HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Archive of historical feature requests.
Please use the GitHub link above to report issues.
Forum rules
*******************************
Please be aware we are now using GitHub for issue tracking and feature requests.
- This section of the forum is now closed to new topics.

*******************************
Post Reply
bergerado1
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:22 pm

HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by bergerado1 » Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:45 pm

(This might be a "remove" rather than "add feature" request... ;-)
Problem: When I disable the checkbox "Keep Aspect "Ratio", HB resets the width value to 720 px. This can be a disadvantage when a higher width is needed for sources without anamorphic ratio correction, eg. some TV recordings.

Example: I want to encode an Mpeg/TS source at 16:9 but the stored AR (= Aspect Ratio, height/width) is 4:3, which gives me 720x576px ... Now, to get my desired 1024x576px (16:9) I disable "Keep Aspect Ratio" -- but then HB resets my video width to 720px, with no choice for any higher value. As a result, I must reduce video height to 404px to obtain 16:9, and thus lose a lot of image size that cannot be reproduced!

I guess the idea of this feature was to keep beginners from using bad AR values, which is fine, but why a default reset to 720px?
I think that "Free Aspect Ratio" should allow me to use any height/width values I choose.

musicvid
Veteran User
Posts: 3245
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:19 am

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by musicvid » Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:12 am

Not sure I understand, but Handbrake GUI is not designed to change display aspect, nor to exceed source video height.
So if you are cropping vertically to create a different display aspect, you will have to live with the limitation, or use the Handbrake CLI instead.

Post your encode logs if you have further questions!

User avatar
Rodeo
HandBrake Team
Posts: 12143
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by Rodeo » Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:13 pm

720x576 is neither 4:3 nor 16:9, it's the storage resolution. If your source's display resolution is incorrectly flagged as 768x576 (pixel aspect ratio of 16/15), you can use anamorphic custom to set the display width to 1024 (pixel aspect ratio of 64/45)…

bergerado1
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:22 pm

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by bergerado1 » Sun Sep 28, 2014 6:57 pm

@ musicvid -- I don't think you understood my point, but perhaps I made it too confusing... Cropping was clearly not involved in my example, I was all about width not height in the first place...
@ rodeo -- I usually leave "Anamorphic" set to "None", but perhaps I should try "Custom" instead, set my desired width, then apply any cropping and see what I get...

Anyway, in the meantime I discovered how to avoid the nasty "reset to 720px" width behaviour -- just enter your cropping AFTER setting video width x height! This will trick HB from calculating a new width value automatically, based on height & cropping if any, which is what I wanted to get rid of!
Maybe I should add that I usually try to preserve the original video height, then let HB calculate width automatically (based on stored AR + cropping if any). That works fine for sources where the stored AR is correct, eg. for DVDs "flagged" with a 16:9 ratio for 720x576px (otherwise a 1x1.25 ratio to be quite exact ;-).

Thank you both for suggestions so far... (although CLI is not for me, I'm a GUI addict ;-)

User avatar
Rodeo
HandBrake Team
Posts: 12143
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by Rodeo » Sun Sep 28, 2014 6:59 pm

Currently, only the CLI will let you upscale. Otherwise, you have two options:

- use anamorphic and get the correct aspect ratio without up- or downscaling

- use anamorphic None (square pixels) and downscale

musicvid
Veteran User
Posts: 3245
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:19 am

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by musicvid » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:04 pm

If your source display aspect is 4:3 and your desired output is 16:9 as you said, then there are but three choices possible: crop, stretch, or pillarbox, the latter not always available in Handbrake. That, and your intention to upscale, are the only parts of your question I understood.

That fact is not changed by storage dimensions, anamorphic, etc.

bergerado1
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:22 pm

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by bergerado1 » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:20 pm

Some replies still misunderstood that I mean to up- or downscale, but I don't. I always try to maintain the original height of a video source (minus cropping of course, eg. black borders in widescreen recs), no more or less!
@ musicvid -- I do know those options (except for "pillar box", or is it "letter box"...?) -- but what do you mean by "not always available", only weekdays from 9 to 5? :mrgreen:

But seriously, please try this: Load any video source, choose "Anamorphic > None" and enter the original maximum height - which HB should do for you but doesn't -, eg. 576px for a PAL DVD. Now de-select "Mantain Aspect Ratio", and behold HB reset your width to 720px.
In this example the right width should be 1024px (16:9), so it's HB who "downscales" not me -- which is the reason I posted this under "Feature Suggestions" !! ... I know it's not a bug, but without that "feature" HB would be more user friendly. (On the other hand, perhaps there's no more development taking place for HB, is there? Must be years since the latest version...)
Last edited by bergerado1 on Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rodeo
HandBrake Team
Posts: 12143
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by Rodeo » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:28 pm

DVDs are anamorphic to begin with. Disabling anamorphic is just asking for trouble :P

musicvid
Veteran User
Posts: 3245
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:19 am

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by musicvid » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:42 pm

DVDs are not stored as 4:3, that was already explained by Rodeo above. 720/576 != 4/3!
They are displayed as 4:3 or 16:9, depending on source, and that's exactly how you managed to confuse me as to what you wanted to do. You can raise the display aspect to full vertical resolution (1024x576) at least in Windows GUI, but I don't even know what OS you are using because you didn't enclose your encode logs!!

I ask you to run your own tests and do your own math -- that's the only way any of the rest of us learned. As far as pillarbox 4:3 on a 16:9 display (correct term, look it up!), Handbrake will not do that natively, so it's not possible except for material that was supplied that way. Clear enough?

Run your tests, make lots mistakes, and when posting additional questions, include the required logs, Best of luck. :?

bergerado1
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:22 pm

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by bergerado1 » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:01 pm

@ musicvid - I found "pillars" in HB Guide's "Hard Letterboxing Appendix" (so there, but nothing I ever wanted to do, or watch... ;-).
I seem to miss a section on "Custom Anamorphic" on that same page though... Perhaps the right option for me, with height fully preserved, and width freely changeable...

Unfortunately, my TV set only accepts "hard stored" aspect ratios, no anamorphic "flags" etc -- at least not from home video sources over DLNA (I guess it does from DVB sources). In other words, I can't use anamorphic encoding...

musicvid
Veteran User
Posts: 3245
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:19 am

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by musicvid » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:01 pm

Nor does most internet delivery.
For that, I use anamorphic=none, maintain aspect, and set the vertical display dimensions accordingly.
Last edited by musicvid on Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bergerado1
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:22 pm

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by bergerado1 » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:40 pm

musicvid wrote:For that, I use anamorphic=none and set the square pixel display dimensions accordingly.
So do I, so do I ;-) ......... Referring back to above, shall we then rephrase my initial post by saying
"HB should support more TVs without anamorphic capabilities (home video only)" and "added, not removed feature"...... That's what I was all about in the first place!
By the way, are any active HB developers readng this forum too?

musicvid
Veteran User
Posts: 3245
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:19 am

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by musicvid » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:51 pm

I have no opinion on that because it does what I want. I do this for part of my living (web production, not ripping TV shows).
I think you'll be more comfortable once you are more familiar with the concepts.
For most uses, Rodeo said it best. He is an active developer.

I say, get your hands dirty.
Last edited by musicvid on Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

bergerado1
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:22 pm

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by bergerado1 » Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:53 pm

To tell by the number of videos encoded, over 800 using HB in the last 2 years, my hands should be pitch black... ;-)

But kidding aside, I usually get all desired results without anamorphic enabled... For a few badly AR'ed sources however (often old TV recs), I insist that HB should allow free changing of video dimensions if "Maintain AR" and "Anamorphic" are off! For these cases, all current options waste image data...

musicvid
Veteran User
Posts: 3245
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:19 am

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by musicvid » Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:43 am

Encode logs please . . .

bergerado1
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:22 pm

Re: HB should not lock width at free aspect ratios

Post by bergerado1 » Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:02 am

Right, I'm sorry... only haven't got any -- for if any such rare case occurs I tend to opt for Vidcoder, HB's sister project, where any video dimensions are allowed. (Downside is encoding times are longer, no idea why...)
So it's, come on HB, face the music and ketchup with the latest ! ;-)

Post Reply