animatrix
- AbsoluteDestiny
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 1:56 pm
- Location: Oxford, UK
- Contact:
Resizing up to 960x480 means that when you apply effects you have a high resolution for processing which aids quality. It also actually HELPS a final distro encode because you will get a better quality image resizing from 960x480 down to a distro resolution than you will if you cropped and resized vertically to 720x360 and then have to resize down from that.
As 960x480, it's all to do with the 0.9 Pixel Aspect Ratio deal. You are always going to have to resize after 960x480 just like you are always going to have to resize after 720x480. It's just that 960x480 is the amount of resizing required by an anamorphic source to make it compliant with regular 4:3 dvd footage (having the same PAR)
As I said before it really doesnt matter which way you do it as long as you end up with something good at the end. I tend to just edit anamorphic footage and resize later unless I'm using a mixed aspect source in which case I usually resize to 960x480 and crop 120 off the sides to make it 720x480 like the rest of my footage (pan and scan).
As 960x480, it's all to do with the 0.9 Pixel Aspect Ratio deal. You are always going to have to resize after 960x480 just like you are always going to have to resize after 720x480. It's just that 960x480 is the amount of resizing required by an anamorphic source to make it compliant with regular 4:3 dvd footage (having the same PAR)
As I said before it really doesnt matter which way you do it as long as you end up with something good at the end. I tend to just edit anamorphic footage and resize later unless I'm using a mixed aspect source in which case I usually resize to 960x480 and crop 120 off the sides to make it 720x480 like the rest of my footage (pan and scan).
- AbsoluteDestiny
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 1:56 pm
- Location: Oxford, UK
- Contact:
- Jnzk
- Artsy Bastid
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 5:30 pm
- Location: Finland
So since I have only one series as a source, I guess it's best to go with Trythil's suggestion to get my circles right:

Trythil wrote:Resizing allows you to more easily integrate custom graphics at the correct aspect ratio, but you can do that without resizing the footage. In this case, assuming my target container had no aspect ratio information (i.e. AVI), I'd resize to 872x480, assuming the DVD was 16:9.
-
trythil
- is
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 5:54 am
- Status: N͋̀͒̆ͣ͋ͤ̍ͮ͌ͭ̔̊͒ͧ̿
- Location: N????????????????
Yeah, except AD's right on the resolution...I did a miscalculation, and right now can't recall how I miscalculatedJanzki wrote:So since I have only one series as a source, I guess it's best to go with Trythil's suggestion to get my circles right:
Trythil wrote:Resizing allows you to more easily integrate custom graphics at the correct aspect ratio, but you can do that without resizing the footage. In this case, assuming my target container had no aspect ratio information (i.e. AVI), I'd resize to 872x480, assuming the DVD was 16:9.
If you go to that calculator applet I linked, select "NTSC DVD" and put 40, 33, 10, 11 in for the PAR values (going left->right, top->bottom: 40:33 is NTSC widescreen PAR, 10:11 is NTSC 4x3 PAR) you'll find 960x480 as a valid resolution there with zero display aspect ratio error.
- Jnzk
- Artsy Bastid
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 5:30 pm
- Location: Finland
That calculator is really handy, thanks. 8)trythil wrote:If you go to that calculator applet I linked, select "NTSC DVD" and put 40, 33, 10, 11 in for the PAR values (going left->right, top->bottom: 40:33 is NTSC widescreen PAR, 10:11 is NTSC 4x3 PAR) you'll find 960x480 as a valid resolution there with zero display aspect ratio error.
- Tab.
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 10:36 pm
- Status: SLP
- Location: gayville
In that case, 944x480 would be a lot more correct. 944 * (72/79) = 860, 860 / 480 = 1.7924 which is much closer to 16:9 than 960 * (72/79) = 875 / 480 = 1.8228. Then again, that's staying mod16, which shouldn't be important while editing.
Mph, yeah, a true 16:9 image with an NTSC par would be ~936x480. Though that wouldn't work for cropping back to 704x480. 711x480 it would. For that you'd need.. like.. 939x480. That would work. Cropping 939x480 to 704x480 would give you something you could resize to 4:3 without problems and would match up with other 4:3 material.
That's for the NTSC issue. For square 16:9, I just realized you'd be able to get a perfect AR just by cropping to 711x480 and resizing to 864x480. Mod16 and absolutely 0% AR error. However, converting to anything else from that is tricky because you've got to remember the 6 invisible horizontal lines. For an easier to handle format but with more error, cropping to 704x480 and resizing to something 16:9 from there (853x480, 640x360) will work.
Mph, yeah, a true 16:9 image with an NTSC par would be ~936x480. Though that wouldn't work for cropping back to 704x480. 711x480 it would. For that you'd need.. like.. 939x480. That would work. Cropping 939x480 to 704x480 would give you something you could resize to 4:3 without problems and would match up with other 4:3 material.
That's for the NTSC issue. For square 16:9, I just realized you'd be able to get a perfect AR just by cropping to 711x480 and resizing to 864x480. Mod16 and absolutely 0% AR error. However, converting to anything else from that is tricky because you've got to remember the 6 invisible horizontal lines. For an easier to handle format but with more error, cropping to 704x480 and resizing to something 16:9 from there (853x480, 640x360) will work.
- SS5_Majin_Bebi
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 8:07 pm
- Location: Why? So you can pretend you care? (Brisbane, Australia)
Re: animatrix
I dont think anyone but me picked up on the fact that Animatrix is Progressive anyway... So do whatever the heal you want to the AR, pre- or post-processing, lol...SS5_Majin_Bebi wrote:If you're using PAL, its 720*576. If you're using NTSC, its 720*480. Correct the aspect ratio in VDub later on, seeing as its anamorphic. Changing the framesize of a dvd without deinterlacing first will fuck the footage up, unless you stretch it horizontally only, in which case you'll hog alot of processing power.Tash wrote:I'm putting the animatrix dvd in premiere right now. I have resolutions at 944x360. Is this gonna work? If not whats the best for that dvd, with correct aspect ratio.
-
trythil
- is
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 5:54 am
- Status: N͋̀͒̆ͣ͋ͤ̍ͮ͌ͭ̔̊͒ͧ̿
- Location: N????????????????
Re: animatrix
Don't trust it too much just yet. I've been using it and have gotten fairly good results, but its accuracy can still be improved -- for example, it doesn't handle cropping yet, which is necessary if you really want aspect ratio integrity, since nothing really works in the nice mod16 world of 720x480 or 720x576.Janzki wrote: That calculator is really handy, thanks.
If you want to know the math behind aspect ratio craziness, go here.
- Jnzk
- Artsy Bastid
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 5:30 pm
- Location: Finland
Re: animatrix
Been there, was a little over the top for me.trythil wrote:If you want to know the math behind aspect ratio craziness, go here.
Just one more question: If I decided to edit my anamorphic source as it is anyway, how should I do the custom graphics? Say I want to insert a single image to the video. What is the best thing to do to preserve maximum quality? Should I create the image in 853x480 and then resize it to 704x480? (I've already cropped the vertical black bars.) Or is there a better method?
Thanks again for your time.
- ErMaC
- The Man who puts the "E" in READFAG
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 4:39 pm
- Location: Irvine, CA
- Contact:

