|  |  | |
| Aspect ratio of 720:576 and 787:576
Question of dehein2:
Dezember 2008
Hello,
I have a Super 8 film digitizer can. This is me now avi with the following data:
720x576x24, 25.000 fps interlace; 00:26:35; DV
The 25 fps is actually 18th There does not seem in the correct speed to be played only with the Seiterverhältnis I have a problem:
Reply Marco:
That is correct. The preview of exactly fit the Picture s.die square pixel aspect ratios of the computer display. In the Vegas preview you see is a geometrically perfect picture.
See the synonymous ->
Reply dehein2:
ok, thanks for the quick help
Reply WoWu:
In the Vegas preview you see is a geometrically perfect picture.
... Picture almost perfect ... Because you do not display correctly in the horizontal Resolutionbekommst .... You would then be the ratio 4,1:3 .... with a correct aspect ratio would you like the famous 9 pixels left and right missing. It is as always the choice of the lesser evil, but never perfect.
Reply Marco:
The PAL-screen aspect ratio is not synonymous mathematically correct 4:3 (or 16:9).
It is perfect for 787 Width up to a few points behind the comma. It is demonstrably not missing 9 pixels left and right.
Almost exactly 9 pixels missing only when a 768 width for the square pixel representation is used (which is erroneously still happens in many applications), but not at 787th
In other words - as with the correct width of 787 pixels square pixel display, a DV signal is not interpreted. Calibrated Monitors hernehmen, district show, check amazed.
Marco
Reply WoWu:
Misunderstood ... either you take 4.1 to 3 in sales, or you waive the 9 pixels in order to accurately represent 4:3 Picture .... A compromise, however, it is so or so, as long as one of "non square" comes.
But just exactly perfect ... and it is just as much as possible, but not perfect.
Reply Marco:
There is no question of mathematically exact 4:3 display, but "only" a matter of the DV - Video at Square pixel display to distort. That is when the above conditions of the case.
Who is surprised that the 787-arge display a deviation from Nonsquarepixel format represents 720 and feared that something is distorted, or who are of the "value web" 768 be misled can be precisely measured just after. Although the Holger in his article so synonymous has done and clearly.
The value of 787 is only a compromise, as only integer pixel values can be represented synonymous and not 786 or 788 would be less geometrically correct. Hence the term would be "perfect" better by "optimal" should be replaced because there is no better approximation is given as 787.
Marco
| |
| |
