![]() ![]() So where on earth did you get a 1:1.778 movie from? I have a large DVD collection but not a single one differs from 1:1.85, 1:2.35 and 1:1.33.Įither way. Even GKnot suggests a resize of 720x400 when the aspect ratio is 1.823. If you do the same calculation using an aspect ratio of 1.778, you get 720 / 1.778 = 405, which is also rounded to 400. This is my second and main question: Using a horizontal resolution of 720 and an aspect ratio of 1.823, the vertical resolution should be 720 / 1.823 = 395, which when rounded to the nearest multiple of 16, yields 400. I check the Suggest Resolution box, which fills in a vertical resolution of 384. Next, the crop checkbox is left unchecked and I choose a horizontal resolution of 720. This is my first question: where on earth does the number 1.823 come from, and why isn't 16:9 = 16/9 = 1.778? The aspect ratio box to the right of that selection is filled in with the value 1.823. First, the ITU 16:9 selection is automatically chosen. I filled in the AVS script creator from top to bottom. I can tell it's anamorphic because everything appears stretched vertically (too tall and skinny). It's from a DVD source (so the MPEG-2 VOB input resolution is 720x480), and the image fills the entire view (no black bars, no cropping necessary). before you get busy with resizing, you really need to crop - if you don't crop then we expect that you do anamorphic encoding as in any other case the resolution of your output will be off). ![]() if you skip a few steps, you might not get the results you want (e.g. The avisynth script creator is meant to be used from top to bottom. Thanks!Īren't you not quite done yet with that configuration? What exactly is it that you'd like to do? Is it anamorphic encoding? Non anamorphic encoding but without cutting off the black bars, or non anamorphic encoding with cutting off the black bars?Īlso, if it's not anamorphic encoding, have you tried saving a script and opening this again just to see if it doesn't get you the results you want? ![]() I guess my question is now where did this number 1.823 come from, and why is it not 16/9 = 1.778? Also, 720 / 1.823 = 395, which is closer to 400 than to 384, so my question still remains: why is 384 chosen by MeGUI? I noticed that GKnot choses 720x400 under the same parameters. I arrived at this by taking (9/16) * 720 = 405 and rounding to the nearest multiple of 16 to get 400.Ĭan someone please explain the algorithm behind the suggest resolution box? Why doesn't it use the algorithm I stated above? I looked at the output at both 720x384 and 720x400, and I think the 720x400 looks better.ĮDIT: Okay, I noticed that setting the Input DAR to ITU 16:9 provides an aspect ratio of 1.823 in the custon DAR field. My quick calculation suggests that 720x400 would be closer to a 16:9 aspect ratio. When I set horizontal resolution to 720 and check the Suggest Resolution box, it suggests 384. I currently have a 16:9 anamorphic source that is 720x480 (no black bars, uses full frame, crop values are all 0). I've searched and read a few threads here about resizing and aspect ratio, but none of them addressed this particular point. Hi, I'm trying to understand how the MeGUI "Suggest Resolution" algorithm works.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |