Frage von Daniel Bauer:
Hello!
I have a music video on Beta SP about playability. That
original size is 1024 * 576, but want the transmitter
nix of 16 / 9 know, therefore, must ichs probably make letterboxed. I
the skaliervorgang want to preserve the control and the video
before ichs copiers to bring 'true' scale. What
Resolution would be useful because, what field first, and what
pixelverhaeltnis?
Thanks and greetings,
daniel
Antwort von Benjamin Spitschan:
Daniel Bauer wrote:
> I have a music video on Beta SP about playability. That
> Original size is 1024 * 576, but want the transmitter
> Nix of 16 / 9 know, therefore, must ichs probably make letterboxed. I
> The skaliervorgang want to preserve the control and the video
> Before ichs copiers to bring 'true' scale. What
> Resolution would be useful because, what field first, and what
> Pixelverhaeltnis?
Hi Daniel,
1. Question: Why in the world can you square in pixels, or
wieso with 1024 horizontal pixels?
2. Question: If the material is interlaced or true in reality
Progressive?
3. Question: In which source material is the material you propose?
4. Question: From which format is planned to be played on Beta?
I make a few assumptions, but please answer anyway:
1: no preference, 2: almost synonymous (!) No preference, to 3: no halfway preference (any
computer readable format), to 4: miniDV.
The scaling result is as follows:
A 16:9-Picture shows in 432 of the 576 vertical lines
[576 * (4:3) / (16:9) = 432]. In the horizontal will be exactly 702 (!) Pixels
documented. Valid values for the horizontal total pixel number is 720 and
704 pixels, where 720 of the much more convenient value (eg, synonymous
for DV). The 702 active pixels with image content are in the middle
720 or 704 pixels total width, the rest is with the 9 or
a black pixel on each Page refilled. That is, incidentally
a pixel aspect ratio of 117/128 pixel height to pixel width
[(702:576) / (4:3) = 117/128].
This would have been synonymous the parameters defined, it must be 1024
702 horizontal pixels (a factor of 351/512) and 576 to 432 vertical
Pixels (a factor of 3 / 4) are stretched, ie a target size in the
Skalieranwendung (eg VirtualDub) 702x432 specify. Then must
Picture this still on all four edges with black pixels expanded
are, to put it on a standard format to bring typically
720x576 expand by around 9 per 72 per side and up and down. This
You had your Letterboxbild. If synonymous 16:9 anamorphic admitted would
could you look at the scaling in vertical direction easy save.
Regards, Benjamin
Antwort von Daniel Bauer:
Benjamin Spitschan wrote:
> Daniel Bauer wrote:
>> I have a music video on Beta SP about playability. That
>> Original size is 1024 * 576, but want the transmitter
>> Nix of 16 / 9 know, therefore, must ichs probably make letterboxed. I
>> The skaliervorgang want to preserve the control and the video
>> Before ichs copiers to bring 'true' scale. What
>> Resolution would be useful because, what field first, and what
>> Pixelverhaeltnis?
>
> Hi Daniel,
Hello Benjamin
>
> 1 Question: Why in the world can you square in pixels, or
> Why with 1024 horizontal pixels?
We produced in 1024x576 p 25F;
The Stop Motion Ausgansmaterial are photos, photos and 3D architecture
Animations. As a further consequence 3D compositing. First publication
was recorded on data in full resolution, so the format. Now
so schoen as possible 'small wars'
> 2 Question: If the material is interlaced or true in reality
> Progressive?
Progressive
> 3 Question: In which source material is the material you propose?
see above
> 4 Question: From which format is planned to be played on Beta?
this is my question. Is it clever to the Ausgansmaterial
768 * 576 with square pixels to compress before it goes to the band, or should
I classic 720 * 576 with 1.0926 Pixelverhaeltnis take?
Anyway, the finished file into a lossless quciktime maneuvers,
burned to cd and then mr clever copiers. MiniDV and DV
Codec is not necessary.
>
> I make a few assumptions, but please answer anyway:
> 1: no preference, 2: almost synonymous (!) No preference, to 3: no halfway preference (any
> Computer readable format), to 4: miniDV.
>
> The scaling are as follows:
> A Picture 16:9-documented in 432 of the 576 vertical lines
> [576 * (4:3) / (16:9) = 432]. In the horizontal will be exactly 702 (!) Pixels
> Documented. Valid values for the horizontal total pixel number is 720 and
> 704 pixels, where 720 of the much more convenient value (eg, synonymous
> For DV). The 702 active pixels with image content are in the middle
> 720 or 704 pixels total width, the rest is with the 9 or
> A black pixel on each Page refilled. That is, incidentally
> Pixel aspect ratio of 117/128 pixel height to pixel width
> [(702:576) / (4:3) = 117/128].
>
> This would have been synonymous the parameters defined, it must therefore 1024 =
to
> 702 horizontal pixels (a factor of 351/512) and 576 to 432 vertical
> Pixels (a factor of 3 / 4) are stretched, ie a target size in the
> Skalieranwendung (eg VirtualDub) 702x432 specify. Then must
> Picture this still on all four edges with black pixels expanded
> Are, to put it on a standard format to bring typically
> 720x576 expand by around 9 per 72 per side and up and down. This
> You had your Letterboxbild. If synonymous 16:9 anamorphic admitted would =
re,
> Could you look at the scaling in vertical direction easy save.
No, do not send anamorph.
So you think I should make 720/576 File, however,
the active content to 9 per pixel to the left and right size so that it
yet seen?
>
> Regards, Benjamin
danke und gruss zurueck.
Antwort von Daniel Bauer:
ps.: What is with colors. We worked hard with black white
contrasts. Should I do something (broadcast colors, etc.)
Antwort von Benjamin Spitschan:
Daniel Bauer wrote:
>> 1 Question: Why in the world can you square in pixels, or
>> Why with 1024 horizontal pixels?
>
> We produced in 1024x576 p 25F;
> The Stop Motion Ausgansmaterial are photos, photos and 3D architecture
> Animations. As a further consequence 3D compositing. First publication
> Was on disk at full resolution, so the format. Now
> So schoen as possible 'small wars'
Ah ok, clarified).
>> 2 Question: If the material is interlaced or true in reality
>> Progressive?
>
> Progressive
Then everything is wonderful, you have nothing observed. Except
maybe that your Skalierprogramm the full scale and not
the half. But that would not be synonymous sooo tragic (the reverse
Case "interlactes material is scaled frames" are already
and everything would foul).
>> 3 Question: In which source material is the material you propose?
>
> See above
>
>> 4 Question: From which format is planned to be played on Beta?
>
> This is my question.
With formats, I rather thought not the image dimensions, but the
File format, codec, etc. Since your question only to Aspect Ratios
aims, it is synonymous no preference, I suppose, you know, like you in your
Resize program.
> Is it clever to the Ausgansmaterial
> 768 * 576 with square pixels to compress before it goes to the band, or should
> I classic 720 * 576 with 1.0926 Pixelverhaeltnis take?
The answer you've already given yourself, because video -D/As
(Digital-to-analog converters) are waiting for the 720, that the copier would have to
Scaling 768 -> 720 do what you so clearly * not * in your hands
wanted to give. Because synonymous here would be expected to return to the necessary
Intermediate step scaling to 702 extension to 720 from
Forgot ignorance. But this is for an undistorted picture needed.
The error is only 2.5%, however, would then be eg more
Image content in the overscan disappear. Furthermore, I believe
that we should hold to standards.
>> [...]
>
> Your opinion, so should I make 720/576 File, however,
> The active content to 9 per pixel to the left and right size so that it
> Yet seen?
No, not exactly. Or you worded wrong or I misunderstood;).
Spray:
- The full scale output at 1024x576 screen 702x432.
- The Picture 702x432er with black pixels * expand * (not to scale
etc.) to 720x576.
- Result: The (content) full output image is (in reduced
Resolution) still available, 702x432 pixels in size and embedded in
black background. Left and right are about 9 per pixel
broad black stripes, top and bottom 72 pixels wide letterbox
Beam.
In this way, it's at least the standard, otherwise it would be a slight
Resulting distortion - synonymous when it's very, very often is wrong.
"Almost" correctly would be synonymous 704, but since you seem so anyway to 720
goes, you can immediately synonymous's quite right.
Since you always have to scale (with a 720 would also unbecoming
Ratio of 45/64 show), do it today at the right place. A
Improve the quality of Interpolations-/Dezimationsalgorithmus'
you can at 45/64 vs. 351/512 not promise that was only
if the numerator and denominator would become clear.
Regards, Benjamin
Antwort von Benjamin Spitschan:
Daniel Bauer wrote:
> Ps.: What is with colors. We worked hard with black white
> Contrasts. Should I do something (broadcast colors, etc.)
S / W Kontraste I can not judge, "that depends";).
If the thing actually going on-air? In case of doubt, is the holding
artistic means. And we grade in the field of music en masse
grottiges provides material in which it is * not *, but
technical failure - but not in contrast! Broadcast
Colors are just a really bad problem with NTSC. Is it because of
Channel no technical guidelines?
However, there are some topics at the "system change" Computer Graphics
-> Video, and once the transfer function ( "Gamma"), once
the gamut, and then the range of values. "Computer RGB" is used
typically the range of 0 .. 255 per Color; YCbCr (erroneously:
YUV) is 16th .. 235 for y and 16 .. 240 for Cb and Cr. If one is with
the black level which is wrong, everything is listless or säuft from.
Which program do you use it? What was the source material? Where
RGB or YCbCr saved? But I suspect strongly that the program
already handlet.
Regards, Benjamin
Antwort von Daniel Bauer:
Benjamin Spitschan wrote:
> Daniel Bauer wrote:
>> Ps.: What is with colors. We worked hard with black white
>> Contrast. Should I do something (broadcast colors, etc.)
>
> S / W Kontraste I can not judge, "that depends";).
> If the thing actually going on-air? In case of doubt, is the holding
> Artistic means. And we grade in the field of music en masse
> Grottiges provides material in which it is * not *, but
> Technical failure - but not in contrast! Broadcast
> Colors are just a really bad problem with NTSC. Is it because of
> Technical Guide Channel does not?
No, this is a small Musis, of which even comes nix.
I've always a control screen where you can see quite well the
Effects.
>
> There are however a few topics at the "system change" Computer Graphics
> -> Video, and once the transfer function ( "Gamma"), once
> The gamut, and then the range of values. "Computer RGB" is used
> Typically the range of 0 .. 255 per Color; YCbCr (erroneously:
> YUV) is 16th .. 235 for y and 16 .. 240 for Cb and Cr. If one is with
> The black level which is wrong, everything is listless or säuft from.
>
> Which program do you use it? What was the source material? Where
> RGB or YCbCr saved? But I suspect strongly that the program
> Already handlet.
>
>
> Regards, Benjamin
Thanks Benjamin. I look now. You've helped me a lot.
Gruesse,
Daniel
Antwort von Benjamin Spitschan:
Daniel Bauer wrote:
> Thank you Benjamin. I look now. You've helped me a lot.
I hope times, that was not ironic because the whole detail info
;)???
Regards, Benjamin
Antwort von Daniel Bauer:
Benjamin Spitschan wrote:
> Daniel Bauer wrote:
>> Thank you Benjamin. I look now. You've helped me a lot.
>
> I hope times, that was not ironic because the whole detail info
>;)???
>
> Regards, Benjamin
hehe, neinein. The tape is now ready. Does everything fit.
Merci.
