or 704->640.
What to DVD players do about it though? You'd think that would solve the mystery, if there's an agreed standard that every player uses for this rescaling. Surely if the Rec.601 guidance suggests that only the 704 x 480 active picture area is meant to be included in the 4:3 DAR, you'd expect them to reshape the image such that only that 704 x 480 active bit appears as 4:3, with the horizontal blanking falling over the edges beyond that, right?
To work out what resolution would actually achieve that, I created a blank 704 x 480 clip in AviSynth then added a differently-coloured 8px border on the left and right to make it up to 720. I then applied the same resizes to a frame from a LaserDisc to show you what difference it makes (not a specifically chosen frame, a better one would be something with a perfect circle or square in it, but that's obviously a rarity unless you have a test disc or something).
Question 1: Should horizontal blanking be included or excluded from the 4:3 display frame?
Answer I: visual method
Let's assume that the active picture area in this 720 x 480 image is indeed the 704 x 480 in the middle, such that the bit we want to remove is exactly 8 pixels off the sides before resizing (as opposed to 8 off the sides after resizing). It looks like this before doing anything with it:
![[Image: DVDSAR1-720x480.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/Vv5qNkJ6/DVDSAR1-720x480.png)
First off, here's the result of cropping out the 8 pixels of horizontal blanking on either side first, then reshaping to 4:3:
![[Image: DVDSAR4-cropthen640x480.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/ZKBPt0ks/DVDSAR4-cropthen640x480.png)
Conversely, here's what happens if you don't crop out the horizontal blanking, including it in the 4:3 frame:
![[Image: DVDSAR5-nocropthen640x480.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/4ND6JZsf/DVDSAR5-nocropthen640x480.png)
The trouble is that when I've experimented with taking some screenshots of DVDs playing in players like MPC-HC and VLC, I've often found that they get this "wrong", assuming that the entire 720 x 480 image is supposed to be displayed as 4:3. And from what I've read online, the behaviour of actual hardware DVD players is inconsistent: some of the time they'll assume that the whole 720 x 480 is meant to be displayed as 4:3, other times they'll go by Rec.601 spec and display it such that only the appropriate 704 x 480 active area is framed as 4:3. I have absolutely no evidence to back this up but pure speculation leads me to wonder if perhaps older players comply with Rec.601 spec (reshaping 704 x 480 active image to 4:3) and after a certain point when more and more DVDs started to use the entire 720 x 480 picture area rather than following Rec.601, the players also followed and started to reshape the entire 720 x 480 to 4:3 for all discs (which would result in incorrect aspect ratio for older discs that respect the Rec.601 guidance but correct framing for newer spec-ignoring 720 x 480 active picture area discs).
I don't have a DVD handy and can't currently be bothered raking one out, but just because I'm in the middle of processing one for @The Aluminum Falcon so it happens to be open in front of me, here is what happens if I apply the two different methods to an NTSC LaserDisc capture (first excluding then including the horizontal blanking in the 4:3 frame).
Here it is with the horizontal blanking excluded from the 4:3 display aspect ratio:
![[Image: Brides-Of-Dracula-LD-052832-hblankexcludedbefore.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/h4z1Qgcd/Brides-Of-Dracula-LD-052832-hblankexcludedbefore.png)
Another thing to note with this is that it actually varies quite a bit from one disc to another exactly how many pixels of horizontal blanking are on each side. Although in theory it should be 8 on the left and 8 on the right, in practice it frequently varies from disc to disc and even from scene to scene / shot to shot in some cases. I'll generally flick through the whole thing checking how it looks and adjust accordingly. Sometimes I'll take 6 off the left and 10 off the right, sometimes it'll be as much as 12 off the left and only 4 off the right, and so on. But I'm pretty certain it should always result in a width of 704 pixels before reshaping the image, since that's the Rec.601 guidance for how much horizontal blanking there's supposed to be. But this all assumes that it's correct to remove it before framing in 4:3, which is one of the main things I want to figure out here.
So the above is what it looks like if we exclude the horizontal blanking from the 4:3 frame. Conversely, here it is with the whole 720 x 480 image reshaped to 4:3, thus including the horizontal blanking in the 4:3 frame:
![[Image: Brides-Of-Dracula-LD-052832-hblankkept.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/Pqh1w4C0/Brides-Of-Dracula-LD-052832-hblankkept.png)
Naturally, the image is more horizontally squished if the horizontal blanking is included in the 4:3 display aspect ratio, and less so if it isn't. Just to be awkward, it seems to vary from disc to disc. Some look wrong to me if I crop the horizontal blanking out (too wide), others look wrong if I leave it in (too narrow). So evidently, regardless of what's actually correct, a lot of releases aren't quite getting it right. In the words of Earl Bass, that pisses me off!
Answer II: mathematical method
There's another way to come at this, of course. All these analogue and digital standards are united by the ITU Radiocommunication Sector Recommendation BT.601 (which, mercifully, is most commonly abbreviated to just "Rec.601"). So what does that have to say about it?
Everything I've said until now is based on intentionally reshaping the image to give it square pixels before encoding it to the delivery format (e.g. H.264). This takes some of the guesswork out of things because you'll encode the file with a "sample aspect ratio" (SAR, which is effectively the same thing as "pixel aspect ratio" or PAR) of 1:1, meaning that if you encode it as 640 x 480 (which is 4:3) then by default the codec will signal to the player that it's 640 x 480, 4:3 video that is meant to be displayed at 4:3 as well.
The only trouble with this, really, is that it only works well for devices and codecs that can deal with slightly non-standardised resolutions. It isn't compliant with DVD or Blu-ray Disc specifications, so it doesn't work on a disc unless you're just burning an MKV file and playing it back as such (i.e. a normal DVD/Blu-ray player won't necessarily know what to do with it). But since Rec.601 is what essentially defined the standards that were built into the DVD specifications in the first place, we can use that to learn something about the "correct" aspect ratio as intended by Rec.601.
The correct way to encode a standard definition NTSC video file for DVD or Blu-ray Disc is to leave it either without reshaping to square pixel aspect ratio and with the horizontal blanking cropped off the sides (704 x 480), or with the horizontal blanking also left alone (720 x 480), and then signal to the player that the image is to be reshaped and displayed at 4:3 display aspect ratio (DAR). The way H.264 handles this involves parsing that instruction the opposite way round to the obvious: rather than saying "display this as 4:3" (i.e. DAR = 4:3), it instead says "the pixels of this video have been sampled at a different rate to how they're intended to be displayed during playback, so please adjust it by this ratio" (i.e. the "sample aspect ratio" a.k.a. "pixel aspect ratio" = whatever it needs to be to get the "display aspect ratio" to 4:3).
-
IMPORTANT NOTE: SAR =/= SAR!
Just to be extra confusing, "SAR" is variously used to designate either one of two very different ratios:
1. "Sample Aspect Ratio", which is the aspect ratio of the pixels as sampled and stored, and sometimes instead called "pixel aspect ratio" or PAR (probably at least in part to help differentiate it from...)
2. "Storage Aspect Ratio", which is another thing entirely. I'm not even getting into that for now, because this is complicated enough as it is. Just know I'm using it to mean "sample aspect ratio" = "pixel aspect ratio" here. I'd be calling it PAR except that x264, just to be difficult, calls it SAR.
-
Right, so let's dig into how these numbers were all worked out in the first place. This is quite a confusing concept to explain, so I will do my best to make this as clear as possible. I certainly would've benefitted from somebody explaining it to me, rather than reading about it online, which mostly consists of other people asking each other about it, getting confused, and telling each other either well-intentioned but confusing or flat out wrong things that just make it even more baffling. (Hopefully I'm not just doing that all over again here!) OK, take a deep breath, then read this to begin with:
Wikipedia Wrote:Analog-to-digital conversion
As a result of computers becoming powerful enough to serve as video editing tools, video digital-to-analog converters and analog-to-digital converters were made to overcome this incompatibility. To convert analog video lines into a series of square pixels, the industry adopted a default sampling rate at which luma values were extracted into pixels. The luma sampling rate for 480i pictures was 12 3⁄11 MHz and for 576i pictures was 14 3⁄4 MHz.
The term pixel aspect ratio was first coined when ITU-R BT.601 (commonly known as "Rec. 601") specified that standard-definition television pictures are made of lines of exactly 720 non-square pixels. ITU-R BT.601 did not define the exact pixel aspect ratio but did provide enough information to calculate the exact pixel aspect ratio based on industry practices: The standard luma sampling rate of precisely 13 1⁄2 MHz. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspe...conversion)
Basically you need to take the sample rate used to capture NTSC (or PAL) and display it as square pixels and compare that against the "industry standard" sample rate for non-square pixels (as alluded to by the Rec.601 instruction to convert scanlines to digital lines that are 720 non-square pixels long) to figure out how different they are. Put in a slightly different way, by doing this, you're working out how to convert from your non-square "storage" pixel aspect ratio to your square "display" aspect ratio; comparing the shape of the pixels as stored (which you could, if you felt so inclined, call "storage aspect ratio") against the shape of the pixels as displayed (which would sensibly be "display aspect ratio"). Since the result you're getting is a ratio comparing two sample rates, it follows that the sensible thing to call that might be your "sample aspect ratio".
The trouble is, as I mentioned earlier, this terminology means you end up with two different things that abbreviate to "SAR": storage aspect ratio and sample aspect ratio. I'd prefer to call sample aspect ratio "pixel aspect ratio" to differentiate them, but x264 calls it SAR and for the purposes of explaining where it came from (a ratio of two sample rates) it's useful to tell you it's called "sample aspect ratio". Yeah, it's confusing as hell. But now you know.
Anyway, for NTSC, the sampling rate of 12 3⁄11 MHz determines how it's displayed as square pixels (so that's your display aspect ratio), whereas the 13 1⁄2 MHz determines how it's stored as non-square pixels (storage aspect ratio).
The sample rates and the ratio between them are correlated by the following equation:
sample aspect ratio (a.k.a. pixel aspect ratio) = display sample rate with square pixels / storage sample rate with non-square pixels
= 12 3⁄11 MHz / 13 1⁄2 MHz
= 10 / 11
So if you express that fraction as an actual ratio, your sample (or pixel) aspect ratio is 10:11.
Incidentally, for PAL it's...
14 3⁄4 MHz / 13 1⁄2 MHz
= 59 / 54
so PAL sample (or pixel) aspect ratio is 59:54.
Using the NTSC numbers for now, this is one way of verifying that the 704 pixel width is what's clearly *supposed* to be correct for displaying in 4:3. If we consider the correlation (ratio) between storage and display as aspect ratios instead of sample rates, you can do this:
pixel aspect ratio = display aspect ratio with square pixels / storage aspect ratio with non-square pixels
We already know PAR for NTSC is 10/11 and DAR is clearly 4/3 here (forget 16:9 for now, perhaps another time!) so rearrange it:
storage aspect ratio = display aspect ratio / pixel aspect ratio
= (4/3) / (10/11)
= (4 x 11) / (3 x 10)
= 44 / 30
We also know, however, that the vertical resolution used to sample analogue interlaced NTSC video to digital is generally 480 scanlines high, so you can work out how to convert that 44/30 figure up such that the 30 becomes 480:
conversion factor = final display height / 30 = 480 / 30 = 16
final display width = 44 x conversion factor
= 44 x 16 = 704 pixels
Which is a very long-winded but hopefully informative way of explaining that clearly, according to Rec.601, the 4:3 box displayed on a digital screen is intended to contain only 704 x 480 pixels for NTSC, *not* the full 720 x 480 pixels that are stored.
One final note on sample/pixel aspect ratio: I've seen a couple of places claiming that NTSC ostensibly has a pixel aspect ratio of 0.911 (for PAL it's 1.094), which I've not found info on yet so I assume must be based on some people with clipboards measuring CRTs or something because it certainly doesn't comply with the Rec.601 stuff I mentioned above. Since the Rec.601 is what's meant to be used for digitising analogue video, let's stick to that instead, eh?
Question 2: If the pixel aspect ratio is left non-square (and flagged accordingly in the encoded video), what will the playback device do with it?
Right. So. We now know that at least in theory, the bit that's meant to be getting reshaped to be displayed at 4:3 is the 704 x 480 "active" picture area, and not the full 720 x 480 image (unless of course it's one of those irritatingly anarchic DVDs that actually uses the entire 720 pixel width that it's possible to encode). We also know from the above mathematical explanation that the ratio which describes the conversion from how the picture is stored to how it is displayed is called either the "sample aspect ratio" (i.e. how the image was sampled from the analogue source) or "pixel aspect ratio" (i.e. the aspect ratio of the pixels as they're stored rather than how they're meant to be displayed on a square-pixel screen). And we know that this sample/pixel aspect ratio for NTSC video intended to display at 4:3 is 10:11.
Here's the trouble though:
1. The DVD format can store the video with a width of 704 pixels (cropped to just the active picture area, with the horizontal blanking removed) or 720 pixels (horizontal blanking left intact, unless of course you're ignoring the Rec.601 guidelines and putting actual picture information in those 16 extra pixels)
2. It does not appear to be a simple matter to determine whether a given software or hardware player will display a 4:3 NTSC image on the basis that its 10:11 sample/pixel aspect ratio is intended to result in the width of the 4:3 frame being filled with just the 704 pixels of Rec.601 specified active picture area, or with the entire 720 pixels of technically possible picture area
3. As previously mentioned, you could get around this entirely if you could reshaped the video appropriately to its display aspect ratio when encoding it for the delivery medium, except that this would make it completely non-compliant for DVD or Blu-ray Disc
Which leads me to wonder: how the f*** does one confidently encode standard definition video with the correct sample/pixel aspect ratio, knowing that it will be displayed correctly in the majority of players during playback?
I assume the simple but infuriating answer is "one doesn't", given that everything I've seen suggests that it seems to be more or less a lucky dip and every player makes up its own mind based on the whims of its designers.
So I guess that leaves me with a one-or-the-other choice to make: encode correctly for video that will be disc compliant but surrender to the random nature of not having a clue whether a given player will display it properly or not, or choose to take control by encoding the video at it's intended display aspect ratio (i.e. sample/pixel aspect ratio being 1:1) but break disc compliance in the process. It really seems like there's nothing that can be done about it. As I speculated earlier, it might be that older players in general will behave on the basis of only the middle 704 pixels being considered part of the 4:3 frame, whereas newer players may be more inclined to resize the entire 720 pixel width into the 4:3 frame to ensure that newer DVDs that ignore Rec.601 and use the whole width do not end up with 16 pixels of picture being lost. But that's all terribly nebulous and means that presumably correctly-encoded discs that actually do follow Rec.601 will be displayed too narrow, with 704 pixels being crammed into a smaller space than they should...
CORRECT (DVDs encoded correctly according to Rec.601):
pixel aspect ratio = display aspect ratio / storage aspect ratio
= (4/3) / (704/480)
= 1920 / 2112
= 10 / 11
INCORRECT (some more modern DVDs):
pixel aspect ratio = display aspect ratio / storage aspect ratio
= (4/3) / (720/480)
= 1920 / 2160
= 8 / 9
I could of course encode a 720 x 480 video and explicitly specify the "SAR" (meaning sample aspect ratio, NOT storage aspect ratio) as 8:9, but I don't know if that's going to be correctly interpreted by a given player or if it's even something that's possible with DVD/BD; similarly, I can continue to encode 720 x 480 with horizontal blanking included in the picture with a "SAR" of 10:11, but then I don't know if a given player will understand that what I mean by this is "only consider 704 pixels of these 720" or take it at face value and assume I mean "resize all 720 of these pixels into the width of a 4:3 frame". Bah!
Question 3: Should the 6 "extra" scanlines from analogue SD captures be included or excluded from the 4:3 display?
But now that I'm talking about LaserDisc, here's the second part of the problem as it applies to one of my main particular use-cases: LaserDisc captures that come through my capture card (a Blackmagic Design Decklink Studio) are not 720 x 480 or 704 x 480, but rather use the full NTSC-DV capture area of 720 x 486. This means that there are 6 scanlines included in the capture that would generally be outside of the more commonly seen 480 lines used for the vast majority of digital SD NTSC video ("480i"/"480p"). This is because in the analogue realm, the full visible raster is actually not 480 lines but 486 lines. The thing is, not all of those are necessarily desirable to keep, as you'll see in a moment. In the above examples, I've cropped out the top 4 lines and the bottom 2 lines to keep only 480 pixels of vertical resolution. Here's what happens if I don't:
![[Image: Brides-Of-Dracula-LD-052832-486cap.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/6pGypGzg/Brides-Of-Dracula-LD-052832-486cap.png)
To illustrate what may or may not need to be cropped here, the red area in the following frame is what would get removed if I were to crop off the horizontal blanking *and* the 6 "extra" scanlines that don't fit into 480-line vertical resolution, before any reshaping:
![[Image: LDCAP-edgemarked.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/6pkSkTHB/LDCAP-edgemarked.png)
I don't think it's a good idea to resize 486 scanlines down to 480, especially when at least some of them are clearly not really meant to be included in the visible picture area (they're likely meant to fall into overscan, particularly at the top). In my experience, there's more crap on the top than on the bottom, but it isn't actually 100% consistent from disc to disc. Nonetheless, I've more or less settled on removing 4 lines from the top and 2 from the bottom, which is what I indicated in the above image.
The question here, though, is whether those 486 lines are meant to be considered part of the 4:3 display aspect ratio or not (much like I'm questioning whether the horizontal blanking should be or not).
Let's assume firstly that the horizontal blanking is meant to be excluded from the 4:3 frame, but that the whole 486-line height is meant to be included in it. That looks like this:
![[Image: Brides-Of-Dracula-LD-052832-486in4x3.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/vZ1VkZj8/Brides-Of-Dracula-LD-052832-486in4x3.png)
Notice this results in a slightly unusual resolution of 648 x 486. You could crop the top and bottom if you wanted to bring the vertical resolution down to 480 lines, but you'd still have a width of 648 pixels, which is strange, really (I don't think 648 x 480 is generally understood to be correct for square-pixel 4:3, as 640 x 480 is). The horizontal blanking's already been removed so there theoretically isn't enough room left to crop down to 640 pixel width.
Now let's do it the other way. In this next one I'm assuming the horizontal blanking should still be cropped out beforehand but I'm now also assuming that only 480 of the 486 scanlines should be kept in the vertical resolution of the 4:3 frame:
![[Image: Brides-Of-Dracula-LD-052832-480in4x3.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/CLr8cqc6/Brides-Of-Dracula-LD-052832-480in4x3.png)
So... which do we reckon is more correct?
|
|
|
|
| hi |
|
Posted by: jjsanford1979 - 2021-02-20, 02:57 PM - Forum: Presentation
- Replies (5)
|
 |
So having joined last May - and then not being active online much - I have now taken the plunge to start participating in the forum and finally just want to say hi.
Im uk based and have become very interested in various films, especially one which have varying edits, especially when these edits alter the films perspective or plot significantly. I find silent films fascinating in this regard and have a love for them along with the Highlander franchise which has an immense amount of edits per film both official and fan made.
Looking forward to exploring and discussing films here as tbh its nice to be somewhere with people who have such passion for edits as I do.
|
|
|
|
| presentation of ZENIX |
|
Posted by: ZENIX - 2021-02-15, 04:37 PM - Forum: Presentation
- Replies (3)
|
 |
Hello,
My name is ZENIX. I am a big movie buff. I like to do movie encoding.
I really like the Open Matte format. I would like to give good ideas for film projects.
|
|
|
|
| fanres.com domain is seven years old! |
|
Posted by: spoRv - 2021-02-10, 02:33 PM - Forum: Announcements
- Replies (17)
|
 |
Incredible... it seems yesterday when I decided to register this domain, having in mind to use it for "something" related to fan restorations... and look at what we have today: a full-fledged forum full of great people and great projects!
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: National-Treasures-Book-of-Secrets.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/J464pKyf/National-Treasures-Book-of-Secrets.jpg)
