How anamorphic works?

[Damian83]

Hi, im shrinking some 4k movies to 1080p. these the settings ive used until now:



My goal was to get 1920x800(aka 1920x1080 without black bars) and i thought that i was doing properly by using the anamorphic setting to auto. However ive noticed that opening those files in vlc, windowed mode, they are bigger than other 1920x800 files i have. In fact the "visualization" setting its 2566x1080. i also noticed however that even if without black bars, the file its still 1920x1080.
ive done some math:
pixel count ratio between 2566x1080 and 1920x800 is 1,79:1
pixel count ratio between 1920x1080 and 1920x800 is 1,35:1
then ive ripped 5s of a movie (fast moving and colorful scene) with anamorphic enabled and disabled and resulting file size ratio is 1,17:1 (anamorphic file bigger)
now, i know encoding compression isnt an exact math but 1,17 it closer to 1,35 than to 1,79, so i imagine that storage dimensions are 1920x1080 (without black bars) and in fact its like declared in handbrake itself (visualization 2566x1080 and storage 1920x1080) but how its this possible???
And, considering with anamorphic enabled the resulting files are up to 35% bigger (in my case) why this is the recommended setting instead of disabled?

[Damian83]

the image above doesnt work. here the direct link:
https://i.ibb.co/S6rkddj/Schermata-2022 ... -37-41.jpg

[JohnAStebbins]

We really need to see an activity log to understand what you are doing. But the "auto" anamorphic mode keeps as many pixels as possible of the original source while adhering to any other limits that other settings may impose (like the "Resolution Limit" setting). So, for example, if your source was 4k and you set a resolution limit of 1080p it would first crop, then if the cropped dimensions are greater than 1920x1080 it will reduce each dimension down to 1920 and 1080. The pixels are non-square in this scenario, meaning that in order to restore the original aspect ratio during playback, one dimension will be scaled more than the other.

[Damian83]

We really need to see an activity log to understand what you are doing. But the "auto" anamorphic mode keeps as many pixels as possible of the original source while adhering to any other limits that other settings may impose (like the "Resolution Limit" setting). So, for example, if your source was 4k and you set a resolution limit of 1080p it would first crop, then if the cropped dimensions are greater than 1920x1080 it will reduce each dimension down to 1920 and 1080. The pixels are non-square in this scenario, meaning that in order to restore the original aspect ratio during playback, one dimension will be scaled more than the other.

ok, "non-square pixels", dont knew they even exist. anyway, now ive disabled the anamorphic and all files are 1920x800. but, other than more storage space, are the files ive made before, of better quality?

[JohnAStebbins]

We really need to see an activity log to understand what you are doing.

other than more storage space, are the files ive made before, of better quality?

No way to know from the information you've provided.

[Damian83]

i dont store activity logs. anyway, my question its very simple and dont think it needs an activity log as its a general question. i also uploaded a screenshot of relevant settings ive used, so whats the need of an activity log???

[Damian83]

u already answered and its all clear. i only asked then for an addtional question. i repeat my question more clearly:
original file 3840x2160
1)i rip it to 1080p limit using autocrop and auto anamorphic: resulting file its 1920x1080 (storage) and 2560x1080 (visualization). lets say its 12gb, in this case horizontal pixels will be scaled from 2560 to 1920.
OR
2)i rip it to 1080p limit using autocrop and no anamorphic: resulting file its 1920x800 (storage) and 1920x800 (visualization). lets say its 10gb. no scaling as everything have original aspect ratio

now, i asked if the 2560x1080 file its better quality. i think yes as having a bigger file with worse quality will be nonsense. however, does this scaling causes issues like maybe artifacts? and why anamorphic auto its the recommended setting, while i never saw before such files?

[rollin_eng]

Could you please post your HB logs, instructions can be found here:

https://handbrake.fr/docs/en/latest/hel ... y-log.html

[Damian83]

Could you please post your HB logs, instructions can be found here:

https://handbrake.fr/docs/en/latest/hel ... y-log.html

Ok i give up. I think i’ll need an activity log here even for asking if truehd atmos its better than a 64kbps mono mp3 or for just to say “hello”...

[JohnAStebbins]

Ok i give up. I think i’ll need an activity log here even for asking if truehd atmos its better than a 64kbps mono mp3 or for just to say “hello”...

Yes. They are easy to generate, give details most people don't know are needed and prevent miscommunication between people that often don't speak the same language.

[Damian83]

Ok i give up. I think i’ll need an activity log here even for asking if truehd atmos its better than a 64kbps mono mp3 or for just to say “hello”...

Yes. They are easy to generate, give details most people don't know are needed and prevent miscommunication between people that often don't speak the same language.

1) no, they're arent easy as every ripping with that setting takes 12h-20h for me.
2) i say again, what have to do the activity log with my question? i simply asked if that "scaled pixels" resolutions, resulting in using anamorphic setting, can cause any sort of issues. it's a GENERAL question that have nothing to do with the activity log. i am speaking with humans here, or with bots???

[Damian83]

ok i answer myself to anyone interesting. After watching some of the ripped movies i dont found any issues. However i dont suggest to use this setting as its storage space is higher, and point of these rippings are to shrink movies to the minimum acceptable size (1920x1080) and i think this shouldnt be a recommended default setting

[rollin_eng]

Glad you figured out an answer, but if you would post your logs you might have got more help from the community.

[Damian83]

Glad you figured out an answer, but if you would post your logs you might have got more help from the community.

i know i know...