[MPlayer-dev-eng] new results & bugs report

[D Richard Felker III]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 01:21:48AM -0700, rcooley wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:51:24 -0400
> D Richard Felker III <dalias at aerifal.cx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:39:35PM -0700, rcooley wrote:
> > > Why not just let 'scale' calculate that for you? 
> > 
> > Nope, it will pick misaligned dimensions. 
> 
> What do you mean by misaligned? %16!=0 
> 
> In that case, no problem.  I have mencoder scale *before* cropping, so
> it ends up as %16==0 anyhow.

OK, most people do it the other way because it's much faster...

> > I don't understand how this is so hard. There are basically three
> > aspect ratios:, 4:3, 16:9, and 64:27. The corresponding resolutions
> > are 640x480, 640x352, and 640x272. 
> 
> Well, after cropping black borders and whatnot, you don't have 640x480
> anymore, so it's not quite that simple.

Most movies are very close to 4:3, 16:9, or 64:27 _after_ the crap is
cropped off.

> > You can visually inspect your movie to see which one it is
> 
> Which means it can't be scripted, and you have to spend 10X longer
> before starting encoding on each video.  Reading numbers, making
> mind-numbing judgments over and over, and then typing them in...  Not my
> idea of fun.

Making a proper dvd rip is not a mindless plug-and-chug operation.
Video quality is a very subjective matter, and requires you to spend
time testing and confirming that you're getting acceptable output. I
don't see how having to know the aspect of your movie significantly
increases the effort required.

> > NO ONE will notice if the aspect is off by 1-2% due to the cropping
> > you used!
> 
> And no-one will notice if there is 1-2% of the picture cropped-off to
> give the proper aspect...  Not that I disagree with you, but somebody
> should play devils advocate here...

I agree. Either way is fine.

Rich