Opinions on mixing aspect ratios

Kazemon15 · Post by **Kazemon15** » Wed May 07, 2008 6:34 pm

But how can anyone tell if something is streched? O_o ...because I rip dvds and they're ripped at full screen, doesnt look any different than a widescreen clip stretched. <_< At least to me anyway.

And....I'm a total noob when I ask this but......what is letterboxing? XD

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Wed May 07, 2008 6:56 pm

Kazemon15 wrote:
And....I'm a total noob when I ask this but......what is letterboxing? XD

Basically, adding black bars to the top and bottom of a 16:9 source to make it 4:3.

JaddziaDax · Post by **JaddziaDax** » Wed May 07, 2008 7:31 pm

Kazemon15 wrote:But how can anyone tell if something is streched? O_o ...because I rip dvds and they're ripped at full screen, doesnt look any different than a widescreen clip stretched. <_< At least to me anyway.

And....I'm a total noob when I ask this but......what is letterboxing? XD

do circles/the moon look like eggs?

godix · Post by **godix** » Wed May 07, 2008 7:43 pm

Phantasmagoriat wrote:...if I really cared about quality, I would stretch all my 4:3 footage to become 16:9, and only crop to 16:9 when a scene looks warped [usually when there are characters, or something that requires correct proportions].

креатиф гавно, афтар мудак. бля, пошли все на хуй, мудаки. ИМХО

Phantasmagoriat · Post by **Phantasmagoriat** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:56 pm

godix wrote:
Phantasmagoriat wrote:...if I really cared about quality, I would stretch all my 4:3 footage to become 16:9, and only crop to 16:9 when a scene looks warped [usually when there are characters, or something that requires correct proportions].
креатиф гавно, афтар мудак. бля, пошли все на хуй, мудаки. ИМХО

ha characters O.o ?
maybe what I mean to say is some footage can be stretched without anyone noticing, and since it increases the quality by 25% you might as well do it.

LivingFlame · Post by **LivingFlame** » Wed May 07, 2008 9:04 pm

Phantasmagoriat wrote:
godix wrote:
Phantasmagoriat wrote:...if I really cared about quality, I would stretch all my 4:3 footage to become 16:9, and only crop to 16:9 when a scene looks warped [usually when there are characters, or something that requires correct proportions].
креатиф гавно, афтар мудак. бля, пошли все на хуй, мудаки. ИМХО
ha characters O.o ?
maybe what I mean to say is some footage can be stretched without anyone noticing, and since it increases the quality by 25% you might as well do it.

Since when does stretching increase quality?

Phantasmagoriat · Post by **Phantasmagoriat** » Wed May 07, 2008 9:18 pm

LivingFlame wrote:
Phantasmagoriat wrote:
godix wrote:
Phantasmagoriat wrote:...if I really cared about quality, I would stretch all my 4:3 footage to become 16:9, and only crop to 16:9 when a scene looks warped [usually when there are characters, or something that requires correct proportions].
креатиф гавно, афтар мудак. бля, пошли все на хуй, мудаки. ИМХО
ha characters O.o ?
maybe what I mean to say is some footage can be stretched without anyone noticing, and since it increases the quality by 25% you might as well do it.
Since when does stretching increase quality?

Well, when stretching 4:3 to become 16:9, you are stuffing 100% of the footage into the screen. This is compared to cropping where you have to throw away 12.5% off the top and 12.5% off the bottom in order to make it fit the 16:9 size; Meaning that you are only displaying 75% of what can potentially be displayed. However, it only pays off if the stretch doesn't look awkward... and it's only 25%... so you'll have to decide for yourself if it's worth the extra effort. That's why I started the sentence "...if I really cared..." Maybe I should have been more clear.

Coffee 54 · Post by **Coffee 54** » Wed May 07, 2008 9:25 pm

I've tried both methods, cropping down to a single aspect ratio, in my case 16:9 and leaving them mixed. I personally have no problem with either, but the cropped method generated a better response from the viewing public.

LivingFlame · Post by **LivingFlame** » Wed May 07, 2008 9:30 pm

Phantasmagoriat wrote:
LivingFlame wrote:Since when does stretching increase quality?
Well, when stretching 4:3 to become 16:9, you are stuffing 100% of the footage into the screen. This is compared to cropping where you have to throw away 12.5% off the top and 12.5% off the bottom in order to make it fit the 16:9 size; Meaning that you are only displaying 75% of what can potentially be displayed. However, it only pays off if the stretch doesn't look awkward... and it's only 25%... so you'll have to decide for yourself if it's worth the extra effort. That's why I started the sentence "...if I really cared..." Maybe I should have been more clear.

Ah, I took the "stretching increases quality" thing to mean that it increases the quality of the original footage (which it doesn't), but that wasn't what you were talking about. You're basically just saying uncropped > cropped.

That's why I was like (o.O?). Makes more sense now, though.

Phantasmagoriat · Post by **Phantasmagoriat** » Wed May 07, 2008 9:40 pm

LivingFlame wrote:Ah, I took the "stretching increases quality" thing to mean that it increases the quality of the original footage (which it doesn't), but that wasn't what you were talking about. You're basically just saying
uncropped > cropped.

That's why I was like (o.O?). Makes more sense now, though.

yup, my bad.