anamophic for 4:3 material?
anamophic for 4:3 material?
is it recomended for sd 4:3 material?
i know to use loose anamophic for sd widescreen vids...is that correct?
im a little confused about the whole issue of anamophic and if it is really needed...
i am encoding for the new apple tv and iphone 4.
thanks
i know to use loose anamophic for sd widescreen vids...is that correct?
im a little confused about the whole issue of anamophic and if it is really needed...
i am encoding for the new apple tv and iphone 4.
thanks
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
So you're saying, why encode at 720x480 and squash it down to 640x480, when you could just encode at 640x480 in the first place and be done with it?
The answer is that if you happen to watch the picture on a display larger than 640x480, so it has to be scaled up, the 720x480 version will be of slightly higher quality than the 640x480 version. Because it has more pixels in it.
I'd say stick with loose anamorphic.
The answer is that if you happen to watch the picture on a display larger than 640x480, so it has to be scaled up, the 720x480 version will be of slightly higher quality than the 640x480 version. Because it has more pixels in it.
I'd say stick with loose anamorphic.
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Yes, it's a good idea to stay anamorphic strict for DVDs.
4:3 content on an iPhone 4 is 853x640, so the extra information from encoding at 720x480 instead of 640x480 is used. Same for the tv where you have a 960x720 output.
4:3 content on an iPhone 4 is 853x640, so the extra information from encoding at 720x480 instead of 640x480 is used. Same for the tv where you have a 960x720 output.
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Or strict anamorphic.
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
so strick or loose? which is recommend for dvd sources?
Also when i encode a 1080p source to 720p i have noticed you don't get 720 height you get 528 (when you set length to 1280) so i have started to use the custom anamorphic tool to manually adjust the height from 528 to 720 (obviously with the 'keep aspect ratio' ticked)...is this a good idea? i am getting more pixels so higher quality right?
thanks
Also when i encode a 1080p source to 720p i have noticed you don't get 720 height you get 528 (when you set length to 1280) so i have started to use the custom anamorphic tool to manually adjust the height from 528 to 720 (obviously with the 'keep aspect ratio' ticked)...is this a good idea? i am getting more pixels so higher quality right?
thanks
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Strict or loose anamorphic is a matter of personal taste, but strict won't allow you to resize your encode at all by definition.
Anamorphic is not relevant to (most) HD sources as they use square pixels. The reason you're getting a framesize of 1280x528 is because handbrake is cropping the matting (black bars) used to pad a 2.40:1 widescreen feature into the standard 16x9 1080p/720p frame. For HD sources, anamorphic none along with "keep aspect ratio" then rescaling to the appropriate width will give you the desired result.
Anamorphic is not relevant to (most) HD sources as they use square pixels. The reason you're getting a framesize of 1280x528 is because handbrake is cropping the matting (black bars) used to pad a 2.40:1 widescreen feature into the standard 16x9 1080p/720p frame. For HD sources, anamorphic none along with "keep aspect ratio" then rescaling to the appropriate width will give you the desired result.
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
So which is recommend by the cummumity strike, loose or none for as sources?
So in the case of hi def encodes am I getting a higher quality file by using custom anamorphic to change the 1280 by 528 into 1280 by 720? Does anyone else here do this?
Thanks
So in the case of hi def encodes am I getting a higher quality file by using custom anamorphic to change the 1280 by 528 into 1280 by 720? Does anyone else here do this?
Thanks
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Yes, there are a few of us that do that. I've had no problems since switching to custom anamorphic for my HD sources. I've also changed from loose to strict for DVD sources.dorito wrote:So which is recommend by the cummumity strike, loose or none for as sources?
So in the case of hi def encodes am I getting a higher quality file by using custom anamorphic to change the 1280 by 528 into 1280 by 720? Does anyone else here do this?
Thanks
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Note that (IIRC) it's been determined that the AppleTV will never send a signal higher than 720p regardless of whether it's connected to a 1080p TV. Also, the iPhone 4 can only output 1024x768 max.dorito wrote:So in the case of hi def encodes am I getting a higher quality file by using custom anamorphic to change the 1280 by 528 into 1280 by 720? Does anyone else here do this?
Thanks
So it you have, say, a 2.40:1 source (storage resolution 1280x720, anamorphic custom 1728x720), the ATV 2 will send a 1280x720 signal with letterboxing (black bars) - the actual resolution sent to the TV will be 1280x533 (1280/2.4) plus 187 pixels of letterboxing.
That being said, it might be useful for future devices or for watching on your computer. You just won't be able to notice the difference now.
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Why did you change from loose to strict may I ask?nightstrm wrote:Yes, there are a few of us that do that. I've had no problems since switching to custom anamorphic for my HD sources. I've also changed from loose to strict for DVD sources.dorito wrote:So which is recommend by the cummumity strike, loose or none for as sources?
So in the case of hi def encodes am I getting a higher quality file by using custom anamorphic to change the 1280 by 528 into 1280 by 720? Does anyone else here do this?
Thanks
Thanks
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Modern devices are capable enough that resizing isn't necessary.
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
This.mduell wrote:Modern devices are capable enough that resizing isn't necessary.
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
So why use anamorphic (strict) at all?nightstrm wrote:This.mduell wrote:Modern devices are capable enough that resizing isn't necessary.
Thanks
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Because it's the one mode which doesn't scale the source at all?dorito wrote:So why use anamorphic (strict) at all?
Thanks
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
why use anamorphic at all if modern devices dont need it?
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
If the source is anamorphic, you have to either (1) preserve it, or (2) upscale it. 2 isn't lossless and wastes bits.dorito wrote:why use anamorphic at all if modern devices dont need it?
-
- Enlightened
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:00 pm
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
DVDs are anamorphic sources, so to best preserve their quality while not wasting extra bits by upscaling, you use anamorphic encoding.
Strict theoretically produces slightly better image quality, because it avoids resizing the image prior to encoding. Loose resizes the image to round mod16 dimensions, which certain older players/playback devices may need. If your players play odd resolutions (i.e. mod2), you should use Strict.dorito wrote:Why did you change from loose to strict may I ask?
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
so in short i should use strict on every dvd encode i do?
thanks
thanks
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Sure, if your playback device supports it.dorito wrote:so in short i should use strict on every dvd encode i do?
thanks
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Question: why does the Normal preset use Strict, while High Profile uses "loose"?
Wouldn't it makes sense for High Profile to also use Strict, if the default Normal profile does as well?
Wouldn't it makes sense for High Profile to also use Strict, if the default Normal profile does as well?
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
I believe, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that loose used to be the preferred option because x264 was more efficient encoding mod16. After the 0.9.4 release, there have been improvements to x264 and the x264 developers now recommend strict. So this is an example of old presets/x264 in the stable release. If you're using the nightly, definitely bump to strict if your device supports it.
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Could there be any case where strict and loose would give you the same display size. The reason I ask, is because I have a 720 x 480 source. When I choose strict anamorphic I get 631 x 480. Also...when I choose loose anamorphic, I get the same (631 x 480). Just curious as to what's going on there?
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
Loose adjusts the storage dimensions. The display aspect ratio is the same as with strict (there may be a slight variation because the adjusted display dims have to be multiple of 1 pixel). It's also quite possible for the display dimensions to match exactly.
Re: anamophic for 4:3 material?
sorry to bring this thread back but...
is it ok to use strict with the apple tv 1st gen?
thanks
is it ok to use strict with the apple tv 1st gen?
thanks