The case for a 16:9 specific one-click zoom+crop button in Video encoders: - Page 2 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Do you encode files specifically for different devices?
16:9 - Laptop / Desktop 0 0%
16:9 - Smart Phone 1 33.33%
16:9 - Tablet 1 33.33%
16:9 - Flatscreen TV 0 0%
16:9 - iPhone 5 1 33.33%
16:10 - high end computer monitors 0 0%
other ratio: older iPhones 0 0%
other ratio: Apple tablet 0 0%
other ratio: older Computers 0 0%
other ratio: device not in the list 0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 3. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 37 Old 10-19-2012, 05:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by N13L5 View Post

Ahh, so its not your personal opinion, you're arguing for someone else's personal opinion...
Or, that the original designer's/director's/cameraman's idea is holy and can't be touched. Well, I paid for it and I can do damned well what I please with it for my mobile devices.
Talking to purists is like talking to Apple fanbois, they just won't leave it be.
This stupid contest basically amounts to hijacking the thread.
He was arguing intent, not opinion which directly refutes your claim that
Quote:
Films are shot knowing that it will eventually go to less wide media, so the very left and right edges never contain information critical to the movie, its just there to add to atmosphere and immersion.
and providing proof. You wrongly state that the film makers intent is not to put relevant material on the sides and he pointed you to statements by the film makers themselve stating that their intent was indeed the exact opposite.

As for why Media Player Classic can do it but encoders do not (as easily). The zoom and crop are typically functions of the renderer (video output of the playback device), not the encoder or decoder. Most encoders are programmed to encode the video in the most efficient way possible which means no zoom and crop.

The question you should be asking is why can't your device properly zoom and crop.
vladd is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 37 Old 10-19-2012, 11:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,346
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by N13L5 View Post

And the custom settings are finicky.
As for "original aspect ratio is best", thats only true on a very large screen if your screen ratio doesn't match.
What I'm really saying is, with 98% of all displays being 16:9, Encoder software should not make you fumble to cut stuff to this size.
Like I said: they can include a warning that you shouldn't do this to your master file...
But on portable devices with small screens (yes, you understood correctly, thats what I was asking for) its a huge benefit to resize, as listed earlier.
And you have to ask yourself: would you rather be able to see the faces of the actors well, or the bokeh at the left and right edges?
I studied oil painting and design, I know framing is important, but framing works in all kinds of aspect ratios. Futher: Films are shot knowing that it will eventually go to less wide media, so the very left and right edges never contain information critical to the movie, its just there to add to atmosphere and immersion.

I watch on a projector and almost never notice changes in aspect so I guess I might be wrong one to comment further.

My advice is you would enjoy a projector. They don't have to cost any more than any TV you might buy- and certainly have advantages in both screen size, and you won't ever notice or see black bars. It just seems like it's not part of the picture as it should, versus a TV that has an area that is blacked out with bars.

You can even get a screen that matches the wider aspect or is adjustable.

TV's really do suck for movies IMO. Any advantage they used to have in Picture quality is gone with a decent 1080p projector today, and the price is no different than a 1080p flatscreen. The extra size alone makes a huge improvement in the experience of watching a movie IMO.

I have a 55" Plasma in the living room, and it totally sucks in comparison. It's not the same.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #33 of 37 Old 10-19-2012, 11:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,346
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 761
Guys- It's not even worth argueing about the original aspect ratio or not.

Anyone that does not understand or like the original aspect ratio and wished to fill the entire screen- regardless if it cropps, zooms, or stretches and lowers PQ is their own choice, and right- even if they probably are ignorant about why it's a poor choice (from a quality or purist perspective)

It's like trying to convert someone from one religion to another. Pointless arguement.


You can certainly convert all your media to 16X9, or stretch or crop it to fit 16X9 but I don't believe the results or the effort are worth it all all.

If your simply annoyed by the black bars or the fact your picture might seem smaller and not use all your available screen on your display you need to look into another display- perhaps a projector with a screen that adjusts.

In both my and my parents the screen drops down from the ceiling and the projector is not an eyesore. In many regards it's way more elegant than a TV hanging on the wall. And you can grab a basic 42" plasma for daytime, or crap TV watching for $400 or even keep your existing display and add the system for movie enjoyment,

That is really the only solution if your annoyed by the black bars thing.

I am spoiled so it'snot an issue.


I don't believe cost is an issue since it's available cheaper than a TV too.

Anyone who fails to do it must learn to live with the black bars and wider than 16X9 aspect ratio IMO. There is no reasonable other solution.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #34 of 37 Old 10-19-2012, 05:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Back in the NTSC days a lot of film content was adapted to fit the screen. This was most often done by 'pan and scan' and not just a fixed cropping. By having a human intervene and move the cropping window to keep the visual focus the result was (to me at least) a bit more tolerable. Which 4:3 crop of the 16:9 image in the top frame is correct? 1st crop is full left, 2nd center and 3rd full right. Now visualize the reverse angle. I for one would rather see the black bars...




And what about going the other way? Which would be more correct? Ethel Mertz looking like a Sumo Wrestler, or Lucy Ricardo scalped of her lovely curly hair? rolleyes.gif

EDIT: Why is there no option in your poll for "I prefer the black bars, at least then I know I'm not missing anything"?
olyteddy is online now  
post #35 of 37 Old 10-21-2012, 12:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Brad Horstkotte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 5,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 57
At least on iPhone and iPad (just got an Android phone today, so don't know) if a movie is CinemaScope format, when streaming at least (Netflix for example), you can just double click to zoom or unzoom.
Brad Horstkotte is offline  
post #36 of 37 Old 12-17-2012, 10:16 AM
Newbie
 
maxinc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The problem with the iPad especially is that double tap zooms from 2.35:1 to 4:3 which take away almost half of the whole frame. Un-zoomed, 1/2 the screen is black and the actual movie tiny. And if you have to watch it cropped (for any reasons) it would be indeed a waste of bytes which could otherwise be used to enhance the quality of the crop, given the same file size. But cropping to 4:3 is ridiculous as it makes the movie unwatchable but a zoom / crop to 16:9 would be a better compromise. So I fully agree with OP on the issue.

Under these circumstances the importance is placed on the amount of information / details one can receive and process from such a small screen. I'm with the OP here because on an iPad and other 4:3 devices, a 2:35 movie only fills 1/2 of the screen while 16:9 seems to be the better compromise. On a tiny mobile phone it would look even better since you won't have to keep the phone 15cm away to be able to see those details on the retina display. I am even experimenting with 16:9 crops for some children movies since the boost in quality is significant compared to letting the TV fill the screen. I would indeed love to see an easier way to accomplish that.

I'm currently cropping my mobile versions to 16:9 but it involves pen, paper and calculator to do it right which could very easily be implemented if enough interest would be generated.
maxinc is offline  
post #37 of 37 Old 12-17-2012, 10:38 AM
Newbie
 
maxinc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

The zoom and crop are typically functions of the renderer (video output of the playback device), not the encoder or decoder. Most encoders are programmed to encode the video in the most efficient way possible which means no zoom and crop.The question you should be asking is why can't your device properly zoom and crop.

I think everyone agrees that the most efficient way of encoding would be to provide the maximum amount of detail with the lowest file size as quickly as possible.

Since we are allowed to decide how much quality / detail we need at the encoding phase and then - in a different stage - are allowed to decide which format we want it displayed, it seems to me the more efficient way would be to allow both options at the encoding phase. This would produce more detail / quality for the same file size and time to those users that choose to encode media for small screens and which also prefer to watch the content zoomed in at 16:9.
maxinc is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off