Nice guide Shane but the aspect ratios still seem to be such that the conversion process results in losing pixels. By my calculations, if a PAL DVD contains 16:9 anamorphic content which is displayed in its original theatre aspect ratio of 2.35:1, then the resulting square pixel version of that content should be 1048x446, or better still a 720x446 file with a pixel aspect ratio suitably set to stretch the image to its correct width.

A file with a square pixel aspect ratio at a resolution of 720x308 looks correct on screen but has lost some resolution on the way through the process. If the original content was 720x576 then 208 pixels of vertical resolution has been lost. Cropping the black bars from the original content (which won't really achieve much anyway as they'll compress really well) should only remove 130px of vertical resolution from 16:9 anamorphic content.

I've been trying to find a tool that will reliably convert from DVD to WMV while maintaing all the resolution of the original plus the 5.1 sound. DVD-WMV is very close but it only outputs square pixel files, thus losing resolution. Your guide looks close too but seems to have the same issue with PAR and resolution loss. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong!

BTW, does TMPGEnc support overlaying subtitles during the conversion process too? I need subtitles for some of the mixed language movies I have.
Cheers.

To be honest I haven't spent alot of time worrying about true aspect ratios, but my understanding is as follows:

1. DVD content (PAL anyway) is always encoded as a 720x576 (for want of a better term) "cell".
2. Anamorphic encoding ensures as many pixels in that "cell" are used to carry the images as possible.
3. Anamorphic squeeze/de-squeeze is always based on 16x9.

So given this, when you take a 1.78:1 film and anamorphically (is that a word?) squeeze it, the resulting 720x576 "cell" will be filled but with compressed pixels and no black space.

EDIT: Ignore everything else in this (my) comment - they are the ravings of a lunatic :)

When "de-squeezed" (on a 16x9 monitor) this will be a 720 (width remains the same) wide image, but the anamorphic de-squeeze will change the vertical image to 404, filling the 16x9 screen with a "square" pixel image - analog TV's actually compress their vertical lines to do this - digital screens (such as plasmas and lcd's just pass it through a scaler and add in their own black space.

What I am doing is handling this de-squeeze in software, turning the squeezed pixels into the end square pixel, and in the end not trusting the TV to do the re-scaling.

Now 2.35:1 films (and to some extent 1.85:1 too) are encoded in the same 720x576 cell, but as the de-squeeze is based on 16x9, if they filled the 720x576 cell with only image and no black bars like a 1.78:1 film, then the resulting image on a 16x9 monitor would have the image vertically too tall. This is why if you look at the actual MPEG cells of 2.35:1 DVD's, they actually have black bars encoded in them so the resultant image is the correct aspect ratio.

So when I strip the black bars in my process above, I am not actually removing any resolution as the resultant output in WMV is a square pixel resolution, so in essence the same as doing an anamorphic de-squeeze.

The problem is - DVD players and 16x9 TV's understand 16x9 encoded DVD's (via the anamorphic tag in the encoded files), but WMV & xvid (to some extent) files are files developed originally for computer playback, so there is no understanding of an anamorphic "tag" - so playback devices rarely understand a true anamorphic WMV and instead will play it back in 4x3 mode and not do an anamorphic de-squeeze.

To bring it to a close - the above procedure cuts to the chase and does the anamorphic de-squeeze during the conversion - the resultant image in the WMV is the actual aspect ratio originally encoded, just without the black space, and this plays back perfectly on all WMV playback devices.

Hope this makes sense.

Regards,
Shane.

Oh - forgot to mention. TMPGEnc Xpress 4.x now support subtitles, so yes this works well (just tested it with my copy of Lord of the Rings).

As I understand it, it will import from the DVD, or from an external file.

Regards,
Shane.

Not quite right Shane.

You say on a 16:9 set the 576 are reduced to 404 vertical pixels when in fact they aren't. It's already the right height and in fact the image needs to be stretched horizontally to wider than 720 pixels.

What you've described is what happens on a 4:3 screen where they are verticall squeezed.

Richard,

Thanks - I've made the usual screwup of typing before thinking. I'll be slapping myself silly for that stoopid mistake :)

So some of what I have said is ok - but you're right... an anamorphic DVD is horizontally squeezed, not vertically.

I'll try a 2.35:1 DVD encode tonight and see how it turns out. I'm just concerned it will blow the encoding time out considerably.

I'll post back my findings and update my guide soon. It is good to know, however, that my 720x* resolutions are still larger than most standard xvid encodes.

Regards,
Shane.

OK,

So I did an encode of Cars using an output resolution of 1024x424 and the above settings (removing the black space).

The output picture quality is nothing short of stunning - as good as the original DVD.

Problems? The encoding went (on my machine) from approx 2 hours to over 5 1/2 hours, and resultant file went from 1.4 gig to 4.12gb, which is still more than 1gb savings overs the raw DVD files, but way bigger than I expected.

I think I'll stick with horizontal resolutions of around 720 personally (for most movies anyway) - the picture quality vs space use isn't worth it for most of the films I encode.

Regards,
Shane.

You should be able to get the same effective resolution by encoding in non-square pixels. Keep the horizontal resolution of 720 but choose the 16:11 pixel aspect ratio. That way the file only contains 720 pixels of width to encode (read smaller file size) but will be stretched to the full width of 1048 odd upon playback. I'm going to give that a go myself and let you know how it goes.

Also, you may want to update your guide to include the newer codecs, Windows Media 9 Advanced Profile (although not really using anything in it except it supports new filters, deinterlacing, etc.) and Windows Media Audio 10 Professional. Some screenshots would be nice too :)

Damian,

It's my experience with Windows Media Video files that not all playback devices handle auto-stretching non-square pixels upon playback.

I believe this is the case with Media Center and the Xbox 360 in Media Center Extender mode (haven't tried the new non-MCE streaming to the 360 via Windows Media Connect yet).

This is the reason why I've kept with square pixels - a 16x9 DVD has a flag stating it is 16x9 encoded, which the playback device uses to auto-switch into 16x9 mode, I don't believe WMV supports this and if it does, either TMPGEnc Xpress (a) doesn't or (b) doesn't do it properly.

Let me know your findings - the end result is the file has to play back on the following to suit as many people as possible (don't want to have to re-encode everything if you buy a new tv):

1. Media Center in non-square pixel resolution on 16x9 monitor (eg Windows res 1024x768 stretched, Video playback set to adjust accordingly for proper/corrected playback).
2. Media Center in square pixel resolution (eg a Windows res 1366x768 for 16x9 LCD/Plasma, or 720x576 for 4x3 CRT)
3. Xbox 360 in all of it's resolutions using Composite, SVideo, Component or VGA in 4x3 and 16x9 modes.

If they all work, then anamorphic encoding will be the answer and I can adjust the guide to handle that too :)

Regards,
Shane.

Also as per the following:

"newer codecs, Windows Media 9 Advanced Profile (although not really using anything in it except it supports new filters, deinterlacing, etc.) and Windows Media Audio 10 Professional. Some screenshots would be nice too"

The newer codecs from what I can see are currently only available under Windows Vista. Please tell me if this is incorrect and I'll put a pointer to the codecs for people to get them.

As for screenshots - getting there one step at a time :)

Regards,
Shane.

I have the newer codecs running on my XP MCE PC. I have Media Player 11 installed so they may have come with that. I cannot choose Windows Media Audio 9 Professional on my PC, it is not an option, only version 10.

As with Damian, I also only have WMA version 10 on my xp (pro) machine. Also I have the advanced profile codecs loaded and they appear in the program.

When encoding what are you setting the fps as (mine default's to 29.97 fps), and the sliders for the VBR encoding (mine are set at the default 95%). I ask because I am experiencing a slight stutter in the video portion of playback, leaving kind of an animated flip-book feel. The audio seems to sync up fine, but there is a visual movement diffrence that what I am seeing in the original dvd's. I have a robust computer, and see the same on it and the 360, with both wmv9 and wmv9 AP as tested video codec's with the same settings otherwise.

Zombinate,

I've just installed the codecs with WMP11, but haven't had a chance to encode using them yet. I'll test an NTSC DVD tonight and post my results.

It definately sounds like there is a frame rate issue, whether it be 3:2 pulldown related etc I'm not sure. I'll dig in and try to find the answer for you (it's been long overdue).

Regards,
Shane.

In some testing of my own, the Advanced Profile can make a huge difference in file size. Encoding the same movie in both wmv9 and wmv9AP, I saw the file size drop from 5GB to 3GB. I saw the stuttering problem on both though. so I will need to look into that more (btw I am using NTSC encoded movies, so the 3:2 pulldown issue may very well be the issue). I am going to look for a well encoded short clip and run a bunch of tests to see what i can find. I am considering the interlacing filter options and the output framerate, any other's I might consider? Does xpress 4 use it's own mpeg 2 decoder? I have windvd installed currently, but I am wondering if the decode might not be the cause of the problem (though dvd playback through windvd looks fine).

Thanks,
-Nate

Nate,

It does use it's own decoder for MPEG files. Interlacing & Framerate is where I have been concentrating (but no clear fix as yet), but you also may want to watch the resize filter settings too.

I'll keep testing (the cut edit is good for this - take a 5min segment of the movie and encode).

Also, if you can make a small enough segment of the film that it's not too big in size but accurately shows the issue, maybe there is somewhere you can upload it to, just to ensure I am looking for (and trying to fix) what you are describing.

Regards,
Shane.

well after some experimentation, it seems that the output fps makes a difference. I have had the issue more or less resolved by encoding at 30fps instead of the 29.97 of the default. the deinterlacing options then make some mild differences, but not as much as the fps. I also tried things at 60fps as a final output, which is even better, but the file size increased by about 50%. My best guess here is that dvd playback software on the PC is expecting the 29.97 input from NTSC dvd's and goes to lengths to accept that, where as wmv's, being mostly a computer file, are expected to be some normal fps (like 30, 50, or 60fps), and the software is written to be less agile when taking in odd fps ranges (this I tested by setting the output to 50 fps, and then my refresh rate to 85Hz on my CRT monitor, getting similar results to what I was originally seeing). I am making a huge leap in assumption that the 360 is decoding in a similar fashion to the computer, and decodes the video before it sends it out to the video output renderer. Thus, while my output is still 480i on the television, the xbox "knows" what to do with a 30fps file better than a standard coded file. For fun I tested this with mpeg 1 and 2 as well, and those did not have the same issue, but since the 360 has dvd playback built in, I am imagining that the decoder for that is expecting the odd 29.97 fps rate and is coded to handle it. So long story short for those of us living in NTSC land. outputting at 30 or 60 fps seems to give the best performance on CRT displays. Tomorrow I am going to test this with an LCD to see if 30 or 60 make a big difference there.

Hope this helps
-Nate

Nate,

Nice work - keep us updated on your testing please.

Thanks,
Shane.

so with an lcd television, the 60fps does looks slightly smoother than 30fps, but we are really splitting hairs at this point, and I don't think it is enough to bother with, so i am planning to go forward at 30fps as the target output. feel free to do your own experimenting.

I had a look at some files I encoded with nero and ntsc dvd was 29.97 ended up as 23.97 after encoding.

I changed the setting in the deinterlace mode setting to 24fps (Prioritize Motion) which then automatically sets the film fps to 23.976 (which then matches Nero output) the deinterlace method dropdown has has a option of inverse pulldown (i left this at none), so i presume this effects the 3:2 pulldown, plus at the bottom of this screen it states, "Framerate change setting is availble at the format stage", so I presume that changing that setting on the WMV format page would be like standards conversion, which is what some people use this software for.

This, so far, seems to have cured the 2 worst judder affected films I have tried.

"Hoodwinked" - right at the begining when it pans over the story book for the first time.
"Over the Hedge" - When Verne first comes out of the log and the camera pans around the meadow following the dragonflys. Also the Dreamworks logo at the beginning of the film no longer has a judder when it pans up.

I don't seem to have any issues with PAL stuff, but I would be grateful if could point out any flaws in this method above.

Rewster,
Are you encoding with nero or tmpgenc? Have you tried your output on the Xbox 360? If so, do you see the same results as when you were looking at your computer screen?

As to your process, it makes as much sense as anything else. Basically, any NTSC DVD runs at 29.97 to keep with the standard, but obviously, most of the films themselves are 24fps. At some point that conversion needs to happen. Also the final screen output can make a difference. With my computer I am still using a crt monitor (I know...) which gives me the interesting opportunity to run at 120Hz. This is unique because 60, 30, and 24fps are all evenly dividable into the refresh, so those basic formats do not show judder when playing from the original source. When I had the refresh at 100Hz, there was some "ghosting" that I saw as the video playback had to modify the video stream to accommodate for say 30fps*3 + 10 to give the output. My goal in all of this is to create output files that work best on an LCD or Plasma Television (which are designed primarily to accept 60fps feeds) and also so that the 360 can output in a format that it finds the most comfort with. This is why I have been playing with the 30fps final output as it is easily divisible into 60. However, given that the original sources are generally 24fps, your method may make more sense. Are your final output wmv's 24fps as well, or are you just using 24fps as the decoding framerate, then having the software convert back to something else?

Shane - Sorry to have hijacked your blog man, but currently this is the best place I can find on the net for this dicussion. You might consider talking to the folks over at AVSforum to see if you could transfer this discussion into their forums. Thanks for letting us use the space.

-Nate

Nate,

It's no problems for the moment... if we suddenly get an influx of comments I'll look at moving them elsewhere. As this is new territory for alot of people I'd rather have a good conversation going here than elsewhere anyway.

Good work BTW guys - I think you have the NTSC stuttering issues pretty much nailed.

Thanks,
Shane.

Hi Zombinate

I have encoded with Nero and TMPGEnc, I have not yet tried the wmv's on an xbox360 as I will be buying the new cooler version in the new year, which is why I am trying to get my WMV video issues sorted now.

I selected 24fps as this was the nearest to the 23.976 I was after, in most cases the framerates are rounded up for ease of reading, ie 29.97 = 30 FPS, 59.94 = 60fps, I read somewhere that if you convert a telecine video from 29.97 to 24fps (not 23.976) this introduces a frame error that can make the video judder every 10 to 20 frames (i cannot find the link), it could explained in then 4/5 calc section in this document http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine.

I would like to know if anyone has tried the other settings in de-interlace (ie the deinterlace method I have set to none at the minute) and what results they are getting. I leave the aspect ratios just like the original and use quality 95 and audio 5.1 98% VBR, I get bigger files but the quality it amazing and looks very close to the original. Most files are about 2GB and King Kong the biggest so far at 5GB, I would be interested to know what settings are you using Zombinate?

A guy in our office has a xbox360, I will see if can play a video for me to test them, or maybe publish some clips on the web.

Shane: Thanks for putting this information up, it has saved me a lot of time, cheers

I am using the default "deinterlace when necessary" method interpolation (this isn't quite right, but I am at my other system right now, and tmpgenc is in batch mode, so I don't want to disturb it). For the output format I am using 30fps instead of the default 29.97. This has worked well for me for both film and television sources. I am also using the default 95 and 98% audio. I have done most of my testing with the movie "hellboy" which has some great top to bottom action, which has historically been where I see the shudder the most. This is not seen using the settings described. Can I assume that you are using 24fps as the final output format as well?

I think Rewster has hit on the magic sauce for me - in my setup. I'm extending to XB360 connected to a plasma displaying at 720p.

Decoding a film-source DVD at 23.976 (deinterlace-prioritize motion) and then recoding in WMV at 23.976 has pretty much solved any judder I was seeing on playback.

One of my test sources is City of Angels. A couple minutes in, after the 'talk-while-sitting-on-traffic-sign' scene, there are extensive sequences of pans at different speeds. At 30fps output, judder is really bad. At 29.97fps, judder is not-as-bad-as-30. At 23.976, smooth as butter.

Another source, Appleseed, is now similarly smooth. I need to try some more sources before I'm completely convinced.

Has anyone else tried setting the quality-performance slider on the encoder to the max performance setting? It cuts encode time drastically on my machine (dual core P4). It makes file sizes somewhat larger and image quality may be reduced slightly (maybe?), but the time savings is worth it for me.

Oh, and another thing I noticed. Again, in my setup, I noticed when I trimmed the black bars from anamorphic DVDs and set the appropriate video size per aspect ratio (i.e. 720x308 for 2.35:1), my playback would be somewhat squashed when compared to playing the DVD native. My solution was to encode without cropping (figuring the bars would compress very efficiently) at the aspect ratio called out by the DVD (40:33, ie. 16:9 or ~720x400). By doing this, the playback aspect ratio matches that seen when playing the DVD in the 360.

It looks like the 360 isn't doing the correct scaling for odd aspect ratios when playing back on a 16:9 device (4:3 too?). So, I've been keeping things 4:3 (640x480) or 16:9 (720x400) and everything looks right so far.

I would also like to echo a previously mentioned sentiment - Thanks Shane!

Hi,

Recently I tried a 2.35 aspect video using your 720x308, however the final picture was bigger than when its played from the DVD player, so what I done was mark on the TV using tape the area on the TV that the film used from source dvd straight to TV, I then imported movie as 16:11 and stripped 72 pixels from top and bottom leaving a 432 high image, now I set the aspect to 1:1 and changed the resolution to 720x512 and converted, on playback the image on the tv now matches the exact dimenensions as the original film straight from dvd player!.